jjcanoeguide wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 6:09pm:

Interesting article.  Thanks for sharing.  I'd still like to see some study as to underground water movement, or the lack thereof.  Watersheds are typically only defined by surface water runoff, but the deeper lakes, springs, and a deep mine all significantly impact subsurface water flow.

My son began this thread and I have not chimed in since early on. I posted the same concern early on as JJ did in the quote above. I have seen nothing in the EIS or other arguments that questions the impact on the underground aquifer. If it is high tech new technology they intend on using, try it in Nevada, Wyoming or elsewhere first where there is not the potential impact as NE Minnesota. Once it is proven, go for it. What is the definition of INSANITY ? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Maybe this is just another case of "professing ourselves as being wise, we have become fools. I have been on the fence but am leaning toward coming down on the better safe than sorry side. Ground level runoff is on the Lake Superior watershed side and in theory will not affect the Hudson Bay watershed but flowing toward Lake Superior is still bad enough. The underground water and atmospheric evaporation cycles are what concern me far more. The underground water ways in that whole area are far understudied and undermapped. Can I hear OOPS, we were not aware of that underground flow. Theory and reality are in two totally different universes. Is the potential impact on the environment really worth 400 or so jobs when you look at the big and long term picture. As I said early on, through my job, I stand to make money off sales to the PolyMet mine if it opens. Does my stance above qualify as putting my money where my mouth is.

WR

P.S. It took me awhile to develop a taste for the mercury in those yummy walleyes, I guess now I should think about developing a taste for the acid. BTW, where did the mercury come from?