There has been a noticeably abundant portion of disordered and misguided expression of information and innuendo on various sites, notably, recreational gold prospecting suction dredging mining sites, with respect to the meaning of certain science of late- specifically it seems, as it relates to the topic of recreational suction dredging effects on the ecosystem, threatened brook trout and endangered Atlantic salmon spawning habitat and the actual accepted science by scientists and biologists who specialize in environmental science and fish biology and what it means.
Facts, overwhelmingly and intentionally disordered by confused people and people claiming to be qualified to make decisions regarding the issue, or convince you of science that doesn’t exist with blurred references of incomplete disheveled snippets cut and pasted, completely out of context with the order of information-intentionally incomplete, or just wrong. Information posted in an intentional effort to confuse or sway the reader into believing something that simply is not truth. Disingenuous at best and I might suggest, bordering on unethical at worst, when done by those in the field of science and biology. I’m actually embarrassed for them.
Trust in those presenting information, no matter who they may be, (I am not exempt) is no different from trust in people, or relationships of any kind; if they exist in truth, they endure, without it, they fail. There is a contemptible lack of respect for science and oneself among those individuals seemingly fed by disreputable witlessness which cannot and should not be trusted to present truth as it exists today. And certainly not without confrontation or correction
Those same individuals have recently moved like grifters between various sites, performing like irrational pawns oblivious to the fact they represent theories and ideas presented to, or formed by those with an interest in the mining business, offering no attempt to educate honestly. Unfortunately, the reader who may have no understanding, may simply accept their inferior presentation, as truth. It is not. Truth does not need to be manipulated. Yet, they continue to present their views based in emotionalism, without anything even remotely close to the basic understanding of what establishes science and remains no more than personal prejudices and bias against some imagined conspiracy believed to exist among a certain angry faction of individuals, who have in fact, stated on their websites that those who oppose their weak argument are all in collusion with each other and the government. Irrational thoughts, I doubt are capable of logical conclusions.
I shared my opinion here with respect to those who’ve been guilty of such behavior without qualifying my opinion. Today it seems appropriate to revisit my thoughts as they relate to basic understanding.
I could tell you I cultivated skin in petri dishes while working in research, but that doesn’t make me more than someone who might understand better than another, a miniscule amount of cell structure, life within, and relationship to cell life beyond, as it pertained to that research in that moment of science, (though it continues acceptance) it certainly doesn’t qualify me to be the scientist or the reconstructive surgeon grafting the skin, nor does it make me a fish biologist, or environmental scientist or even a teacher.
Prove it: We’ve all said them and all heard the words stated relating to science; ‘prove it’. I’m guilty of it myself. The words are comfortable. Perhaps the most commonly misunderstood thought, is that we prove in science. When in fact, it isn’t really about proving or disproving, it is about falsification and about accepting or rejecting a hypothesis which allows experimentation through testing, knowledge which is formed and attained through various collective deductions of empirical observations and made sense of, through collected data, logical deduction, certain assumptions, and yes, even philosophical thought. I might even include passion as having an essential role in science.-without it; our scientists lose interest, cease to care, lose the desire to pursue it and consequently, fail to advance it.
It has been said and written, and will be so to infinity I suspect, that even with our vast collective scientific knowledge, science can rarely be considered doctrinaire. That’s a good thing; it’s how we advance science. It is all understood, that in a complicated universe, our scientific understanding is relatively primitive.
With that said, with LD1671 it is important to recognize, in order for those making claims that there is no science supporting further protection is required through LD1671 -For that to be true, their claims would need to negate what we already know. They would need to show us the science we have is false as it relates to Atlantic salmon and brook trout physiology, and spawning habits and habitat in Maine. Though they incessantly quote a water study, which the author admitted was inconclusive, and a few recent, though not involved reports from western waters and fisheries which differ from those in the east- to date, they’ve offered nothing to falsify the existing science we have about Atlantic salmon and brook trout physiology, habitat and spawning behavior or the indication of harm science tells us does or may occur from certain environmental circumstances. Nothing.
Let me be clear; the opposition has shown us nothing that disqualifies the truth we know now, can, does, will, or may harm the cycle of life for endangered Atlantic salmon and threatened brook trout. Until or unless, expensive, intense long-term studies are performed, by those specialized in the field, it is impossible for them to say they do no harm as a scientific conclusion. It’s just delusional.
There can be no doubt when it comes to the world of science, that it requires cerebral study by great minds, and for that reason and that alone, we all feel comfortable deferring to science when and where it exists, it has profound value in life, and believing in the scientific knowledge we have gained from certain scientific truths allows us fuller understanding and the ability to control or manage, what may well be uncontrollable and often devastating, without its application.
In the same way we accept truth in science we must also be willing to accept the truth that all science and scientists are not created equal. There is good science and bad science. The ability to understand and differentiate between the two is important and can only be accomplished in the same way that acceptable science is achieved; through understanding of its meaning and an open-minded willingness to present and accept the truth without bias or prejudice.
Einstein was once asked by a friend, if he believed that absolutely everything could be expressed scientifically?
Einstein’s response: Yes, it would be possible but it would make no sense. It would be description without meaning — as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation in wave pressure. Einstein: the Life and Times
Obviously, my enduring reverence for Einstein remains faithful, but not just for that incomparable mind or the internal heart beat that seemingly found its way to an external world with a sense of humor and compassion, or the unconventional good looks, (I wouldn’t want to appear shallow) it’s more than that. Though some have the impression of him only as a man of equations and experimentation, and he was that, fewer understand he was as well, a man of philosophy, who waited patiently for the natural world to speak to him. And, he did so with a rather extraordinary capacity to yield to intuitions, which lead to truths-truths only found by those with a devotion to willingness for understanding, and without a resistance for acceptance of what would be found. E.
See you then. Emily
LD1671 Maine Prospector Jack of All Trades, Banning Gold Prospecting, Natural Recovery and the Truth About Mercury and Lead Removal
Natural recovery is nature’s own attempt to heal her environment and occurs naturally over a period of decades. According to the EPA, the results of natural recovery rely on the ongoing naturally occurring processes of bio-degradation to reduce the exposure of toxins or, bio-availability of contaminants in sediment, and it is a relatively effective natural remedy without causing disturbances to existing biological communities. It’s a natural process that occurs over a period of decades which results in burying toxic materials.
Recreational suction dredging disturbs sedimentation, by dredging deep down into a firm layer of riverbed and sediment that has settled naturally for decades. That is to say; if mercury and lead exist, it likely has settled into the stream and riverbeds made firm by the natural flow and movement of the system, burying the lead beneath the sediment with pebbles, gravel, plant life, and larger boulders covering them. The life within the river, over time, does not have free access to the lead until the action of dredging has once again, exposed them and caused suspension of certain types of toxicity, depending on the toxin and the waters where the different contaminants may live, re-exposing whatever may have existed and been lying dormant and unseen.
For the gold prospecting recreational suction dredger to insinuate their actions are more positive than negative when compared to the naturally occurring recovery process is simply disingenuous. Though, I cannot dismiss some may remove found lead, or loose lead which may not have yet been buried by the natural process. More than likely, the truth is closer to the fact that much like the exposed holes dredged in the riverbed, left uncovered, what lead is now exposed by their suctioning will remain exposed creating more of a hazard, especially for our bottom feeding waterfowl. For instance, Loons, ducks and geese will swallow small pebbles from the bottoms of rivers and ponds in an effort to aide with digestion and mistakenly ingest the lead left, causing severe lead poisoning and eventually leading to their deaths, although, Maine, as well as other states has banned the use of lead sinkers, it does sadly still exist.
While gold prospectors claim publicly they remove lead, pointing fingers at others for its presence, one such prospecting site actually instructs panning prospectors to use lead in their pans to weight them in order to achieve better results. While we would hope the illegal lead is carried out as it was carried in, dredgers, as required by regulations, carelessly fail to follow regulations by filling in holes they’ve dredged into riverbeds and there is no reason to believe the lead they use or lead that is found or thrown back in tailings where they will now reside exposed above the beds, will be carried out either.
With high mercury levels recently found in Penobscot River lobsters, it should be known that the practice of suctioning for gold also disrupts mercury pockets where it does exist, redistributing it back into the system and renewing the danger to aquatic life and humans. (EPA impacts and solutions)) In a controlled study, of which scientists specifically used suction dredge hoses used by prospectors, scientists attempted to collect mercury by targeting mercury hotspots. However, unintentionally, the scientists were unable to keep two percent of the mercury intended for collection contained, the mercury accidently escaped and re-deposited into the water. Once no longer dormant, the mercury was easily transported away; the escaped mercury concentrations when tested were found to be more than ten times higher than needed to classify it as hazardous waste according to EPA regulations. (EPA methylmercury)
Given what we know, I fail to understand how anyone can logically accept the acts of the gold prospectors who suction dredge as creating a better environment over the naturally occurring actions of our rivers successfully detoxifying themselves through decades of their own positive process of natural recovery.
Full article may be read by clicking title
LD1671 Maine Legislature~ ubi jus incertain, ibi jus nullum; Where The Law Is Uncertain, There Is No Law
LD1671 Maine Legislature-An Act to Prohibit Motorized Gold Prospecting in Certain Atlantic Salmon and Brook Trout Spawning Habitats.
There is seemingly an element of indifference to life and an unwillingness to accept what we know, that should be of significant concern here.
The Hearing, The Prospector, Prospecting for Gold and Suction Dredging.
Not understanding the ecological harm caused by recreational suction dredging to Maine’s fragile aquatic ecosystems, protected spawning streambed habitats and riparian boundaries could fatally disqualify our threatened brook trout fisheries and endangered Atlantic salmon runs from the science we already know….
I sat listening to the opposition against LD1671 – uncertain how insufficiently developed a mind needed to be in order not to understand the simple science of balance we all learn at a young age. Questioning how the exact same thought process, and in fact, words, could be so pervasive in the thoughts and minds of an entire group of individuals. It seemed almost a deliberate incorrectness, peppered with moments of unreasonable paranoia, intensified by dramatic representations of foolishness by individuals who were just possibly, too frivolous to care about what matters seriously, in order to understand its meaning.
Undoubtedly, if the right decision is to be made for our endangered and protected fish and their spawning habitats, it will need to be made logically, without emotion and with our existing science, and according to the acts and policies we have in place to date. We have enough overwhelming science behind us to reasonably conclude, that the action of suction dredging distributes enough negative effects with degradation to the ecosystem- that we should accept the science we have of the past as our best indicator for the future of what will be, for fish intolerant to environmental change, if we ignore it.
Maine LD1671 An Act To Prohibit Motorized Gold Prospecting In Certain Atlantic Salmon And Brook Trout Spawning Habitat~Taking Defined
Alter the natural habitat of a struggling species intolerant of change, and you have caused harm. Remove nutrients needed to sustain life and you have caused harm. Create an unstable environment that causes harm to potential life or the existing life of an endangered or threatened species, you have caused harm, and “taken” what is illegal to take.
Maine LD 1671 The New Prospectors, Recreational Suction Dredging, Understanding Its Destruction, And What It Really Means
Boulders, or large rocks unable to be suctioned are moved by hand, altering nutrient dynamics, killing stoneflies and mayflies, (important nutrients for young brook trout) larvae and fish eggs attached to them, altering fish foraging efficiency and altering structure fish depend on for habitat protection from predators and currents. continue reading
With 21 Yeas LD1853, Maine Legislators Supported Pit Mining and J.D. Irving Ltd’s History of Environmental Crime, Pollution Offenses and Abandonment of Responsibilities
J.D. Irving Ltd. has sufficiently warned us with their environmental history, yet, Maine legislators came to their own fantastical conclusions passing LD1853 with apparent insolence, shallowness, frivolity of nonsense, greed and obvious personal prejudices of their own.
Maine legislators daringly close to impropriety and indecency voted today to pass LD1853, the open pit-mining bill fortified with the Maine legislators superficial luster of promise for financial wealth, and by J.D. Irving Ltd’s verbal contortions and apparent denial to the people about their own Canadian history of environmental crime, lawsuits and loss of life tied to the Irving Ltd. business and property.
Updated: March 23, 2014- Perhaps Senator Saviello should be reminded he’s seated as a legislator by the people in a position of trust to write laws protecting the people and as a voice and right of all people, not only so we might be heard and represented, but to give Maine’s people power to determine our own affairs. How dare you dismiss the Maine people and our environment as being unworthy of a fight!
The LePage right to work plan is an effort to remove the neutral voice of collective bargaining that removed the worker from commodity status and allowed the spirit of the American worker, literally, to flourish in all aspects of life, industry and capital.
Rolling back time with the Taft act, removing the voice of neutrality from the working class reduces the American worker to a commodity and returns them once again, to the potential of employers greedy for capital, to use them as such, seeking to obtain them at the lowest working wage, and lends itself only to an unsettling and damaging divisiveness among our working class and the breeding of resentment among workers and between employers and employees. No, no, organized labor is not the problem.
Trout Unlimited: Maine’s New Mining Rules Are Dangerously Weak-The rules allow mines that are so dangerous and difficult to control, they would require active wastewater treatment forever. The rules allow unlimited groundwater pollution within vaguely defined “mining areas”. The rules allow open pit mines next to almost all of Maine’s lakes and many of our most spectacular rivers.