Tinklenberg, last Sunday in Anoka when Olson raised the question, answered little more than that, "East is east and west is west." He said so, in saying some tailings east of a boundary are problematic, west are okay; or is his story the other way around? I don't recall, and I don't believe a single bit of it.
Elwyn can bleat all he wants about such distinction being valid enough to take the risk of putting taconite tailings onto roadway surfaces statewide, BUT it just does not make any real sense. AND - The more you think, the less sense it makes.
"Shake the hand, that shook the hand, of P.T. Barnum and Charlie Chan."
I posted my understanding that sampling integrity is the heart of a study's reliability and the sampling rationale and procedures, to my understanding are not completely published out of NRRI in a way to say whether my view of valid sampling was or was not met.
The NRRI advocacy of using the stuff would postulate a counter argument on sampling, arguing that geological formations of high consistency are at issue, formed differently over geological eons, with a dividing line clear enough to a trained geologist or geological engineer; and while taconite is generally a flinty mineral, East is east, and West is west.
That's the Tinklenberg mantra, and by his allegations the Larry Zanko trained geologist's answer on sampling. Zanko would have to come out of hiding and speak for himself on this one, and absent that, Tinklenberg's speaking for him. He's the one on contract with NRRI to handle logistics and marketing, so he is out in front of Zanko, marketing. If Zanko has any problem with the integrity of the marketing effort, he presumably knows how to call a press conference. Absent that, he is in the tent with Elwyn Tinklenberg on this issue simply by silence when there would be cause to speak if he is not happy sharing that tent with Elwyn, that he's "certified" taconite tailings as safe for use in paving and patching Minnesota roads and indeed, the entire nation's roads, and that he's competent to make such a "certification" as Elwyn Tinklenberg has attributed to him.
If he's comfortable enough with that to take a hike on the issue at this point, then bless him.
The counterargument to my sampling suggestions would be that the two formations are differing, but there is basic uniformity within each, and even, for purposes of argument, even only one single sample from one pile East, one pile West, not fines but a sample of golfball size or larger, would do. You could chip off the outer weathered part of the sample, get to the central unleeched core material for analysis, powder it as much as needed for standard lab protocols, and see what's to be seen. Do not overburden simple science with complexities that are irrelevant and immaterial. To "complexify" a simple truth is sophistry, not the other way around. That in a nutshell would be the counterargument.
Well, a thought experiment: Each of those formations, uniform as the other-side's orthodoxy would go --- then why are there mines somewhere but not anywhere; and why is ore dug but then the digging stopped? If there is this great uniformity, then once you've a mine, keep digging away there because it's all the same anyway isn't it, so why go to the cost of shutting down one mine and digging elsewhere?
Well, if it has an economically productive iron content to start with, distributed over a limited locale at a particular site but not everywhere, and it can be "mined out" at any particular mining site - then we can explain what in fact has actually happened based upon such a view of non-uniformity. And, once saying the iron is not uniformely distributed; then why would you say, "Not the iron, but the asbestos, it is uniformly distributed."?
That flies in the face of ordinary common sense, and I have not seen any science that would reliably back up such a notion.
Once you have to admit that the iron is unevenly distributed, then do iron and asbestos co-occur with frequency? I don't know. However, I would not want to risk putting tailings anywhere [not even in Elwyn's grand-childrens' sand-box] without having the science being unequivocal.
So, next question - for homework, go out on the internet, and find what kind of asbestos is thought to be a carcinogenicity problem, which is not, and find for me a consensus voice on that basic question.
That is my challenge to Larry Zanko.
To the Lee lab in Pennsylvania.
To Elwyn Tinklenberg.
Either pin down the truth beyond debate as an accepted consensus among professionals; or pin down that there is the lack of a consensus truth and "the jury is still out;" or leave the trash piles where they are now unless and until you can PROVE the use of that junk in paving is wholly risk-free.
That's the only sane way to allocate the burden of proof, given the magnitude of the risk of spreading cancer unwisely if you are wrong
I am risk averse that way. Aren't you?
When having greater incidences of mesothelioma deaths is the risk, why take it?
Why risk killing people, so that Elwyn can earn his NRRI logistics and marketing fees and commissions, for himself and other Tinklenberg Group participants?
Why do that, other than that from Elwyn's perspective it's a really great idea to flow the cash flow to him and affiliates that way.
Perhaps he is more convinced than that, less cynical, and will show up somewhere and eat a platefull of tailings to prove he sees absolutely no risk.
Short of that, indeed - even with that, I would not use it in paving without real science, by people with real expertise, with medical degrees and skills in epidemiology and such, reaching an undeniable consensus.
And that simply, for now, is wholly lacking. More will be posted on that situation, subsequently.
A house divided cannot stand, etc. That's as good a taconite tailings cliche as, "East is east and west is west."
So, Tinker folks - disclose what the cashflow's been from that NRRI stuff; and disclose the contract terms under which the flow began and continued, for however long, possibly even now in the Nov. 2008 election ramp-up.
Otherwise your bona fide objectivity is doubtful. And if you disclose anything like the high six-figures taken out of City of Ramsey, then the objectivity becomes even more doubtful. So, if there's no big cash incentive, there'd be disclosure. If the amounts are great, then presumably, there's motive to circle the wagons and hunker, without sane disclosure.
I have my disclosure request in to both NRRI and to Elwyn Tinklenberg's campaign. And I see no cause for any stonewalling unless the truth is an embarassment.
It is not as if the request is complicated. I am not requesting something requiring two years more of study. Simply this: Give me contract details for Elwyn and the Tinklenberg Group to be logistics and marketing consultants for using that garbage within road repaving where people may face a serious health risk, and give me an accounting of cashflow to Tinklenberg Group from start of the contract relationship, to the present, arising from being an advocate of such a thing.
It should take less than half an hour's work to provide that. Simply scan the documents and email them to me, print out the disbursements detail in a spreadsheet, and then have in that half-hour ten minutes of the time left for a comfortable coffee break.
So, U. Minn. Duluth and NRRI folks, get cracking.
I want more than to shake the hand, that shook the hand, of P.T. Barnum, and Charlie Chan. There's been too much of that nonsense already from Tinklenberg.
Either he can and willingly will give the fitting disclosure, or NRRI - U.Minn.Duluth can and will; or both in concert can stonewall me.
What will we see? What will each of those camps do?