Recently, the Star Tribune published an article that has led to some confusion regarding El's position on the use of taconite tailings in road construction. He believes that if scientific research conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that taconite tailings from the western side of the Iron Range are safe, we should find innovative, sustainable ways to recycle the by-product. Conversely, if the University finds taconite tailings to be unsafe, their use should be suspended immediately.
El has attempted to clear up these rumors in the past and will continue to do so until the voters know the facts about his position. Here is what El had to say earlier this year:
"The project I have worked on is sponsored by the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) and is funded by a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Agency. [...]"
If you hear any rumors about El's position on taconite tailings or his role in their use as transportation aggregate, make sure you help set the record straight. Your grassroots support and involvement will ensure that voters will make decisions informed by the facts, not gossip.
[emaphasis added].
At the Anoka Town Hall debate Sunday March 16, see Crabgrass, here, Elwyn Tinklenberg said about the same thing, context being Olson confronted him with the question of whether the Health Department had said taconite is safe, Tinklenberg doing a glide-and-slide to the effect [parallel to the scrubbed website text] roughly, not an exact quote, "Larry Zanko of the University of Minnesota has done a study showing it is safe and if you want I can get you a copy of the study, and if you want, you can question the validity of the University of Minnesota ...". To that, Olson reemphasixed he said "Health Department" and the show went on, Elwyn Tinklenberg adding, again roughly, "Larry Zanko is a good person and I feel certain that if Larry Zanko ever questioned whether it was safe or not he would not be recommending it be used and I would react the same way, if someone were to prove it unsafe."
Note the weaseling, somebody has to prove it unsafe, or Zanko has to have doubts or something before Elwyn Tinklenberg would stop collecting and cashing checks from NRRI to promote tailings-use at trade shows and make contacts and arrangements for the material to be shipped and used in paving, with its current status as safe or unsafe indeterminate but with Elwyn on record saying he felt Larry Zanko had proven it safe. Perhaps if God would speak to Elwyn as Michele Bachmann says He does to her, that might be a factor too. Who knows? In any event, the committment, THE PROMISE, was that if Zanko expressed doubts he would seek remediatiation "immediately."
That was THE PROMISE. Elwyn Tinklenberg's position, on the record. The debate segments were put on the web, and you can review things if you feel a word of this post misstates things.
***
Well, gee, Elwyn Tinklenberg certainly talks the talk, does he not?
Interesting.
Do you wonder, is this a man who would walk the walk?
Isn't that the real question when he wants your vote?
***
There is this [click to enlarge]:
That's a page downlaodable from the NRRI website, here, and it says what it says.
NRRI and Larry Zanko are to be complimented for their forthright approach to the upcoming study, its present evidence of cancer distribution along the entire Mesabi area, and the implications they see as presently unavoidable conclusions based upon a preliminary view of the evidence from which the study will be starting.
They are doing the right thing, telling the truth that way. It is proper. It is a public benefit to see them having said this. It encourages trust, or at least a partial suspension of disbelief.
But that's Larry Zanko. That's NRRI. That leaves the question of Elwyn Tinklenberg begging an answer.
Pertinent things on that image page from NRRI are highlighted in Wellstone Green [not revolving-door lobbyist green, but a better shade of green].
The simple gist of things, the Western Mesabi contains primarily Phyllosilicate [who 'dat? - actually it does not matter], and what really matters is, bottom of the page, bottom line, that:
It is important to emphasize that of these minerals, only the fibrous amphiboles are currently known to cause asbestos-related disease and are regulated as asbestos; however, the cases of mesothelioma have occurred in miners who worked across the range so exposure to the fibrous phyllosilicates cannot be ruled out as a cause of asbestos-related disease.
Pure and simple, that is NRRI, Tinklenberg's touted experts, saying the western material "cannot be ruled out" as a cause of cancer.
No two ways about it. The item is quite explicit and there is no "second way" it can be cogently read. It says the stuff might cause cancer. What the taconite tailings paving skeptics have been saying all along, with Elwyn just not caring enough to listen. Now his precious NRRI says it. So, will he still play deaf?
The second online item downloadable at the NRRI website is a panel of experts critiquing the NRRI scoping proposal, and it trenchantly observes [at p.13 of 17 pages]:
The revised proposal that we reviewed consistently differentiates particles into two bins: fiber and cleavage fragment. This approach that has been taken in many previous studies typically begins by applying a strict definition to "asbestos" using its commercial properties, often blurring the distinctions between amphiboles and chrysotile, and then lumping everything else, including fibrous, acicular, prismatic, and true cleavage fragments into the cleavage fragment bin. In doing this, the "cleavage fragments" are usually tagged with a label that implies non-regulated and lower toxicity. While this overly simplistic two-bin approach to analysis until recently has been the norm, it has done little to advance our understanding of the important particle determinants of toxicity and likely inhibits an accurate assessment of the risks. The materials analyzed should be analyzed and described as completely as possible (given funding constraints) using accurate mineralogical terminology and definitions.
That is essentially the dispute that taconite-paving skeptics have with the NRRI - Zanko work on "justifying" using tailings from part of the Iron Range, west but not east, because "asbestos" [that "bin" of the "two bins" the experts described] exists for certain in the east, but so far, from quite limited and arguably insufficient sampling and analysis, has not yet been found to the west of a suggested demarcation line Elwyn Tinklenberg's scrubbed website text touted, a suggested demarcation line between "safe and unsafe."
It is this refusal to consider the simplest null hypothesis, that asbestos might be a complicating factor but not the main one; and that we should presume as a precautionary start that the main mineral material that constitute the tailings is a hazard of and by itself, and arguably not to be used in paving unless proven non-hazardous. That is the way the burden of proof should be in any event, but especially after NRRI has made that telling, above-quoted admission.
If there were to be a moritorium on taconite tailings in paving the world would not stop on its axis. Other economical alternative aggregate materials exist, and roads built with the alternative substances will not possibly have to be torn out and replaced at great expense [much as a neglected bridge fell and now has to be replaced, see Crabgrass, here].
A little precautionary attention can avoid catastrophic loss and great cost later.
Ounce of prevention, pound of cure kind of thing that for bridge and tailings were overlooked on the Tinklenberg watch; once for legacy and future opportunity while the man headed MnDOT, once for a drum-beating promotion fee from NRRI.
For more perspective: That above image page is from a 27 page scoping document for a currently pending study, funded in the recently closed legislative session, to investigate the situation of 59 Iron Range miners from throughout the Mesabi mining region [West as well as east], who have died of an extremely rare lung cancer routinely associated with asbestos exposure [with exposure to "asbestiform" materials, specifically taconite fibers and/or cleavage fragments that have a 3:1 or greater aspect ratio, length to width, particularly those in the size range of about 4 x 0.25 microns or so, possibly greater or smaller as a possible causative factor being uncertain, but likely since cancer deaths from the Western Mesabi allegedly involved no "asbestos" per se, in the mined material]. Study it and the background, if you doubt. The item the page is from is dated, Jan. 15, 2008; with a companion online panel critique of that research scoping paper dated Feb. 5, 2008, and downloadable at the same University of Minnesota at Duluth, NRRI web page, here. Accessing the page before starting this post indicated it was last updated, March 30, 2008; so that Elwyn Tinklenberg had constructive public notice of it by All Fool's Day, appropriately enough. Actual notice, not necessarily, but constructive notice. He will have actual notice when I finish the post because I will email the link to his campaign. No doubt then, actual notice to that staff is notice to the top dog.
So, will the campaign top dog bark now? Or will it be The Hound of the Baskervilles thing, the important clue being the hound not barking?
Will the Blue Dog just sit and scratch his fleas?
This post is a public challenge to Elwyn Tinklenberg - you made promises to people you wished to have vote for you, while in the past you took about $90,000 to promote widespread use of taconite tailings in road paving in Minnesota - what's your strongest tie, to the promises or the cash flow?
Will you, Elwyn Tinklenberg now issue a press release or go on TV calling for an immediate moritorium in the use, anywhere, of taconite tailings in paving unless and until the currently pending Minnesota State Department of Health -- University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus School of Public Health -- University of Minnesota Duluth, NRRI extended joint study of taconite safety is completed and the results interpreted and made known to decision makers and the general public?
Will you do the honorable thing? Will you implore MnDOT to revise its approval of the material or impose a moritorium of its approval of the material for paving? Will you issue that press release? Or will you sit there quietly scratching the fleas, no bark, no bite?
Elwyn Tinklenberg, the opportunity is yours. Symbolically, Bob Olson yet again is handing you the microphone. He did that at the Anoka Debate. He did that saying he had promised Judge Miles Lord that he would not let this important issue drop, be buried, be glided over, slid over. He promised and delivered. He had that integrity to him.
If you, Elwyn Tinklenberg, expect a single voter to cast a ballot for you, don't you owe that voter at the least a showing that you can and will keep a promise?
How, Elwyn Tinklenberg, can you solicit votes otherwise? We don't care how optimistic you really are, or how optimistic your billborads say you are, we want you to be honest to your word. Is that asking too much?
Bob Olson's passing the mike, Elwyn Tinklenberg.
So look happy.
It's not a problem. It's an opportunity.