Dear Editor,

I feel compelled to respond to the article in Wednesday’s Observer entitled “Expert cautions Gov’t on red mud exploration”.

This “expert” is a management consultant. He is not a geologist, chemist or metallurgist. He makes some assertions about the mining of rare earth elements which are misleading.

Firstly, rare earths are called rare earths not because they are rare, but because they are generally found in such low concentrations in the earth’s crust, and in complex associations with other elements, that their extraction is complex and expensive.

This is the main reason why mines in the US, Australia and Canada went under. In addition, the price rise in these elements only occured recently as a direct result of fear that China would restrict exports.

As it relates to the Jamaica case, the proposal is not to mine anything, but rather to process what is, in effect at the moment, mining ‘tailings’ that sit in several sites across the country. This will be reprocessed to extract the desired elements.

Now, there is a concern about the health effects of the processing technologies to be employed and that is a valid discussion that can be had. However, that has not been the basis of this “expert’s” arguments. He raises issues about mining which are not an issue here.

In addition, geologists like myself have known for years about the relatively high concentrations of heavy metals and traces of radioactive elements that are associated with our bauxite deposits. Yet we have mined those deposits for more than 50 years with no known negative health effects associated with these elements.

I am sure we can have a discussion about the pros and cons or reprocessing bauxite waste for rare earth elements, but in doing so let us engage those who actually have some competence in the matter that is being discussed.

R Smalling

smalling@queensu.ca