I agree, bananaboy. It's all too easy to raise the spectre of potential risk. Science doesn't give you the opportunity to deny risk. You can really only assign odds. Probabilities.
It took me a little while to find it, but here is the MiningWatchCanada literature study: "Potential Toxic Effects of Chromium, Chromite Mining and Ferrochrome Production: A Literature Review"
http://miningwatch.ca/sites/default/files/Chromite_Review.pdf
This report was written by a non-scientist, in 2012, to try and derail the Cliffs development proposal. This report was written with an inherent bias. This report was written entirely based on secondary and tertiary references. Unless you can access the primary reports (the real science), you can have no assurance that the material reported in the literature review is even representative of the data, the discussion, or the conclusions of the referenced primary publications.
You might also wish to review the management and board of MiningWatchCanada. <Spock eyebrow> No bias there.
In all those many pages of the literature review, I did not see any evidence presented that could be used to block the chromite project(s). There are indeed questions to be answered, but those are inherently part of the environmental and social impact assessment components of any mine project approval process. To make noise that nobody has looked at these concerns yet is specious, and disingenuous. Just as was the bikini crap.
Shame on you, Ms. Palmateer.
Lar
