You are on page 1of 12

Chemicals used in mining and processing minerals contaminate the land, water, and air,

causing health problems for workers and people living near mines. Toxic chemicals used in
mining include:

cyanide, sulfuric acid, and solvents for separating minerals from ore

nitric acid

ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) used in blasting tunnels

heavy metals such as mercury, uranium, and lead

gasoline, diesel fuel, and exhaust fumes from vehicles and equipment

acetylene for welding and soldering

Cyanide

Cyanide is used to separate gold from ore. In its pure form, cyanide has no color and smells
like bitter almonds. It may lose this smell when it combines with other chemicals. It can be
used in powder, liquid, or gas forms.
Cyanide is deadly when swallowed. An amount the size of a grain of rice is enough to kill a
person. Exposure to low doses over a long time may cause a swelling in the throat (goiter),
which can also be caused by malnutrition.
Cyanide is often spilled into waterways during gold mining, and when ponds filled with mine
wastes burst and spill. Mining companies say that cyanide in water quickly becomes
harmless. But this is true only when there is lots of sunlight and oxygen. Even then it leaves
behind other harmful chemicals. If cyanide is spilled underground, or if the weather is cloudy
or rainy, it can remain harmful for a long time, killing fish and plants along rivers and making

water unsafe for drinking and bathing. Cyanide is so dangerous that it has been banned in
some countries.

Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid is a toxic chemical used in copper mining. It is also a byproduct of many kinds
of mining, mixing with water and heavy metals to form acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid
smells like rotten eggs. Contact with sulfuric acid can cause burns, blindness, and death.

Treatment
Chemicals used at mine sites can spill on the skin and clothes, splash in the eyes, or be
breathed in as fumes. If someone is hurt, get medical help as soon as possible. (See how to
treat chemical spills and chemical burns while waiting for help.)

Prevention
The best way to prevent harm from toxic chemicals, including heavy metals, is to not use
them. But there are also ways to prevent and reduce harm if toxics are still being used.

Use protective equipment whenever possible.

Wash your hands many times a day. Do not touch your face, smoke, or touch other
people while working with or near toxics unless you wash your hands first.

Demand that mine operators reduce dust and water pollution.

Never eat where chemicals are being used, mixed, or stored.

Store chemicals safely.

Storing chemicals
Many chemicals can cause fires, explosions, or release of toxic gases. Safe storage of
chemicals can help prevent accidents and reduce harm at mine sites. Store chemicals:

away from explosives, electrical sources, all sources of water, and motor vehicles.

away from where people eat.

in containers that are clearly labeled. If you move chemicals from one container to
another, label the new container. Never put chemicals in containers used for food or
drinks someone may accidentally eat or drink the chemical. After a chemical container
is empty, it should never be used for food or drinks, even if you wash it out.

in strong, locked cabinets designed and labeled for chemical storage.

What is the role of cyanide in mining?


Back to Q&A List

Cyanide is a naturally occurring chemical that is found in low concentrations throughout nature including
in fruits, nuts, plants, and insects. It has been used by the mining industry to separate gold and silver
particles from ore for over 120 years. With proper management, cyanide can be used safely and without
harming the environment despite its toxicity.

Background information on cyanide


Cyanide is the general term for chemicals which contain a cyano group (triple-bonded carbon and
nitrogen with the chemical formula CN) that occur naturally or are human-made in various forms. Low
concentrations of cyanide are present in the everyday environment including as a stabilizer in table salt, in
over 1000 plants including cassava and bamboo shoots, and in the pits of stone fruits like plums and
apricots. [1, 2] In fact, the greatest source of cyanide exposure for people and free-ranging animals
comes from eating food plants and crops that contain cyanide. [3]
Cyanide is also a useful industrial chemical; over one million tonnes of it are used annually in
electroplating, metal processing, the production of organic chemicals and plastics, and in photographic
applications. [2] The mining industry has used cyanide to process ore for more than 120 years, and uses
less than 20% of the global production of industrial cyanide. [2, 4]

Role of cyanide in ore processing


Cyanide, in the form of a very dilute sodium cyanide solution, is used to dissolve and separate gold from
ore. [3] The process used to extract gold using cyanide was developed in Scotland in 1887, and was first
used in large scale commercial mining by the New Zealand Crown Mines Company at Karangahake in
1889. [3, 4] Cyanide leaching is considered to be a much safer alternative to extraction with liquid
mercury, which was previously the main method of removing gold from ore. [5] Cyanide leaching has
been the dominant gold extraction technology since the 1970s, although small-scale and artisanal
miners continue to use mercury in some areas of the world. [3] In Canada, more than 90% of mined gold
is extracted from ore using cyanide. [3]
The concentration of cyanide used in this process is normally in the range of 0.01% and 0.05% sodium
cyanide (100 to 500 parts per million). [2] As part of their best practices, mines use as little cyanide as
possible for environmental, safety, and economic reasons. [2] Cyanide leaching is usually done along with
a physical process like milling, crushing, or gravity separation. The pH of the resulting slurry is raised by
adding lime or another alkali to ensure that cyanide ions do not change into toxic cyanide gas (HCN). [6]
The gold is then further concentrated and reduced, before being smelted into gold bullion. Click here to
see a demonstration of the gold excavation and refinement process.

Cyanide toxicity and management


Cyanide is toxic in large doses and is strictly regulated in most jurisdictions worldwide to protect people,
animals, and the aquatic environment. Cyanide prevents the body from taking up oxygen, resulting in
suffocation, which may be fatal to humans and animals without prompt first aid treatment. [7] However,
people and animals can rapidly detoxify non-lethal amounts of cyanide without negative effects, and
repeated small doses can be tolerated by many species. [3] Some long-term health effects have been

observed in people who have a diet high in cyanide-containing plants such as cassava, and include goiter
and depressed thyroid function. [8]
In fact, [d]espite its high human toxicity, there have been no documented accidental human deaths due
to cyanide poisoning in the Australian and North American mining industries over the past 100 years
which indicates that the hazard of cyanide to humans has been controlled by minimizing the risk of its
handling and of industrial exposure.[6, p.4] Even in areas where cyanide is used extensively by artisanal
miners with limited waste containment and safety practices, human fatalities are relatively minimal
particularly when compared with mercury or other hazards [9, pp.109-110].
In high concentrations, cyanide is toxic to aquatic life, especially fish which are one thousand times more
sensitive to cyanide than humans. [10] Because the greatest environmental threat from cyanide to aquatic
life is from intentional or unintentional discharges into surface waters, water monitoring and water
management on mine sites is very important. [11] Regulations frequently limit the amount of cyanide which
may be discharged into the environment, and there are a number of water treatment
technologies available to remove cyanide from mine water. [2]
Birds and other wildlife are also potentially at risk from cyanide poisoning if they are using tailings ponds
for drinking or swimming. [12] In order to prevent wildlife fatalities, cyanide levels in tailings ponds can be
reduced to safe levels by minimizing the amount of cyanide used, removing cyanide in waste streams and
recycling it, and by using chemical or biological reactions to convert the cyanide into less toxic chemicals.
[13] A standard of 50 mg/L weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide is widely accepted to be a safe level for
water accessible to wildlife, and has essentially eliminated the number of migratory bird deaths from this
cause. [6, 11] Only a few hundred birds are killed by cyanide each year. [11] Deterrents like fencing,
polyethylene balls, and netting are also used to keep birds out of water bodies on mine sites. [3]
Cyanides do not cause cancer, and do not build up or biomagnify in the food chain. [12] They do not
persist in the environment, and are quickly broken down into less toxic chemicals by sunlight and air. [2]

Accidental Spills
Where cyanide has been accidentally released into surface waters, it has been investigated and changes
have been made in the industry to prevent such releases happening again. One such change is the
adoption of the International Cyanide Management Code. This code was developed following several
cyanide spills, in particular the Baia Mare spill in Romania in 2000. In the Baia Mare case, a dam failure
that spilled cyanide into nearby waters resulted in widespread contamination, fish deaths, and economic
harmbut no human deaths.
In such spills, the cyanide is rapidly destroyed through natural processes, such as evaporation, and the
effects on aquatic lifewhile significantare not long-term. [3] In the Baia Mare spill, the cyanide
concentration decreased rapidly with increasing distance from the spill. After the contaminated water had
passed, aquatic micro-organisms and plankton recovered within a few days. [10]
In Japan, an earthquake in 1980 resulted in a large amount of cyanide entering a stream from a gold
mine. While the spill killed all life in the stream, cyanide was detectable for only three days after the spill;
within 1 month flora began to regrow on above-water stones, and within 6-7 months the populations of
fish, algae, and invertebrates had recovered. [3, p.29] Cyanide was also not detectable in water and
sediments in Yellowknife Bay in the Northwest Territories from 1974 to 1976, despite a continuous input of
cyanide-containing effluents from a gold mining operation (a practice that would not be permitted today).
[3]

Legal framework for mines using cyanide

Many jurisdictions, including Canada and Australia, recommend that mines that use cyanide do so in a
manner consistent with the International Cyanide Management Code, which involves minimizing the
amount of cyanide used; designing measures to protect surface and groundwater; designing and
operating systems that reduce cyanide levels in effluent; and preventing spills.
In Canada, cyanide is considered to be a hazardous substance, and provincial and federal legislation
requires it to be transported, handled, and disposed of by fully trained personnel in certified storage
containers. [12] Its disposal and discharge into the environment at mine sites is regulated provincially
through the use of permits and licences. [12] In addition, the cyanide concentration of effluent leaving a
metal mining operation must be below the maximum allowable concentration of 1.0 mg/L prescribed by
the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations under the federal Fisheries Act. Cyanide in effluent is measured
through water sampling and in 2010 metal mines achieved 100% compliance for cyanide. [14]

Alternative technologies to cyanide


Although cyanide can be safely used, the mining industry continues to research alternatives to cyanide
and improve the techniques for managing the cyanide it does use. In some cases it may be possible to
concentrate gold using gravity separation. However, this is not economical or feasible when the other ore
components are of similar density or when the concentration of gold is low. [6]
Alternative extraction chemicals have also been studied, but they can be equally or more damaging to the
environment than cyanide [6, 11]. Risk-based assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency
and Purdue University concluded that a cyanide-lime system was the safest chemical extraction method
for recovering gold taking into account risk to the environment and workers [11].
Mining industry innovations have also included new cyanide-destruction technologies and management
strategies to reduce cyanide concentrations, toxicity, and potential impacts. [2]

According to Mudder, T. et. al.(2006) an extensive literature search and review of fatalities in the mining industry estimated
6-10 work-related fatalities (not all confirmed) at mining operations and 1-2 fatalities within the civilian population attributed
to cyanide exposure during the 20th century. By comparison, the World Health Organization estimates that tobacco caused
100 million deaths in the 20th century, and each year approximately 420,000 people die from falls, 1.3 million people die as
a result of road traffic crashes, and 2.5 million people die from the harmful use of alcohol.
ii
Alternative methods to recover gold from ore include bromine/bromide/sulfuric acid, hypochlorite/chloride, ammonium
thiosulfate/ammonia/copper, and thiourea/ferric sulfate/sulfuric acid.
i

Case Study: International Cyanide Management Code


The "International Cyanide Management Code for the Manufacture, Transport, and Use of Cyanide in the
Production of Gold" (Code) was developed to provide comprehensive guidance on best practices for the
use and management of cyanide at gold mines around the world. It was developed with input from a
diverse range of groups including the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), governments, environmental advocacy groups, mining companies
and industry associations, and technical consultants. [6]
The Code is voluntary for the gold mining industry and focuses on the safe management of cyanide that is
produced, transported, and used for processing gold. [15] The Code is intended to complement existing
regulations, although the requirements extend beyond those of most governments and regulatory
agencies. [6, 15]

There are two key elements to the Code. First, signatories must commit to defined principles and
standards to manage cyanide responsibly. These principles cover cyanide production, transportation,
handling and storage, operations, decommissioning, worker safety, emergency response, worker and
emergency response personnel training, and public consultation and disclosure. [15] Within each principle
key standards must be met. For example, as part of the operations principle, companies must commit to
implementing monitoring programs to evaluate the effects of cyanide use on wildlife and surface and
ground water quality. [15] In areas where mining companies dont have direct control, such as in the
transportation and handling of cyanide, they must ensure that the other parties involved in these activities
also commit to and comply with the Code. [15]
A second key element of the Code is that operations are subject to an independent third-party verification
process. [15] It was the first voluntary industry Code of Practice that required independent third-party
professional audits to demonstrate compliance. [6] Signatory companiesand summaries of audit reports
are published online to add to the transparency of the process. As of June 2012, there are 117 signatories
to the Code comprising 36 gold mining companies, 13 cyanide producers, and 68 cyanide transporters.
The International Cyanide Management Institute estimates that half of the worlds gold production is now
being produced by signatory mining companies.[16] While most large producers have signed and adopted
the Code, a key challenge remains in getting smaller producers to endorse it. [6]
Although it is too soon to fully evaluate the impacts of the Code, there are early indications that it is
improving the management of cyanide use worldwide. The provisions of the code, especially concerning
water management (i.e., the need to consider ranges of precipitation and melt, monitoring techniques,
pumping capacity for excess water), would likely have prevented the Baia Mare spill had they been in
place. [17] The number and severity of cyanide-related incidents appears to have declined since Baia
Mare, although it is not clear if this is due to the Code itself or whether it coincides with increased
awareness and improved management overall within the industry. [11, 16]
- See more at: http://www.miningfacts.org/environment/what-is-the-role-of-cyanide-inmining/#sthash.LwsAE4lM.dpuf

Case study on Marcopper Mining and the Marinduque


disaster
Published by MAC on 2002-04-15

CASE STUDY: Prepared for the Global Mining Campaign


Catherine Coumans - April 2002
MINE: Marcopper Mining Corporation - Placer Dome Inc. Location: Marinduque, Philippines
Ownership: 39.9%. Placer Dome managed and guaranteed the loans for the two Marcopper
Mines 1969-1996.
Product and Reserves: Copper, with gold and silver as by-products. The mine has been
suspended since 1996.

Type: Open pit at two mines, the Tapian Pit and the San Antonio Mine, metal extraction
through flotation and leaching.
Operating Dates: 1969 - 1996
Employment: Around 800 people
HISTORY: As early as 1956, Placer Dome, then Placer Development Limited, became
involved in an exploration project on the island of Marinduque in the Philippines,
undertaking extensive geological mapping and drilling. In 1964, Marcopper Mining
Corporation (Marcopper) was established. In 1969, Marcopper started mining operations in
Marinduque. Placer Development Ltd. secured and guaranteed more than US$ 40 million in
loans for the new copper mining company from a consortium of American banks and "Placer
undertook the responsibility for open pit planning, design and construction." Placer Dome
always owned 39.9% of the shares in Marcopper, the maximum amount of shares that
could, until recently, be legally held by a foreign company in the Philippines. Placer Dome
managed the two Marcopper mines on the island. All Presidents and Resident Managers of
Marcopper, from 1969 until 1996 (when the mine was shut down) were seconded from
Placer Dome. Marcopper was "under design and management control" of Placer
Development Ltd. This management arrangement was established in agreements Placer
Dome had with the banks whose loans Placer Dome guaranteed. Placer Dome guaranteed
the loans for two successive Marcopper copper mines on the island. Placer Dome provided
the technical expertise for the two mines. Placer Dome was the only mining company
involved in Marcopper from 1969-1994. Placer Dome's secret partner in the mine (50%)
until 1986, when he was overthrown, was the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. After
1986, Marcos's shares were taken over and held by successive Philippine governments
(Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos) until 1994, when they were privatized.
A 30-year History of Mining Disasters and Social Opposition
In 30 years of mining under Placer Dome's management, Marinduquenos endured one
mining-related environmental disaster after another. For 16 years, from 1975 to 1991,
Placer Dome oversaw the dumping, via surface disposal, of more than 200 million tons of
mine tailings directly into the shallow waters of Calancan Bay, covering corals and
seagrasses and the bottom of the bay with 80 square kilometers of tailings. The food
security of 12 fishing villages around the bay has been severely impacted for the past 27
years. A large portion of the tailings are exposed in the bay and regularly blow into nearby
villages. The tailings also leach metals into the bay and are suspected to be the cause of
lead contamination found in children from villages around the bay. In 1998, the Philippine
Government declared a State of Calamity for health reasons for Calancan Bay villages
because of lead contamination. Children from the area have been undergoing detoxification
treatments in Manila. Calancan Bay villagers were never asked for their permission for the
dumping and have never been compensated for their losses. They protested the dumping
vehemently for 16 years and continue to demand that the bay be rehabilitated and that they
be compensated for their losses. Placer Dome executives met regularly with Canadian NGOs
during the 1980s over this issue but the dumping was not halted until the Tapian Mine was
depleted in 1991. Placer Dome continues to deny damage to the bay and nearby villagers as
a result of the tailings.
In 1991, an earthen dam was built in the mountainous headwaters of the Mogpog River. The
dam was supposed to keep silt, from a waste dump for the new San Antonio mine, out of
the Mogpog River. The people of the town of Mogpog vigorously opposed the building of the

dam, fearing impacts on the river they use for food, watering animals, washing themselves
and their clothes. In 1993, the dam burst, flooding downstream villages and the town of
Mogpog so severely that houses were swept away, water buffaloes and other livestock killed
and crops destroyed. According to the families, two children were swept to their deaths.
Marcopper's Resident Manager, Placer Dome's Steve Reid, denied any responsibility blaming
unusual rainfall from a typhoon. However, when the dam was rebuilt an overflow was added
for the first time, in an implicit acknowledgement of faulty engineering. Within two years the
toxic waste behind the dam was so high again that it flowed freely through the overflow into
the river as it continues to do to this day. The Mogpog River is severely affected by the toxic
waste flowing through the dam. A species of crab (called Bagtuk) that people used to eat
has completely disappeared. According to a letter of August 23, 2001, by Vancouver-based
engineering firm Klohn Crippen, "failure of the dam is a virtual certainty in the near term
under current conditions." In the letter Klohn Crippen warns that failure of the dam will
result in "significant downstream property damage" and "the potential for loss of life."
The Boac River Tailings Spill Disaster of 1996
On March 24, 1996, another massive tailings spill at the Marcopper Mine filled the 26kilometer-long Boac River on the island of Marinduque with 3-4 million tons of metal
enriched and acid generating tailings. The spill happened when a badly sealed drainage
tunnel at the base of the Tapian Pit burst. The mined out pit, high in the central mountains
of Marinduque, had been used as a storage place for tailings from the adjacent San Antonio
mine since 1992. An investigative team from the United Nations visited the island shortly
after the tailings spill and noted: "it is unclear why an environmental impact assessment of
the Tapian Pit option was never carried out; why no apparent efforts had been made to find
an alternative disposal method and sitewhy no monitoring of the portal area was being
carried out even though it was reported to the U.N. Mission that the mine tailings had been
escaping in some quantity for a considerable period of time. () The unconventional use of
the Tapian Pit as a containment system for tailings, particularly because of the presence of a
disused drainage tunnel near its bottom, should have been sufficient to ensure that risk
assessment and contingency planning were carried out. Furthermore, it is clear from crosssectional diagrams of the drainage tunnel that were reviewed at the mine site that fracture
zones and ground water seepage were likely to occur along its length." The UN team noticed
unrelated leaks in other mine structures and concluded, "it is evident that environmental
management was not a high priority for Marcopper."
In a letter dated April 11, 1996, then-CEO John Willson made a written commitment to
then-President of the Philippines, Fidel Ramos, stating, "I have authorized the following
commitments by Placer Dome: The residents of Marinduque who have suffered personal
inconvenience or damage to their property as a result of the Marcopper event will be quickly
and fairly compensated. Placer Dome recognizes its responsibility to rehabilitate all areas
impacted by the tailings flow. This program will include: 1) the rehabilitation of the river
system; 2) the remediation of off-river impacts; .6) the development and undertaking of a
program of river and ocean rehabilitation." A wholly owned subsidiary called Placer Dome
Technical Services Ltd. was set up with offices in Manila and Marinduque to manage the
clean up and compensation arrangements. In 1997, Placer Dome divested from Marcopper
through a wholly owned Cayman Island holding company called MR Holdings. Critical details
of this transaction remain secret. Placer Dome maintained that the commitments made by
CEO Willson would still be met.
Placer Dome Flees Philippines, Abandons Responsibilities and Threats to Human Life Now,
six years after the spill there are still approximately 821,380 cubic meters of tailings in the

river, half the originally spilled amount. These tailings are leaching out acid and heavy
metals. The burst tunnel that Placer Dome said it had plugged "in perpetuity" in 1996 is
leaking again. Thousands of villagers have not yet received compensation. The clean up of
the river was delayed for years because Placer Dome ignored repeated government
directives to stop seeking a permit for Submarine Tailings Disposal as a clean up option and
to find a suitable on-land disposal option. On October 8th, an August 23, 2001 letter from
Vancouver-based consulting firm Klohn Crippen was leaked to Congressman Reyes of
Marinduque. The urgent letter refers to conclusions from Klohn Crippen's June 14, 2001
report, commissioned by Placer Dome, in which Klohn Crippen warn that five dams holding
back thousands of tons of waste in the mountains on the island need immediate
remediation. The Klohn Crippen letter refers twice to potential for "loss of life" downstream
as a result of collapse of these structures and notes that collapse of a pit containing mine
waste "would threaten the safety of any mine personnel that might be in the vicinity when
the failure occurred." Three days after the leaked letter was made public, the Philippine
government ordered Placer Dome to implement the recommendation of the Klohn Crippen
report. Instead, Placer Dome pulled its personnel out of the Philippines just before
Christmas. Before leaving Placer Dome drafted new confidential agreements with the
current owners of Marcopper that make Marcopper responsible for the further clean up of
the river and compensation for villagers under contract to Placer Dome. Placer Dome says
the tailings will be returned to the same pit that Klohn Crippen has subject to imminent
collapse under the waste already there. Through another Congressional Inquiry a "redacted"
copy of the agreements Placer Dome made with Marcopper were made available. This
redacted copy omits all financial and timeline information, as well as the page with the
signatories.
ISSUES:
1) Placer Dome Consistently Ignores Best Practice, Consultants' Advice, and Government
Directives.
Calancan Bay - Surface disposal of tailings into the sea was unacceptable by "best practice"
standards by 1975. As early as 1971, Island Copper in Placer Dome's home province in
Canada and the Atlas Mine in the Philippines were using submerged marine dumping
systems. Placer's consultants, Rescan (who also advised on Island Copper), advised Placer
to use submerged disposal in Marinduque, off a deep coastal shelf in Torrijos. Placer Dome's
first permit for ocean dumping explicitly stipulated that the dumping had to be submerged
to protect marine resources. Placer attempted a submerged system in 1975 in shallow
Calancan Bay; the system failed and Placer reverted to surface disposal into the bay in
violation of its permit.
Mogpog River- The earthen siltation dam built at the top of the Mogpog River, in 1991, was
inadequate and burst with the first major typhoon in 1993. It was repaired with an overflow,
which it had previously lacked. Within a year waste was flowing through the overflow. The
dam has continued to leak acidic and metal enriched waste since 1994 and is now in danger
of collapse according to Klohn Crippen.
Boac River - No risk assessments or Environmental Impact Assessment were conducted on
the Tapian Pit before using it as an impoundment for tailings in 1992. No international
consultants were consulted for the plugging of the tunnel at the bottom of the pit. No
monitoring of the tunnel was carried out. The clean up of the river was delayed for years
because Placer Dome ignored repeated government directives to stop seeking a permit for

Submarine Tailings Disposal as a clean up option and to find a suitable on-land disposal
option.
Dams and Structures - Klohn Crippen reported to Placer Dome on June 14, 2001 that five
dams and structures were unstable and two posed an immediate threat to human life.
Placer Dome did not act on this information. On October 11, 2001 the Philippine
Government ordered Placer Dome to begin to fix the faulty dams and structures. Instead,
Placer Dome left the country.
2) Placer Dome Not Transparent, Fails to Disclose to Local Stakeholders "information
relevant to their concerns"
There is a long history in this case of information that was of critical importance to local
people, local and national government in the Philippines and to shareholders being kept
confidential. In fact, most important information that has become available has come out as
a result of legal action, Congressional Inquiries and leaks. For example, information on
Placer Dome's Cayman Island holding company, MR Holdings, came out through legal
action, information on the low level of insurance held by Marcopper came out through a
Congressional Inquiry, as did information on the agreements Placer Dome originally entered
into with Marcopper after the spill. Information about the Klohn Crippen report (June 14,
2001) was leaked before a Congressional Inquiry in 2001, as was the information that
Placer Dome has provided $13 million dollars to Marcopper to continue the clean up of the
Boac River. There is a lot of critical information that Placer Dome still refuses to supply such
as evidence of Placer's divestment from MR Holdings and the contents of the recent
agreements with Marcopper that Placer Dome signed before leaving the Philippines. A
"redacted" copy of this agreement was finally provided through a Congressional Inquiry in
2002 but this has had all relevant information removed including the signatories to the
agreement.
3) Placer Dome Insists on Marine Dumping Against the Wishes of Local Stakeholders Placer
Dome delayed the clean up of the Boac River for 6 years by insisting on dumping the tailings
in the ocean against the express wishes of the people of Marinduque and the Philippine
Government.
4) Placer Dome left the Philippines in December 2001 without fulfilling commitments made
to the Office of the President following the tailings disaster in 1996, and in disregard of a
government order of October 2001 to fix dams and structures whose collapse threatens
another ecological disaster and loss of human life in Marinduque.

Coal Mining-Related Respiratory Diseases


Coal mining-related respiratory diseases can affect the gas exchanging tissues of the lungs. These
lung tissues remove carbon dioxide and take up oxygen. The diseases can also affect the lung
passages that carry air back and forth during breathing. The passages are called airways. Depending
on what is in the coal mine dust that is inhaled and the part of the lung that is affected, coal miners
may develop several different types of respiratory diseases. For more information about each of the
following coal mining-related respiratory diseases, click on the links provided.

Pneumoconiosis
Pneumoconiosis refers to fibrotic (scarring) disease of the lung tissue caused by inhalation of
respirable-sized mineral dusts. The primary pneumoconioses seen in coal miners are coal workers
pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Asbestosis is another type of pneumoconiosis, usually seen in other work
settings.
For more information on the following lung diseases see Pneumoconioses.

Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP)


Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP), commonly called Black Lung, is type of pneumoconiosis
caused by inhaling respirable coal mine dust. Chest x-rays can show shadows in the lungs called
opacities. In severe cases, there are more opacities in a given area of the lung. The most
severe type of CWP is called progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). In PMF, the opacities come
together and become large.

Silicosis
Silicosis is a type of pneumoconiosis caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica. Quartz is a
type of crystalline silica that causes silicosis in coal miners because it is a major component of
rocks. Silicosis causes x-ray changes similar to CWP; and it is especially seen in coal miners
who are exposed to rock dust, such as roof bolters in underground mines and drillers in surface
mines.
For information on silica exposure see Silica.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)


Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive disease that increases airways
resistance. This limits the amount of air that can be moved into and out of the lungs. COPD includes
chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
For more information see COPD.

You might also like