"Dirty" or "non-dirty" REE-uranium mining by GGG, the EIA facts facts and truth behind EIA?, page-4

Should the Greenlanders trust the EIA by GGG with these figures?

Or would you trust, if it would be you farm or house downstream and under the wind?

These are materials produced by paid consultants.

These are simple facts, you can check from the EIA
https://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Hearings/2020/1812_kuannersuit/Documents/EIA%20ENG.pdf

1) there are no water figures for REEs (lanthanum, cerium, yttrium) for waters
2) there are no dust deposition figures for REEs
3) REEs are bioaccumulating ecotoxic metals requiring permitting
based on wikipedia and scientific literature available in internet

4) The difference of the uranium in dust to the deposited uranium is
390 / 0.6 = 650,
while the corresponding figures for lead are 474/479= 0.99

If the uranium figure would be in Bq/m2: 1 Bq for natural uranium is 25 micrograms and
0.6 Bq is 15 micrograms and the difference is still 26 fold. The units were
not indicated for the individual lines, and it would be unfair and misleading to
use Bq in this context.
But something you would expect from a mining environmental consultant.

It is interesting to represent the annual deposition rate figures per month.
If you read just the title you may think the deposition would be 12 times less.
Would you really trust this kind of report?