Syvtommersøm "Seven-Inch Nails" and Rational Investor?, page-166

You are apparently referring to amount of REEs in the bedrock within 40 meters jorc lode.You say that it contain less REEs.
Wrong. You said it was deep in the bedrock. I explained the bedrock is in the topsoil whhich is in the top 40m. You said it was at 40m. Now you seem to offer thoughts aligned with mine. Sorted

when the dust would to be released from the mine operation, then it would be a problem.
But you cant prove this is the case to any professional degree or with any proof beyond the professionals its not right?

Your argument:"If you dont know the particle sizes and weights Id suggest you look at any periodic table. I thought you said you had a chemical background?"-If they were to be looked from a periodic table, then REEs would be lighter than uranium and thorium.
Well radioactive decay isnt and neither is organic material to which is in the dust to which I refer. I assumed youd work that out but maybe I sshould have assisted you with more specifics.
Remember even GBB told you it wasnt a problem. GBB would you care to add why?


However in the mine metals are not present as individual elements, but as chemical compounds called minerals.
You they atomically combine regardless to offer a molecule even heavier still right?

Rocks and dust particles are solid materials where mineral are bound to each other.
Making it heavier as detailed. You appear to agree with me here too.

Apparently your chemistry might need some refreshing from elementary school books.
Well you can try correct the above but so far you have agreed with what I have offered. Just you state the combined molecule wont be heavier which is of course incorrect.

You and your friends desperately want me to disappearand you have read following several times yourself
haha where on earth has anyone said that? I welcome your input. Dont take to heart its correction.

from detailed published background reports of EIA:a) the fallout dust and water contents of REEs with their biological activities based on the published reference,you should also point the report proving scientifically that "bioavailablity of REEs is clearly low"
According to who exactly? The EPA who are happy with the results and passed it or you?

(there is actually one report, which indicates that REE content is high in the waste waters flowing from the pit, which means that biologic acitivity should be studied)
According to who exactly? The EPA who are happy with the results and passed it or you?

b) the biological enrichment of polonium-210 compared to lead-210 in fish and animals, especially in their livers and kidneys
According to who exactly? The EPA who are happy with the results and passed it or you?

c) a scientifically substantiated reason why the material is not presented in the actual EIA- Just prove that you are right, and point the EIA background reports number where the detailed data of
Are you asking me to do the homework to find what you have missed?

a)-c) is, andyour mission would be accomplished, I would be so embarrassed, that I have to leave this company discussion for at least a year.
Why would you do that?

If you would get it all, I'll vanish forever.
Do you keep your word?

And it would be "Very odd", if could not do that, after reading the documents yourself several times. I will indeed accept the information from any of your friends hating me here,
Relax. This forum is about discussion and accuracy. Dont go into this everybody hates me biz. It just sounds sensitive.

so start reading and educate yourselves. It is important for an investor to know how good the EIA is,
And the EPA and Danish Authorities, Greenlandic Authorities, Legislative requirements, IAEA, best analysts around the globe and of cause GGG. Which I believe you may be suggesting have all done their job inadequately according to you?

and what chances GoG has to disqualify it.https://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Hearings/2020/1812_kuannersuit/Documents/EIA%20ENG.pdfhttps://ggg.app.box.com/s/gd6asiwu181v9lned9pmqi4wk8bc8hkrYou are quite selective what you accept from GBB, a competing REE miner(?). You won´t trust any word he says, but when he considers not REEs but fluorine as the bigger problem, you accept it but not for fluorine. That is cherry picking.
Not is both arent an issue. Correct?

I would say that all REE miners should study REEs as an environmental and potential health problem.
That would be your opinion of course. I understand your thoughts. ut unfortunately I dont believe the authorities have seen it as a problem to accept the EIA and I still havent heard of what qualifications youd have to overirde that.

And like GBB, whom you very selectively trust,
Very

I do consider fluoride in dust fallout as a problem, which has not been properly studied in the EIAWhy are you concerned about things the authorities arent anyway?
Because the authorities are there to ensure the safety of the populous and ensure GGG is following the best avaialable international practices.
More the question is why you cant trust they can do that job.
!

-because there are lots of literature of ecologic and health problems. For REEs just check the wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_elementor for more scientific references pubmed:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
REE extraction in a country absent international best practices and excessive illegal mining is not much of a comparison to the highest quality and technical expertise and technology harnessed by GGG
You know that too