The Kuannersuit project, held by Greenland Minerals, is a special case,, page-26

Your argument
You continue to state facts associated with more extreme levels when introduced to an environment rather than whats simply already naturally present in a washed out 40m of topsoil which you first suggested was much deeper.

Answer
With SOIL or dirt I refer to the loose ground above the bedrock. The contamination in dept of several meters in the soil are likely less relevant for the nature above, with a potential exception of natural wells if releasing deeper ground waters.
The bedrock figures with JORC data would be more relevant when you start mining spreading this to the surface as fresh broken stone surfaces of waste rock and dust.

I agree that the topsoil should have studied, and I'm interested in reports about that, if you have any of them among those you have read several times

Do you have any relevant reference that the topsoil from very surface to 1-3 meter depth would heavily contaminated?

Your argument
You talk of bioaccumulation absent any reference to worksite employees with far more exposure then someone 6km away. Did you forget them too?

Answer
The bioaccumulation from food chain would affect workers, farmers, fishermen and hunter with various distances from any place close to the mine where you are allowed or dare to get your food to 10 km or even further away in the sea. The food chain accumulation would mean for some substances 1000- to million fold or even higher increase in concentration of harmful substances e.g from water to a food like a seal or polar bear liver.

I would like to give you credit for the worker argument, though it does not remove the different argument above.
I do agree with you, that the direct contamination of the workers eg. by inhaled dust by heavy metals, radioactive elements, REEs, arsene, manganese and heavy metals, may be also fluoride, would possibly be a problem, if workers are not required to use high grade respirators and protective clothing etc.

This could a part, which would be needed to be improved in the EIA?

Your argument
If you cant justify the simple requests Ive asked from you then clearly theres nothing for them or I or the authorities to worry about.Until then Ill accept their knowledge, technical expertise and satisfaction from some of the best in the world over yours and thats a logical assumption for almost anyone to do if you have no credentials to be seen as comparable in knowledge..Feel free to reply to my other points in the other thread I have raised several times now absent reply.

Answer
I have done my best to answer. Just point the matter I possibly forgot and I'm happy to answer.
You are very much behind delivering most of the details I asked.
I remind you (and any bella friends) about the challenge, that if you can provide the data against my specific arguments from the background document of the EIA,
which you claimed to have been read several times,
I will vanish.

I do understand the interest in my credentials. I'm PhD in a relevant field with regard to ecology and chemistry. If you want to know my identity, it would be Ok, but I currently would require the identities of you, Bella and 3 top supporters of GGG, I would name. I think that would very useful for everyone. Then we would need the process to verify the identities.