Talk:Tar Creek Superfund site

Who is legally responsible?

At no point does this article say who is legally responsible (i.e., who has to clean up) for the Tar Creek site. I came to this article from the main ASARCO article, which says the site is ASARCO's responsibility. Is that true? Are other companies/entities also legally responsible? TCSaint (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)~

This information should be public. Normally under US law the last company to operate there and own the mines would be liable. However, this often goes to court see the official superfund site site for more information

References

Contradictory Sections

At one point the article states that oxidized heavy metals are more reactive but the passive treatment system implemented is then described as detoxifying by oxidation. Does the oxidation make metals more or less mobile in aqueous systems? 108.235.100.173 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In the ground state, or uncharged, metals are not mobile. When oxidized (as by an acid for example) metals like iron can form 2+ or 3+ charges and become mobile in aqueous solvents (water containing ). In the ground state, metals are largely unreactive but once oxidized they are positively charged. Nature wants to balance, so they will react with something in order to balance the positive charge to zero. This is kind of the basis for all of chemistry, for any element.

For example, Iron has the symbol Fe, but when oxidized can form Fe 2+ or Fe 3+. Rust (AKA the mineral hematite) has the formula Fe203, 2 irons and 3 oxygens. Magnetite has the formula Fe3O4. Oxygen always has a -2 charge except in special circumstances, and therefore if you have 3 oxygens you have a total -6 charge, and for 4 oxygens you have a -8 charge. Therefore, for magnetite you have 2-3+ irons, and 1-2+ iron totalling +8 charge, which is a typical natural form of iron. Rust or hematite has been oxidized, so to balance the 3 oxygens which have a -6 charge, you have 2 irons, each having a +3 charge. You have lost 1 iron (probably bonded with another oxygen to form another Fe2O3 molecule) and now both irons are +3, one has oxidized from +2 to +3.

Rust is soft, and quite brittle. A new nail from the store is quite strong, you can hammer wood together and build with them. But a nail that has rusted through will break off, or even crumble in your hands if the rust is all the way through, because the iron has oxidized. Likewise when you change the oxidation state of an element and form new compounds (magnetite and hematite are examples of compounds) the properties change. Oxidized iron or other metals that are not bonded are dissolved in solution, such as water, and floating about freely and will react with something with negative charge if they find it. No matter how insoluble a metal is, there is always a little bit in solution, sometimes very tiny amounts that are nearly undetectable.

Each heavy metal: Cadmium, lead, Iron, and so on have oxidation states and various solubilities in water. Lead is not very soluble in water, but a very small amount will dissolve. This is why lead pipes are no longer used, because a very small amount of lead will dissolve, and if you drink water every day for years, you will get very small doses of lead in your body, which is harmful or even toxic as it is cumulative. Nerve and brain damage are possible, as well as other medical conditions associated with lead poisoning. It does not take a lot, but small regular doses are just as deadly. Arsenic is another example and is also found in parts of Oklahoma. Arsenic is lethal in tiny doses, and is slightly soluble in water, but enough to be deadly even in small amounts.

cadmium, copper, zinc are soluble in water even if in very small amounts. It is incorrect to say "soluble" or "insoluble" the field of chemistry is full of math to calculate "how soluble" elements are in different solvents, including water. A semester or two of college level chemistry would explain the basics of this much more thoroughly than I just did. I'm not going to put a reference, this is typical material for any general chemistry textbooks for freshman coursework. I did add more examples however.

130.238.181.237 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)JWO 27/01/2021

Chat piles

From 1900 to the 1960s lead mining and zinc mining companies left behind huge open chat piles that were heavily contaminated by these metals, cadmium, and others. Metals from the mining waste leached into the soil, and seeped into groundwater, ponds, and lakes.

That may sort of be true, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the existing documentation. Is the chat heavily contaminated? Are contaminants from the chat leaching into the groundwater? The superfund documentation, and the rest of the wikipedia page, indicate that groundwater contamination became an issue when the underground mines filled with water and overflowed, and also that fine tailings from dried-out ponds became a dust hazard. The superfund documentation also indicates that some of the chat has been sold -- not likely if it's "heavily contaminated". I also seem to see that re-burying has been largely fine tailings, not chat.

Perhaps the chat piles are just the most visible evidence of mining, and require environmental remediation because the gravel is largely sterile, not because it's the contamination problem? 124.187.219.128 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)