LeCain’s argument with the three types of techno-fixes are easy to follow and all involve the fact that even if we “fix” the problem we haven’t totally stopped the pollution of metal or sulfur or arsenic. LeCain also states that humans find a way to get rid of the toxic materials but they all still find a way back into harming the environment. After scientists created a “seemingly perfect techno-fix” (LeCain 140), (I like the way he uses seemingly because nothing is perfectly fixed for obvious reasons) by making the sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid and making it into a fertilizer farmers started to over fertilize there crops which runs off into rivers, ponds, and lakes which then can create an algae that kills all other wildlife which can be considered toxic. The next techno-fix still doesn’t completely fix the problem because there is still about 25 Tons of arsenic per day (LeCain 146) being put into the atmosphere and can still potentially cause harm to people and the environment. And when this arsenic that is captured and used as a pesticide or to treat mine’s support wood, the over use of pesticide on the cotton crops causes harm to the environment due to runoff, and when the wood was treated and the mines were eventually allowed to flood again all that toxic metal came right back into the environment.
Mining produces waste in many ways and we know that but it is a necessary evil sad to say, we will always need copper and other precious metals to continue life as we know it to progress on in both scientific advancements’ ways and basic ways such as plumbing or wiring. I think that LeCain’s arguments are completely valid and I agree with them that fixing the problem never fixes it fully, but I feel like we will continue to do mining in a way that is harmful because that’s the only way to do it effectively.