I thought it was a good article and the pictures were nice. It's clearly an opinion piece as there is no real discussion of both sides of an issue, but I didn't get the impression it was supposed to be anything other than some pictures and your impressions. I wouldn't characterize it as an indictment of an entire industry the way some seem to have take it.
IMHO, anyone who would conclude you are an "environmental wacko" after reading the piece and looking at the pictures is attempting to discredit the piece rather than dispute the obvious issues it raises concerning the impact of mining on humans and their environment. And not acknowledging there are issues to consider makes it difficult to have a dialogue with such people.
I grew up camping among the open pit taconite mines of Northern Minnesota, and while the landscape has indeed been transformed, those open pits that are no longer in operation are now essentially wildlife refuges, over-grown with forest and forming new lakes harboring plenty of fish and wildlife. A net gain vs. the hill that used to be there? Perhaps not, but also not a scar on the planet these days. But those mines have been operated with a different ethic than most open pits.
You make me think it might be worthwhile to visit those areas once again to depict the way we mine for ore in Northern MN, and the effect it has on our environment. Thank you.
