PERMFILE106164 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: / Mr. Steve Shuey // Division of Minerals and Geology 101 S. 3rd Street, Room 301 4 Grand Junction, CO 81501 y_, From: Paul Peter Urone'r Patricia Urone 5872 Riddio Street Citrus Heights, CA 95610 (916) 967-1096 Subject: Canyon 1q~Ryb ~~ .,,1u2 y .B~o a~~ ~1 ~JsH X45 April 18, 2006 Received APR 1 9 2006 ~ trend Junction Field Office Divlsfon of Minerals & GeolopY _ .__% r1-,~ooS-o7/ Objection to the Benson Brothers Red Shale Quarry in Coalby Thank you for your letter of April 10d' regarding the hearings for the Benson Brothers Red Shale Pit. Because of work commitments neither my wife nor I will be able to attend but I would like to give you more input, particularly regarding the Revey report and the analyses of Gregory Lazear. First, let me tell you something about my scientific credentials. I received a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1970. I have performed basic research and published numerous papers in refereed international joumals. I have also served as a referee for two prestigious physics journals. For the past 33 years I have been a professor of physics at California State University, Sacramento, and have authored two university level physics textbooks. What strikes me about the Revey report is how unscientific it is. It is meaningless to do testing at another location without hard evidence that it is in any way similar to the site in question. The assumptions as to what might cause rock slippage are also questionable. Furthermore, the Revey report's treatment of uncertainties in both theory and experiment is sorely lacking. One thing I have learned from reviewing research publications is that poor error analysis and insufficient attention to uncertainties are sure signs of unreliable work. Another is when authors only cite themselves as references as is the case in the Revey report. At the very minimum, the Bensons should be required to have testing done on site and that the data taking and its analysis be subject to independent review. While I am not an expert in geophysics, I am able to judge the physics that Gregory Lazear has used in his analyses. He is not only correct, the physics he uses is straightforward and to the point. Finally, his work is relevant to the site in question while the Revey report is not. 1 urge you to take Greg Lazear's work very seriously.