Talk:Smoking Hills

Canada: Northwest Territories / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

JSTOR Journal

Found some interesting material:

Intense, Natural Pollution Affects Arctic Tundra Vegetation at the Smoking Hills, Canada

B. Freedman; V. Zobens; T. C. Hutchinson; W. I. Gizyn

Ecology, Vol. 71, No. 2. (Apr., 1990), pp. 492-503.

JSTOR 0012-9658%28199004%2971%3A2%3C492%3AINPAAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

Abstract: Long-term, natural emissions of sulfur dioxide and acidic aerosols have had an impact on remote tundra at the Smoking Hills. The emissions have caused plant damage by SO"2 toxicity, and have severely acidified soil and freshwater. At the most intensively fumigated locations closest to the sources of emission, pollution stresses have devegetated the terrestrial ecosystem. The first plants that are encountered along a spatial gradient of decreasing pollution stress are Artemisia tilesii and Arctagrostis latifolia, which dominate a characteristic, pollution-tolerant community. Farther away at moderately polluted sites there are mixed communities with floristic elements of both fumigated and reference, unfumigated tundra. This pattern of ecosystem response to a concatenation of stresses caused by natural air and soil pollution is qualitatively similar to the damage that occurs in the vicinity of anthropogenic point sources of air pollution, such as smelters.

--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location

I'd rather put this 70°14'N, 127°10'W as location (shore). --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 12:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. I just put the other in because it was easy to see at the Atlas of Canada. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interesting...

So, is it Coal? Or oil shale? Geo Swan (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to this it's a combination of "...iron pyrite, sulfur, and bituminous shale...". Paulatuk to the east is the place of coal. Some sort of Bituminous coal. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question...

I wonder whether anyone has looked into extinguishing the fire? I wonder whether it would be practical to cover the access to the air with a layer of clay? Presumably it would take a very long time for the orebody to cool off. Geo Swan (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could. Look at the picture and the blurb under it. That bit is backed up at the CBC. It appears that it's not a fire as such but smoke as the hills erode. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]