Waste dump erosional landform stability – a critical issue for mountain mining

Mining is the largest producer of solid wastes which, when released to land or into waterways, can cause harmful environmental impacts. This is mostly due to fluvial erosion, which is highly increased in mountain areas, due to abrupt slopes. We have analysed this situation at a mountain watershed (192 ha), where steep mined sites and their waste dumps are the main source of sediment in a Natural Park. This problem was tackled by building gabion check dams downstream from the mined sites. We used the DEM of Differences (DoD) method to quantify erosion and sediment yield from three waste dumps (5 ha). Their topography and substrate properties were analysed to understand the erosion problem. The sediment trapped by the check dams was quantified by Electrical Resistivity Tomography. The rainfall characteristics triggering an episode that filled the check dams with sediment in the winter of 2009-2010, were studied to confirm whether it was a case of extreme precipitation conditions. The waste dumps sediment yield (353 ± 95 Mg ha-1 yr-1) suggests severe landform instability. Analysis of topographic and substrate properties confirmed long, steep slopes combined with highly erodible materials. The check dams proved to be inefficient in controlling sediment loads, as they had only functioned for four years of 31 of existence, having trapped 13000 ± 660 m3 of sediment, whereas we estimated that the waste dumps have yielded approximately three times more sediment for the same period. Rainfall analyses showed that neither intense nor extreme conditions (return period of 25-35 years) triggered the mobilization of 37 ± 2 Mg ha-1 in a month. This study highlights the fact that mining operations in similar mountainous settings, with equivalent waste dump construction and reclamation practices, are currently unfeasible. We conclude that landform stability cannot be achieved at this site without landform changes

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT