‘The archeologists and the scientists who were studying the realities in Rosia Montana for longer than six years, ask the reconsideration of the chapters of the Report by the Presidential Commission for Built, Historical and Natural Heritage, in accordance with the genuinely scientific researches.
It is only this way that it can be reached conclusions free of emotions and compliant with the scientific rigor,’ experts say in the open letter sent to the members of the Presidential Commission for Built, Historical and Natural Heritage, and signed by the National History Museum of Romania (MNR) deputy scientific director Paul Damian.
Experts think that although Romania’s President assumed and guaranteed the Presidential Commission’s Report, and its intentions are praiseworthy, it encompasses very many limits and it was drawn up based on less scientific sources, media articles included.
According to the experts, the situation of Rosia Montana was analyzed based on a methodology that fails meeting the scientific rigor, and its authors failed asking the advice of the scientists part in the team investigating Rosia Montana, and moreover, the money shortage prevented additional experts to be sent on site, the report’s conclusions exclusively rely on secondary sources such as the media and the opposing NGOs, along with experts displaying public stances contrary to the Rosia Montana Project.
‘The document (Presidential Commission’s report – editor’s note) includes general, undocumented opinions, and it ignores the reality in Rosia Montana. The most eloquent evidence that they failed knowing the local realities is the fact the Report shows a picture of the copper quarry at Rosia Poieni as of the Rosia Montana quarry. The Report reaches merely emotional conclusions, put in ultimate words, contrasting with the scientific evidence,’ the open letter reads.
In the context the signatories ask the Presidential Commission for Built, Historical and Natural Heritage to take into account the results of their work. They also say that the recent debates, those staged by the NGOs included, infringe the audience’s right to correct information and they attempt an untransparent and undemocratic approach, which is not at all honorable, on behalf of the civil society’s organizations.
Likewise, the experts involved in the Alburnus Maior National Research Programme opine that the Rosia Montana mining project’s impact on the local ancient heritage was analyzed unilaterally, only.