1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    22 Aug '17 16:55
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/appalachian-coal-mining-health-study/index.html

    Pretty much screams, we don't give a shyte about miners health doesn't it.
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    6975
    24 Aug '17 15:151 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/appalachian-coal-mining-health-study/index.html

    Pretty much screams, we don't give a shyte about miners health doesn't it.
    I don't think anyone doubts there are health effects to ripping 100 mountains apart.. Toxicity is all about dosage, though, and clearly more research is needed to find out how much is too much.

    This article, for example, asserts that "mountaintop mining [is linked] to increased lung and kidney disease rates, as well as elevated death rates in surrounding communities". It's not an occupational effect, since non-miners (women) also show the same statistical trends. The death rate is significantly higher but not impressively higher (the study doesn't present a statistic, but it looks like ~990 vs. ~950 deaths per 100,000), and it is trending downwards.

    What could explain that? Lots of things. Diet and exercise, other lifestyle choices, genetics, and (yes) dirty toxic air / water. It does not appear that the levels of sulfer or selenium in the water has ever been directly linked to adverse health outcomes. It'd be nice to know how they died i.e. cause of death. It seems like one lone serial killer could impact a death rate by 40 per 100,000.

    More work is clearly needed. Why are they cutting funds? They cite "responsible use of taxpayer dollars" but they're halting a study that's already been funded for a year and only anticipates needing another year to complete. So this action actually wastes a year's worth of federal research dollars.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Aug '17 15:242 edits
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    Why are they cutting funds? They cite "responsible use of taxpayer dollars" but they're halting a study that's already been funded for a year and only anticipates needing another year to complete. So this action actually wastes a year's worth of federal research dollars.
    to me that truly stinks of evil dirty political corruption.
    Why doesn't it at all surprise me that an anti-science moron like Trump has something to do with it?
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Aug '17 20:571 edit
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    I don't think anyone doubts there are health effects to ripping 100 mountains apart.. Toxicity is all about dosage, though, and clearly more research is needed to find out how much is too much.

    This article, for example, asserts that "mountaintop mining [is linked] to increased lung and kidney disease rates, as well as elevated death rates in surroundi ...[text shortened]... her year to complete. So this action actually wastes a year's worth of federal research dollars.
    Jean Ritchie from Kentucky wrote a song called Black Waters, talking about the waters being ruined by mining:

    This was around 1970

    YouTube

    Kathy Mattea singing is also:

    YouTube
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78649
    25 Aug '17 20:49
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    I don't think anyone doubts there are health effects to ripping 100 mountains apart.. Toxicity is all about dosage, though, and clearly more research is needed to find out how much is too much.

    This article, for example, asserts that "mountaintop mining [is linked] to increased lung and kidney disease rates, as well as elevated death rates in surroundi ...[text shortened]... her year to complete. So this action actually wastes a year's worth of federal research dollars.
    "Ending the war on coal" was a big thing in the Trump campaign. In his administration's eyes scientific studies are a propaganda tool. If they support, or are likely to support, one's objectives then fund them; if not then cut them. The decision has already been made, science exists to provide justification for policy, so if they're not with the programme: cut 'em.
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    27 Aug '17 18:29
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    "Ending the war on coal" was a big thing in the Trump campaign. In his administration's eyes scientific studies are a propaganda tool. If they support, or are likely to support, one's objectives then fund them; if not then cut them. The decision has already been made, science exists to provide justification for policy, so if they're not with the programme: cut 'em.
    This has Trump learnt from Putin. A rather effective method if you don't care about facts.
Back to Top