Halt Ordered on Study of Health Threat From Surface Mines

[Rogue Valley]

Halt Ordered on Study of Health Threat From Surface Mines

---

Federal mining regulators have told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to halt their study of the health risks for people living near Central Appalachia surface coal mines.....

By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press
Aug. 21, 2017

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) — Federal mining regulators have told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to halt its study of the health risks for people living near Appalachian surface coal mines. The Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, which announced last year it was funding the $1 million study, said in an Aug. 18 letter that the department has begun reviewing grants over $100,000 largely for budget reasons. "The National Academies believes this is an important study and we stand ready to resume it as soon as the Department of the Interior review is completed," spokesman William Kearney said Monday. Two public meetings scheduled this week in Kentucky will be held, he added. Results were expected next spring. Some studies have linked living near mountaintop removal mines to greater risks of cancer, birth defects and premature death. West Virginia state officials requested the federal study in 2015. State health and environmental agencies said Monday that they weren't notified of the grant review and will keep providing information to the study if it resumes.

The task of the National Academies of Sciences committee is to identify the geological and geochemical characteristics of mining operations, the regulatory framework, relevant scientific literature and its sufficiency, and potential short- and long-term human health effects. Representatives of Coal River Mountain Watch, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition told the committee that scientists should pay close attention to the silica and fine particulates produced by blasting and digging, as well as water pollution. The West Virginia Coal Association said the state's surface mine production, based mainly in the southern region of West Virginia, has dropped from about 44 million tons (40 million metric tons) of coal in 2012 to about 14 million tons (13 million metric tons) last year.

When science bumps up against White House political policy, simply defund the science and pretend all is well.


Related: Coal Mining Health Study is Halted By Interior Department

 

[American]

Is any mining healthy? Please explain.

 

[prometeus]

Is any mining healthy? Please explain.

Seriously? On what basis do you make such a stupid comparison? Even allowing for mining to be unhealthy, it is done by choice that of the miners. How does that compare to living in an area being exposed to something over which you have no control or choice?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Interesting: US Coal production is running 14% above last year:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/

 

[JANFU]

Halt Ordered on Study of Health Threat From Surface Mines

---

Federal mining regulators have told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to halt their study of the health risks for people living near Central Appalachia surface coal mines.....



When science bumps up against White House political policy, simply defund the science and pretend all is well.


Related: Coal Mining Health Study is Halted By Interior Department

120 M tons of coal ash generated each year. From mercury to lead, arsenic and on and on
Coal mining is on the way out. NG is cheaper and cleaner, with less effects than coal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/22/coal-ash-spill/4143995/

"The jury is still out on whether we will get the protections we need to prevent this from happening again," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville, Tenn. "The final chapter hasn't been written."

To clean up the spill and restore the area, TVA has spent $1 billion and is on pace to spend $200 million more by the time the project finishes in 2015.

TVA also has spent $40 million studying the effects of leaving 500,000 cubic yards of ash in the river, where it has mixed with decades-old radioactive pollution from the Department of Energy's nearby Oak Ridge nuclear reservation. For the next 30 years, TVA is required to monitor wildlife in the area.

 

[JANFU]

Interesting: US Coal production is running 14% above last year:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/

While China is closing coal mines they buy overseas. And yes from the US, Australia and Europe.

 

[MrPeanut]

Is any mining healthy? Please explain.

Do you believe companies have the right to poison people who happen to live in the general area of their work site?

 

[Removable Mind]

Is any mining healthy? Please explain.

I don't think being a miner one of the more desirable jobs to have. But I just ran across the following and it's kind of mind blowing when you think about the categories and respective fatalities.

Logging is ranked as America's most deadly job, with 91.3 fatalities per 100,000 workers. Graphic Products has compiled this, and the nine other most deadly professions in “America’s Most Dangerous Jobs,” an eye-opening infographic detailing average fatalities per 100,000 workers and median salaries per profession. The infographic is available online, and showcases that workers aren’t always paid in proportion to the danger they face on the job.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top ten most dangerous jobs are:

Loggers– 91.3 fatalities

Fishermen – 75 fatalities

Pilots – 50.6 fatalities

Roofers – 38.7 fatalities

Sanitation Workers – 33 fatalities

Mining Machine Operators – 26.9 fatalities

Truck Drivers – 22 fatalities

Farmers – 21.8 fatalities

Power Line Workers – 21.5 fatalities

Construction Workers – 17.7 fatalities


Infographic: America?s Most Dangerous Jobs | MINING.com

And similar numbers above shows up in a Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/09/25/americas-10-deadliest-jobs/#2fc9330869f0

The most alarming number for me on the list was "PILOTS". :shock:

 

[MrPeanut]

So the damaging health impacts of surface mining on the surrounding population is going to continue to go unstudied while congress simultaneously continues to try to take the health care from most of the people who live in these areas? I guess they know that no matter what they do these people are voting red in 2018 and 2020.

 

[JamesBY]

Interesting: US Coal production is running 14% above last year:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/

Better automation, fewer workers.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think being a miner one of the more desirable jobs to have. But I just ran across the following and it's kind of mind blowing when you think about the categories and respective fatalities.



And similar numbers above shows up in a Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/09/25/americas-10-deadliest-jobs/#2fc9330869f0

The most alarming number for me on the list was "PILOTS". :shock:

Most pilots don't fly commercial passengers. The smaller the aircraft then the less apt it is to be flown by a more experienced pilot or to be checked for airworthiness.

 

[SocialD]

Interesting: US Coal production is running 14% above last year:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/

Just looked at their archive. they were doing about 22k sTons a week in 2008. last year it was about 12k a week. so coal production dropped almost in half during the previous administration.

Interestingly enough overall energy production, fossil fuel energy production went up by 12.5% in that time frame. renewable (includes nuclear) energy production went up by about 12%
But energy consumption, fossil fuel energy consumption went down about about 4% and renewable energy consumption went down by about 2%. Oddly enough we consume about 13.5% more renewable energy than we produce so renewable energy production isn't near there yet. Overall the us has become more energy efficient and is exporting a lot of the fossil fuels.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Is any mining healthy? Please explain.

Water is dangerous. If you drink too much water, it can kill you. If you submerge your head under it, water can drown you. If you spend a long time in the rain and get wet, you can get pneumonia and die. If you are holding an electrical appliance and step in water, you can die.

The study being done had but one purpose, to justify an already determined outcome. As I've shown above, we can come up with numerous reasons to determine that pretty much anything is dangerous to our health, and should be outlawed or regulated into non-existence.

That said, regulating to lessen the negative impacts of surface mining, open mining, or strip mining was done a long time ago (see video below), and the closed mines look like pristine forest or golf courses now. The study in the OP was focused on one thing, allowing the Progressives to justify killing the open mining of coal.

 

[iguanaman]

Interesting: US Coal production is running 14% above last year:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/weekly/

Because we are exporting more and using less of it.

U.S. coal exports to rise 19% in 2017 - Talk Business & Politics

 

[MrPeanut]

Water is dangerous. If you drink too much water, it can kill you. If you submerge your head under it, water can drown you. If you spend a long time in the rain and get wet, you can get pneumonia and die. If you are holding an electrical appliance and step in water, you can die.

The study being done had but one purpose, to justify an already determined outcome. As I've shown above, we can come up with numerous reasons to determine that pretty much anything is dangerous to our health, and should be outlawed or regulated into non-existence.

That said, regulating to lessen the negative impacts of surface mining, open mining, or strip mining was done a long time ago (see video below), and the closed mines look like pristine forest or golf courses now. The study in the OP was focused on one thing, allowing the Progressives to justify killing the open mining of coal.

Would you say cancer is generally more dangerous than water?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Water is dangerous. If you drink too much water, it can kill you. If you submerge your head under it, water can drown you. If you spend a long time in the rain and get wet, you can get pneumonia and die. If you are holding an electrical appliance and step in water, you can die.

The study being done had but one purpose, to justify an already determined outcome. As I've shown above, we can come up with numerous reasons to determine that pretty much anything is dangerous to our health, and should be outlawed or regulated into non-existence.

That said, regulating to lessen the negative impacts of surface mining, open mining, or strip mining was done a long time ago (see video below), and the closed mines look like pristine forest or golf courses now. The study in the OP was focused on one thing, allowing the Progressives to justify killing the open mining of coal.

Decide what we want to do first and backfill with the "reason" after is after all how we tend to roll now.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Would you say cancer is generally more dangerous than water?

That has nothing to do with my post or the obvious point of my post, that we can make an argument and perform a study to find that pretty much anything is dangerous and should be outlawed or regulated into nonexistence (especially since we can't actually outlaw cancer).

But, since you brought up this sidetrack, I'll go down it just for fun...

It depends on the person. A person floating miles from shore in the ocean, that doesn't have cancer, would probably answer your question with a yes that water is more dangerous than cancer. A person with cancer, sitting in their doctor's office taking their chemo treatments, would probably answer differently. However, if the person floating miles from shore in the ocean, also had cancer, then it's more than likely that at that particular moment in time, they may be less concerned with the cancer and more concerned with the water.

You see, my original point of it being a matter of perspective, that we can make an argument and perform a study to find that pretty much anything is dangerous and should be outlawed or regulated into nonexistence, was shown to be true by your own post.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Decide what we want to do first and backfill with the "reason" after is after all how we tend to roll now.

That's the whole foundation of the Bernie movement, as well as others.

 

[MrPeanut]

Decide what we want to do first and backfill with the "reason" after is after all how we tend to roll now.

Multiple studies show a sharp increase in cancer rates for people who live in areas close to surface mining. Mining in general has a very large history when it comes to polluting people's water sources which can lead to sickness or even death. I appreciate that so many people feel for the coal business, but I would appreciate it if concern for the people the business decides to harm or kill could get a little love too.

 

[Thoreau72]

Halt Ordered on Study of Health Threat From Surface Mines

---

Federal mining regulators have told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to halt their study of the health risks for people living near Central Appalachia surface coal mines.....



When science bumps up against White House political policy, simply defund the science and pretend all is well.


Related: Coal Mining Health Study is Halted By Interior Department

Yet another demonstration of how the Know Nothing mentality from 100 years ago thrives in the White House.

 

[Hawkeye10]

That's the whole foundation of the Bernie movement, as well as others.

This is not a partisan issue or even a class issue, this is simply how we tend to work now, but sure it is alarming that our practice of avoiding truth runs so deep at such high levels as the Bernie Movement.

You can be very sure that Great Pain is coming, because such willful ignorance does get punished.

 

[trouble13]

Do you believe companies have the right to poison people who happen to live in the general area of their work site?

People dont happen to live there. They choose to live there.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Thoreau72]

So the damaging health impacts of surface mining on the surrounding population is going to continue to go unstudied while congress simultaneously continues to try to take the health care from most of the people who live in these areas? I guess they know that no matter what they do these people are voting red in 2018 and 2020.

Yes, and The Donald who spoke out so forcefully against our involvement in Afghanistan has had some sort of Epiphany formed by _____________, and now wants to continue our involvement there. :doh

 

[Hawkeye10]

Multiple studies show a sharp increase in cancer rates for people who live in areas close to surface mining. Mining in general has a very large history when it comes to polluting people's water sources which can lead to sickness or even death. I appreciate that so many people feel for the coal business, but I would appreciate it if concern for the people the business decides to harm or kill could get a little love too.

Sure, and it is important to know these things, preferably before we do them. But see when the so-called experts can no longer be trusted because they are found too often pushing agendas rather than the truth we dont know squat.

 

[MrPeanut]

That has nothing to do with my post or the obvious point of my post, that we can make an argument and perform a study to find that pretty much anything is dangerous and should be outlawed or regulated into nonexistence (especially since we can't actually outlaw cancer).

But, since you brought up this sidetrack, I'll go down it just for fun...

It depends on the person. A person floating miles from shore in the ocean, that doesn't have cancer, would probably answer your question with a yes that water is more dangerous than cancer. A person with cancer, sitting in their doctor's office taking their chemo treatments, would probably answer differently. However, if the person floating miles from shore in the ocean, also had cancer, then it's more than likely that at that particular moment in time, they may be less concerned with the cancer and more concerned with the water.

You see, my original point of it being a matter of perspective, that we can make an argument and perform a study to find that pretty much anything is dangerous and should be outlawed or regulated into nonexistence, was shown to be true by your own post.

I don't believe businesses have a right to cause harm to people that don't even work for them. I understand your point is that people can make up a conclusion and then work towards it, but this isn't water. Black lung is caused by coal dust. That is a fact. The reason I responded is because I read your first comment as a way to try and downplay the dangerous of coal mining. I imagine when studies started coming out about the dangers of lead many people took the stance that too much water can kill you too.