20 ms·
US government halts study on health effects of coal mining
- cjslep 9y ago"But think of the freedom of speech!" In all seriousness though, the most important bit wasn't even clarified by the article: The agency says it is reviewing spending on all projects that cost more than $100,000. So is it actually true and I'm supposed to be manipulated into outrage due to cherry picking this one project? Or is it false and I'm supposed to be actually outraged at this shadowy deceitful action?
- wavefunction 9y agoI don't know, can you think for yourself and decide whether the issue is important to you or not?
- koolba 9y agoThe issue of reducing wasteful spending across the government, at all levels, is near and dear to many of us.
- parzivalm 9y agoI'm still waiting for us to actually cut wasteful spending in areas like defense. Too bad that will never happen. The Gov can just keep cutting science spending.
- rayiner 9y agoFun fact: even when you exclude defense spending, total government expenditures per capita (federal, state, and local) are $1,500 per year higher in the US than in Canada.
- KirinDave 9y agoSure, but it seems somewhat disingenous to mention this in the same topic as public health, safety , ecological and science research. The US spends more for worse outcomes on entitlements like health care, because we refuse to optimize it.
- justin66 9y agoPer capita GDP is quite a bit higher in the US, so that's not unexpected.
- tanilama 9y agoBut defense create jobs!
- crocal 9y agoThis is very true. However it also creates weapons that are sitting around waiting for justifying their existence. Unless you really need these weapons (and I absolutely recognize it can be the case), shouldn't we use the money on other pursuits that will not have this nasty side effect?
- KirinDave 9y agoAnd as such these tiny tiny cuts are a good idea? It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come. Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.
- koolba 9y agoThere's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.
- nine_k 9y agoLikely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
- KirinDave 9y ago> There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
- koolba 9y ago> Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. The weasel words in that are "almost never". If something has merit then let it stand on its merit. > Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. > Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out. > When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort. Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on. If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
- eridius 9y agoIt can be true and you can still be outraged, because that justification is probably just an excuse to can projects that the current government doesn't like.
- WalterBright 9y ago> can projects that the current government doesn't like. All administrations do that.
- eridius 9y agoMost administrations aren't so destructively anti-science as this one.
- mirimir 9y agoReagan was pretty bad.
- tstactplsignore 9y agoReally? Can you show me a legitimate scientific project that the Obama administration shut down?
- no_protocol 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
- uabstraction 9y agoMaybe we didn't have the cash sitting around to build up the ISS in the immediate aftermath of the worst financial crisis since the great depression.
- WalterBright 9y agoAs I recall, one couldn't (and still can't) get funding for research into medicinal uses of drugs like marijuana and heroin. Politics always drives what gets government research funding and what doesn't. Politics defines what is "legitimate" and what isn't, and those shift over time.
- rgbrenner 9y agoThere's no reason to disbelieve that statement. Trump has said he wants to expand coal production, and that climate change is a hoax. Just take him at his word. He doesn't need a study telling him coal is unhealthy.. he already has a plan, and he doesn't care what this study says. Therefore it is 100% a waste (to him). It's not shadowy or deceitful.. he has been right up front with everyone on his anti-science, anti-climate change, and pro-coal agenda.
- nthcolumn 9y agoSo glad POTUS did this. It is a huge waste of money to find out what the general public already know. The health effects are very, very bad! The worst!
- amag 9y agoWhat are they afraid of? It's too dark down in a coal mine to read any health studies anyway!
- Powerofmene 9y agoThe article is about surface mining and its effects on the local surrounding communities not about underground mining.
- amag 9y agoAh, it was hard to read because of all the soot in my eyes.
- dtf 9y agoLysenkoism proved fruitful many unpopular subjects.
- godzillabrennus 9y agoDo they really need to conduct a study to determine that spewing black smoke into the air hurts human beings? The Coal lobby must love Trump. Glad millennials won't work for Coal or Oil.
- wahern 9y agoI don't have an opinion on whether the government should complete the study, but one reason for doing so is that such government agency studies are admissible in court to prove facts. The rules of evidence are complex, but long story short such government investigative studies can be extremely valuable for both plaintiffs and defendants by making it easier and cheaper to meet evidentiary burdens of production and persuasion. If an administration believes a study's findings would be detrimental to a group it wishes to protect, it might choose to terminate the study before it gets published. Here's a brief legal article on the subject: https://www.pbwt.com/content/uploads/2015/07/Admission-of-Government-Agency-Reports.pdf https://www.pbwt.com/content/uploads/2015/07/Admission-of-Go...
- r00fus 9y agoSome millennials certainly will work in the petroleum business. They get paid good money in the extraction industry and are willing to train you & keep you certified. That it's destroying the environment - well I'm sure the folks so employed will be as happy for their jobs as the ones on hedge funds front-running the entire market or those in big pharma who research and market the next addictive pain-killer.
- stevenwoo 9y agoYou're probably premature on the oil bit, the latest oil boom is over but it was a good run for high paying, manual labor without any education requirements. Coal jobs had the double whammy of cheaper energy sources for power reducing demand and replacement of mining veins to mechanized mountaintop removal reducing need for manual labor. Oil demand will probably come back for the same jobs - until they can mechanize oil/natural gas drilling like mountaintop coal removal.
- deleted 9y ago
- vondur 9y agoI assumed it was widely known that coal mining was hazardous to ones health. My grandfather died from black lung before I was born.
- tzs 9y agoThis study is on the health risks of surface coal mining (also known as mountaintop removal) on the surrounding communities, not on the miners. As the article notes there is some evidence of unusually high lung cancer and birth defect rates in communities near such mines.
- novia 9y agoI was eating dinner with two doctors about a month ago, and they were discussing this. They said it was difficult to prove that coal mining causes things like lung cancer in the miners themselves because it is just about impossible to find a coal miner who doesn't smoke.
- eat_veggies 9y agoWould they get cancer sooner or have different effects than non-miner smokers?
- KekDemaga 9y agoI think the sample sizes might get out of hand as you'd need a good deal of miner and control subjects to filter out the noise.
- sliverstorm 9y agoSo what you're saying is coal mining causes smoking.
- mirimir 9y agoCorrelation <> causation.
- gerdesj 9y agoThe world will not come to an end yet but this is not a good way to ensure its ensuing survival.
- unlmtd1 9y agoThey cut the research. So what? People are free to end their own robbery (paying taxes) to fund the research themselves. The taxes of five working people can finance a PhD.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoShameful appeasement of Business interests against legit health concerns for coal workers and communities nearby. All part of the "Keep em ignorant" brigade within the GOP. Everyone does indeed know coal is bad, but how bad, or any other effect on public health, from new methods of extraction etc will now remain hidden in darkness.
- bithive123 9y agoThe information age is built on gathering raw data and doing pure research, neither of which are profitable activities. The implied threshold for wastefulness here is offensively low; basically any project that might require one moderately competent PhD researcher for a year.
- Fomite 9y agoEven assuming that the 100K doesn't include indirect costs, and is only for one-year (and I'm not convinced either one of those assumptions is correct)...yeah, that's basically "All projects"
- PixelB 9y agoYou hit the nail on the head, pure research is not a profitable activity. This is why we can't trust companies and corporations to research.. their motives are almost always profit driven. This only underlines the importance of government funded research, and the need to have a government in place who is willing to put the advancement of our society over their own personal gain (We don't have that right now..).
- bmmayer1 9y agoYou're forgetting about the $1.9 trillion nonprofit sector, of which 15% is spent on health research, 12% on public + social benefit...[1] That seems to bely the need for a government that can fund research that 'puts the advancement of our society over their own personal gain.' [1]https://philanthropynewyork.org/sites/default/files/resources/The%20Nonprofit%20Sector%20in%20the%20United%20States%20Size%20and%20Scope.PDF https://philanthropynewyork.org/sites/default/files/resource...
- chillwaves 9y agoNon-profit does not mean the system is working outside of capitalism or people are not making money.
- 9y ago
- jjawssd 9y agoTitle is misleading. All projects that cost more than $100,000 are being reviewed.
- unlmtd1 9y agoJust bring back the rule of law. Tort law would mean that coal burning would be sued to extinction. Accepting the death of all tomorrow so that some may survive today is absurd. The church of pseudo-finance tells us that burning our forests down and poisoning all our rivers is 'growth'. Any child would laugh this away as insanity.
- nroach 9y agoThe study's budget was only $1m. Seems like the readership of HN could easily pull that money together and donate the funding, if the researchers could accept it.
- kodfodrasz 9y agoI'd be surprised if this "community" could gather money for anything remotely useful. Also: I'd like to see the outcome of a fundraising, and the demographics of the donators, to see how many pledge outside of CA, and outside of the USA. This would give me an impression about the extent of the Trump is Satan and the world is about to end mindset. (imho nothing changes, things proceed with trump as before. business as usual) Just to make it clear: I'd not give a single penny for it, I care for the health of US citizens only as much as they care for the health of citizens of other countries.
- icebraining 9y agoYou're not thinking strategically. The US is one of the biggest emitters of CO2, and coal plants are about 1/3 of that. If the study can convince the population to reduce their use, even if with a different argument, that's helpful for the whole planet.
- kodfodrasz 9y agoAnd what different argument? By giving them away money for free in addition to the amounts they ransack from the rest of the world already? (just think about 1$ = 1€ as an example)
- icebraining 9y agoIf the investment worked, sure. Cutting off the nose to spite the face is silly.
- trapperkeeper74 9y agoJames Cromwell was arrested for protesting a dirty and unnecessary coal power plant in NY, but I don't think it made a difference. I think academic research that's newsworthy has much more and different punch than direct action. Using the existing broadcasting platforms scales more that all the screaming and picketing in Times Square, grandmas with prayer stick beaten down, dogs dripping with human blood or girls arms blown off when the news isn't watching.
- kl2 9y agoThese studies are often started with political goals in mind -- the article confirm this when it highlights "the political nature of the topic". Maybe the money is better spent on a study on the health effects of lithium extraction?
- brownbat 9y agoOutside/In interviewed some miners and families recently. It's phenomenal radio, actually talking to the people everyone else just talks about. I haven't been able to get it out of my mind. http://outsideinradio.org/shows/ep34 http://outsideinradio.org/shows/ep34 Note, I know this isn't 1:1, not about the communities surrounding mountaintop removal, but there are some good notes in it about modern changes to mining techniques all the same.
- JudasGoat 9y agoThat really puts a face on greed's victims. Thank you.
- ap46 9y agoYou don't need anymore research to know it is obviously dangerous. What we do need is leadership that doesn't bow down to cronies & supports stupid beliefs.
- mud_dauber 9y agoI lost an uncle to black lung. Coal mining as an industry needs to die. And I grew up in WV.
- nemacol 9y agoHello from WV. (Northern panhandle here) Most of my family were steel mill folks but before the mills took off they were miners. Coal and mining (in general) are hell on the body.
- mud_dauber 9y agoAbsolutely correct. Thanks for writing - I'm ready to travel back there for real weather.
- surge 9y agoI grew up in a county with two coal burning power plants in it. The air quality and asthma rates and improvement in my asthma when I moved away alone were enough for me, my wife had horrible asthma until she moved outside a 10 mile radius of one. I don't need a study to tell me they're not good for air quality.
- alehul 9y ago> The agency says it is reviewing spending on all projects that cost more than $100,000. Title of this article is somewhat misleading; it's actually even more serious, apparently.