7 ms·

West Virginia Officials Warn Not to Use Water Following Chemical Leak [video]

78 points by jotm 13y ago

lspears 13y ago
I'm from Charleston WV and live a couple miles from where the spill took place. People stormed stores for bottled water and some even resorted to stealing to avoid getting the rationed amount. About 1/6 of the state's population doesn't have access to drinking water and many don't have the money to "take a vacation" and leave the region. Businesses can't operatorate and the economic repercussions will devistate the region. The question everyone has is how long will it last? The chemical is dispersed in the water pipes spanning 8 counties and there is no easy way to get it out. We have been angered about the lack of national attention this has received and it makes us feel like no one cares about our state.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Any action from FEMA or any govt agency? I would hope they would be bringing in and rationing drinking water. This looks like a major disaster from what I understand, and the situation has the potential to deteriorate rather quickly.
  - vonzeppelin 13y ago
    "FEMA said Friday that 75 trucks -- each carrying 18,500 liters of water -- were expected to begin arriving in Charleston by early evening."
  - mhurron 13y ago
    > FEMA Don't forget, thanks to state rights, they have to be invited in.
    - angersock 13y ago
      And this is bad why exactly?
      - rdtsc 13y ago
        I could be bad if the state doesn't really have the best interest of its people as the top item on their agenda. I would think that would be pretty obvious...
        angersock 13y ago
        And what makes you think that that is the top item in the agenda of the federal government?
        rdtsc 13y ago
        Did I say it is? I said it could be. And given the influence of mining companies in the region, I say there is a high probability that is the case.
        ewoodrich 13y ago
        FEMA tends to respond in varying degrees to most disasters, following a suitable declaration of a state of emergency. It's a federal agency, with a very specific role, so not being the "top item" for the federal government is just a weak rhetorical argument.
      - mhurron 13y ago
        Well for one, I could have sworn these were United States and one country. State rights makes it so they don't operate that way and the Federal Government of the people, by the people and for the people can't help the people without a request from another source in the same way they would offer aid to a foreign nation. This of course never leads to governments using this to play politics to be able to blame the Federal Government to make themselves look better, or the Federal Government look bad. No that would never happen.
        angersock 13y ago
        Do tell, how much does the average person in Austin, Texas have in common with somebody in Salt Lake City, Utah? How much do those people have in common with the average person in Oakland? States rights make it so that each state can dictate policy best suited and tuned for its own population--and so that it can be held more directly responsible by its populace.
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      Interesting. That is kind of dangerous. In a way corrupt politicians who are in bed with mining companies will probably try to delay or minimize exposure as much as possible and only act until it is too late. By that point a lot more people would be exposed to these chemicals. I also understand people mostly accept and support mining, as it is seen as the only real economic driver in the state. This might change that perspective, depending on how it is handled.
      - jotm 13y ago
        Fortunately, in this case they acted quickly, FEMA's already shipping water, and they're mobilizing the National Guard...
  - mud_dauber 13y ago
    A gov't agency, which I'm not sure, ordered the plant operator to cease operations earlier today.
- utefan001 13y ago
  The media is a bit obsessed with the Governor of New Jersey right now. I did hear about the spill this AM on the car radio. I live in Washington DC. How far is the nearest "water distribution center" from you?
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, because this is truly an unpleasant, if not dangerous, situation, but don't more people keep a supply of water somewhere in their home? I don't really consider myself THAT well-prepared a survivalist, but I've got about 40 gallons of drinking water stored up. I would highly recommend that everybody do the same. Drinking water is vital, and so many things can interrupt your supply that you really need to look into storing several days worth. Again - I don't mean to sound unsympathetic - I wish everyone in your area a speedy resolution to this situation.
  - gkop 13y ago
    Perhaps you live in a region with a characteristic natural disaster threat, or maybe you live in an urban area (or at least, you do not draw your water from a private or local-community well). WV is a low-risk area for various natural disasters [1] . And it is relatively rural and gets good rainfall - folks aren't generally depending on giant city-wide water infrastructure or imported water, but rather on smaller, distributed water supplies that are individually perceived to be rather dependable. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01safe.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/0...
  - lspears 13y ago
    Drinking water isn't the only consideration. People can't take showers, cook with water, or even wash their hands. It wouldn't be a problem if it was one day, but if it goes on it will make living in the area terrible. The real issue is they don't know how long the region will be effected.
    - mrtron 13y ago
      In the short term, drinking water is 100 times more important than the other items. Long term I don't know how they are going to deal with something of this magnitude.
  - silencio 13y ago
    Even FEMA doesn't recommend you store that much water - they were recommending one gallon per person per day for three days before considering anything else (climate, type of emergency, children/pets/elderly/sick people). Plus you have to make sure that it hasn't expired or gone bad... 40 gallons is a lot more than people will consider storing. Hell, I don't even have space for 40 gallons of water anywhere. I barely have any room for a 3 day stash of food/water and a first aid kit. Plus maybe some of these people do have a good amount of drinking water stored up for an emergency, but there is no ETA on cleanup yet so they have to prepare for the worst. Even 40 gallons isn't enough if this goes on for a week for a family. Also as a co-owner of a small fast food restaurant (in northern california), I can't use stored water for anything related to running the business. 40 gallons is a literal drop in the bucket in one day of use too, let alone however many days it will take to clean up the spill. That's a lot of businesses closed right there because they literally can't do anything to prevent that from happening. That alone, even before considering individual water needs, is a big deal.
- smclaughlin 13y ago
  Another Charleston native here, I think you're spot on. 300,000+ people are without water, yet the media's focus is still on the drama surrounding Chris Christie's traffic jam.
- mynameishere 13y ago
  If this goes on for more than a few weeks, it's going to put every single restaurant out of business. And god knows what else.
- mud_dauber 13y ago
  I'm also from Charleston and spent two summers painting the very tanks that are the source of this mess. The plant previously belonged to Pennzoil and was ancient when I was there as a HS student in the 70s. The place, IMO, was a leak waiting to happen just out of sheer age.
incision 13y ago
This is all over the local news here. Coincidentally, I was just listening to some talk about alternative energy [0] with some interesting arguments for solar and hydro power over coal. Makes me wonder if we've become inured to the environmental cost/risk of coal power and processing? Also, coal is big part of the WV economy [1]. So this would seem to have the potential for an extended impact. First with the water problems. Second in any backlash that arises against the industry in response to the spill. 0: http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal
- mikeash 13y ago
  We've been inured to the environmental cost of coal since roughly forever. Coal is horrendous, but it's cheap and plentiful and heavily used so everybody just kind of averts their eyes. I imagine you're familiar with the recommendation that children and pregnant women should limit their fish intake, due to mercury present in seafood. The largest part of that mercury comes from emissions from burning coal. Similarly, there is much more worry about the safety of nuclear power than coal power. But guess which one emits more radioactivity into the environment? You guessed it: coal. I believe this is true even if you account for nuclear accidents, although I admit that I'm going by memory on this one. Coal accounts for something like a million deaths a year worldwide. That's a significant chunk of overall human mortality. Coal kills more people each year than nukes have ever killed, even if you count the atomic bombs.
- jotm 13y ago
  I didn't even know that coal needs to be treated with dangerous chemicals - add that to the list of problems with coal power...
  - code_duck 13y ago
    Coal processing also involves leaving giant reservoirs of fly ash, which can lead to incidents such as this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 Not to mention mountain top removal mining, or any other destructive practices considered A-OK in the industry.
ck2 13y ago
If boiling and filtering is impossible to clean, well that means their water table is screwed for decades, no? Pretty much abandon the area or risk cancer. "Freedom Industries" indeed.
- danielharan 13y ago
  That was my first thought too. According to http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1uunyw/4methylcyclohexane_methanol/ http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1uunyw/4methylcyc... however: "The material is lighter than water, so it's going to float on top."
  - medium 13y ago
    It's water soluble- this chemical cannot simple be skimmed from the surface like an oil.
    - sghodas 13y ago
      Actually, it's not very water soluble at all. It's a large cyclohexane that's relatively non-polar (the first comment in that reddit link agrees). Approximately 5000 gallons of the chemical spilled into the river, so there likely isn't very much of the chemical mixed in with the water. Most likely not enough to seriously harm anyone.
      - medium 13y ago
        It's not insoluble, it is up to 3% soluble. "Most likely not enough to harm anyone." For some reason the state has declared it a federal disaster? check out this green ice- look, it's not soluble! Fine to drink! http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg
        sghodas 13y ago
        Its solubility maxes out at 3%. ~5000 gallons in a river is hardly enough to get to those levels. The news is reporting that the concentration is about 3ppm. 3ppm of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol is about 0.021g of the chemical in 1L of water. The lowest LD50 for ingesting the chemical I've found is 800mg/kg. This means you'd have to drink 3086L of water for it to be lethal. The LD50 for skin contact is at least double the ingestion LD50. That being said, I'm not going to take the risk, and I've only used water out of water bottles since this started.
saneshark 13y ago
This is so Fukushima'd up!
city41 13y ago
I lived in WV for a while. A friend of mine who still lives there posted this on her Facebook feed: green ice from the water -- http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Arjuna 13y ago
I grew up in WV. My parents are still there. Montani Semper Liberi I wanted to provide some information about the chemical that was spilled, which is being reported to be 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol. You may see it referred to in its shortened form as MCHM. This chemical is used in a purification process called froth flotation. [1] In the case of WV, it is used in coal purification. OSHA guidelines list this chemical as hazardous. It is harmful if swallowed, and causes skin and eye irritation. At elevated temperatures, vapor may cause irritation of eyes and respiratory tract. [2] If you are familiar with the so-called fire diamond or NFPA 704 [3][4], this chemical is listed as: Instability/Reactivity (Yellow) 0: Materials which in themselves are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and which are not reactive with water. Flammability (Red) 1: Materials that must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Health (Blue) 2: Materials which on intense or continued exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury unless prompt medical treatment is given. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froth_flotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froth_flotation [2] http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvpn/files/201401/MSDS-MCHM_I140109214955.pdf http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvpn/files/201401/MSD... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+704+fire+diamond&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+704+fire+diamond&tbm=is... [4] http://www.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/dnscms/pdf/broc/hazmat12.pdf http://www.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/dnscms/pdf/broc/h...
rayiner 13y ago
An environmental disaster like this is tragic, but in a way it's better when it happens in a publicly visible way like this instead of silently poisoning thousands of people over many years. Events like this are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the externalized costs of coal. A Harvard study estimated that coal mining and use inflicts a public health burden to the Appalachian region of roughly $75 billion per year: http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_ful... (page 91). That's more than the entire GDP of West Virginia.
dbbolton 13y ago
Native West Virginian here. We have kind of a strange situation in that we are rather right-leaning politically and so many people are employed by coal and energy companies that anything that comes across as "environmentalist" is met with hostility by the general public, even though we are too often the victims of horrendous incidents such as this, as well as highly questionable business practices like fracking, mountain top removal, etc. Just Massey Energy's track record alone is pretty disturbing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Environmental_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Environmental_re... And in recent memory, the Chesapeake incidents: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/82EF516757FCD5DD85257C4600814C2B http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/82EF516757FCD5DD8... I think a lot of people have essentially accepted things the way they are now and aren't willing to rock the boat. There are a handful of documentaries that come to mind- namely The Last Mountain, Coal Country, and Coal Rush- that are pretty difficult to watch, but I think if more people in our area saw the effects of our beloved industry they might see things differently. However, I think most end up turning a blind eye to it out of fear of unemployment.

78 points by jotm 13y ago

I'm from Charleston WV and live a couple miles from where the spill took place. People stormed stores for bottled water and some even resorted to stealing to avoid getting the rationed amount. About 1/6 of the state's population doesn't have access to drinking water and many don't have the money to "take a vacation" and leave the region. Businesses can't operatorate and the economic repercussions will devistate the region. The question everyone has is how long will it last? The chemical is dispersed in the water pipes spanning 8 counties and there is no easy way to get it out. We have been angered about the lack of national attention this has received and it makes us feel like no one cares about our state.

rdtsc 13y ago
Any action from FEMA or any govt agency? I would hope they would be bringing in and rationing drinking water. This looks like a major disaster from what I understand, and the situation has the potential to deteriorate rather quickly.
- vonzeppelin 13y ago
  "FEMA said Friday that 75 trucks -- each carrying 18,500 liters of water -- were expected to begin arriving in Charleston by early evening."
- mhurron 13y ago
  > FEMA Don't forget, thanks to state rights, they have to be invited in.
  - angersock 13y ago
    And this is bad why exactly?
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      I could be bad if the state doesn't really have the best interest of its people as the top item on their agenda. I would think that would be pretty obvious...
      - angersock 13y ago
        And what makes you think that that is the top item in the agenda of the federal government?
        rdtsc 13y ago
        Did I say it is? I said it could be. And given the influence of mining companies in the region, I say there is a high probability that is the case.
        ewoodrich 13y ago
        FEMA tends to respond in varying degrees to most disasters, following a suitable declaration of a state of emergency. It's a federal agency, with a very specific role, so not being the "top item" for the federal government is just a weak rhetorical argument.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      Well for one, I could have sworn these were United States and one country. State rights makes it so they don't operate that way and the Federal Government of the people, by the people and for the people can't help the people without a request from another source in the same way they would offer aid to a foreign nation. This of course never leads to governments using this to play politics to be able to blame the Federal Government to make themselves look better, or the Federal Government look bad. No that would never happen.
      - angersock 13y ago
        Do tell, how much does the average person in Austin, Texas have in common with somebody in Salt Lake City, Utah? How much do those people have in common with the average person in Oakland? States rights make it so that each state can dictate policy best suited and tuned for its own population--and so that it can be held more directly responsible by its populace.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    Interesting. That is kind of dangerous. In a way corrupt politicians who are in bed with mining companies will probably try to delay or minimize exposure as much as possible and only act until it is too late. By that point a lot more people would be exposed to these chemicals. I also understand people mostly accept and support mining, as it is seen as the only real economic driver in the state. This might change that perspective, depending on how it is handled.
    - jotm 13y ago
      Fortunately, in this case they acted quickly, FEMA's already shipping water, and they're mobilizing the National Guard...
- mud_dauber 13y ago
  A gov't agency, which I'm not sure, ordered the plant operator to cease operations earlier today.
utefan001 13y ago
The media is a bit obsessed with the Governor of New Jersey right now. I did hear about the spill this AM on the car radio. I live in Washington DC. How far is the nearest "water distribution center" from you?
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, because this is truly an unpleasant, if not dangerous, situation, but don't more people keep a supply of water somewhere in their home? I don't really consider myself THAT well-prepared a survivalist, but I've got about 40 gallons of drinking water stored up. I would highly recommend that everybody do the same. Drinking water is vital, and so many things can interrupt your supply that you really need to look into storing several days worth. Again - I don't mean to sound unsympathetic - I wish everyone in your area a speedy resolution to this situation.
- gkop 13y ago
  Perhaps you live in a region with a characteristic natural disaster threat, or maybe you live in an urban area (or at least, you do not draw your water from a private or local-community well). WV is a low-risk area for various natural disasters [1] . And it is relatively rural and gets good rainfall - folks aren't generally depending on giant city-wide water infrastructure or imported water, but rather on smaller, distributed water supplies that are individually perceived to be rather dependable. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01safe.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/0...
- lspears 13y ago
  Drinking water isn't the only consideration. People can't take showers, cook with water, or even wash their hands. It wouldn't be a problem if it was one day, but if it goes on it will make living in the area terrible. The real issue is they don't know how long the region will be effected.
  - mrtron 13y ago
    In the short term, drinking water is 100 times more important than the other items. Long term I don't know how they are going to deal with something of this magnitude.
- silencio 13y ago
  Even FEMA doesn't recommend you store that much water - they were recommending one gallon per person per day for three days before considering anything else (climate, type of emergency, children/pets/elderly/sick people). Plus you have to make sure that it hasn't expired or gone bad... 40 gallons is a lot more than people will consider storing. Hell, I don't even have space for 40 gallons of water anywhere. I barely have any room for a 3 day stash of food/water and a first aid kit. Plus maybe some of these people do have a good amount of drinking water stored up for an emergency, but there is no ETA on cleanup yet so they have to prepare for the worst. Even 40 gallons isn't enough if this goes on for a week for a family. Also as a co-owner of a small fast food restaurant (in northern california), I can't use stored water for anything related to running the business. 40 gallons is a literal drop in the bucket in one day of use too, let alone however many days it will take to clean up the spill. That's a lot of businesses closed right there because they literally can't do anything to prevent that from happening. That alone, even before considering individual water needs, is a big deal.
smclaughlin 13y ago
Another Charleston native here, I think you're spot on. 300,000+ people are without water, yet the media's focus is still on the drama surrounding Chris Christie's traffic jam.
mynameishere 13y ago
If this goes on for more than a few weeks, it's going to put every single restaurant out of business. And god knows what else.
mud_dauber 13y ago
I'm also from Charleston and spent two summers painting the very tanks that are the source of this mess. The plant previously belonged to Pennzoil and was ancient when I was there as a HS student in the 70s. The place, IMO, was a leak waiting to happen just out of sheer age.

incision 13y ago

This is all over the local news here. Coincidentally, I was just listening to some talk about alternative energy [0] with some interesting arguments for solar and hydro power over coal. Makes me wonder if we've become inured to the environmental cost/risk of coal power and processing? Also, coal is big part of the WV economy [1]. So this would seem to have the potential for an extended impact. First with the water problems. Second in any backlash that arises against the industry in response to the spill. 0: http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 http://www.fiatlux.fm/pragmatic/2 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia#Coal

mikeash 13y ago
We've been inured to the environmental cost of coal since roughly forever. Coal is horrendous, but it's cheap and plentiful and heavily used so everybody just kind of averts their eyes. I imagine you're familiar with the recommendation that children and pregnant women should limit their fish intake, due to mercury present in seafood. The largest part of that mercury comes from emissions from burning coal. Similarly, there is much more worry about the safety of nuclear power than coal power. But guess which one emits more radioactivity into the environment? You guessed it: coal. I believe this is true even if you account for nuclear accidents, although I admit that I'm going by memory on this one. Coal accounts for something like a million deaths a year worldwide. That's a significant chunk of overall human mortality. Coal kills more people each year than nukes have ever killed, even if you count the atomic bombs.
jotm 13y ago
I didn't even know that coal needs to be treated with dangerous chemicals - add that to the list of problems with coal power...
- code_duck 13y ago
  Coal processing also involves leaving giant reservoirs of fly ash, which can lead to incidents such as this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html?_r=0 Not to mention mountain top removal mining, or any other destructive practices considered A-OK in the industry.

ck2 13y ago

If boiling and filtering is impossible to clean, well that means their water table is screwed for decades, no? Pretty much abandon the area or risk cancer. "Freedom Industries" indeed.

danielharan 13y ago
That was my first thought too. According to http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1uunyw/4methylcyclohexane_methanol/ http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1uunyw/4methylcyc... however: "The material is lighter than water, so it's going to float on top."
- medium 13y ago
  It's water soluble- this chemical cannot simple be skimmed from the surface like an oil.
  - sghodas 13y ago
    Actually, it's not very water soluble at all. It's a large cyclohexane that's relatively non-polar (the first comment in that reddit link agrees). Approximately 5000 gallons of the chemical spilled into the river, so there likely isn't very much of the chemical mixed in with the water. Most likely not enough to seriously harm anyone.
    - medium 13y ago
      It's not insoluble, it is up to 3% soluble. "Most likely not enough to harm anyone." For some reason the state has declared it a federal disaster? check out this green ice- look, it's not soluble! Fine to drink! http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg
      - sghodas 13y ago
        Its solubility maxes out at 3%. ~5000 gallons in a river is hardly enough to get to those levels. The news is reporting that the concentration is about 3ppm. 3ppm of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol is about 0.021g of the chemical in 1L of water. The lowest LD50 for ingesting the chemical I've found is 800mg/kg. This means you'd have to drink 3086L of water for it to be lethal. The LD50 for skin contact is at least double the ingestion LD50. That being said, I'm not going to take the risk, and I've only used water out of water bottles since this started.

saneshark 13y ago

This is so Fukushima'd up!

city41 13y ago

I lived in WV for a while. A friend of mine who still lives there posted this on her Facebook feed: green ice from the water -- http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pzBsLRP.jpg

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Arjuna 13y ago

I grew up in WV. My parents are still there. Montani Semper Liberi I wanted to provide some information about the chemical that was spilled, which is being reported to be 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol. You may see it referred to in its shortened form as MCHM. This chemical is used in a purification process called froth flotation. [1] In the case of WV, it is used in coal purification. OSHA guidelines list this chemical as hazardous. It is harmful if swallowed, and causes skin and eye irritation. At elevated temperatures, vapor may cause irritation of eyes and respiratory tract. [2] If you are familiar with the so-called fire diamond or NFPA 704 [3][4], this chemical is listed as: Instability/Reactivity (Yellow) 0: Materials which in themselves are normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and which are not reactive with water. Flammability (Red) 1: Materials that must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Health (Blue) 2: Materials which on intense or continued exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury unless prompt medical treatment is given. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froth_flotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froth_flotation [2] http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvpn/files/201401/MSDS-MCHM_I140109214955.pdf http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvpn/files/201401/MSD... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+704+fire+diamond&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=nfpa+704+fire+diamond&tbm=is... [4] http://www.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/dnscms/pdf/broc/hazmat12.pdf http://www.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/dnscms/pdf/broc/h...

rayiner 13y ago

An environmental disaster like this is tragic, but in a way it's better when it happens in a publicly visible way like this instead of silently poisoning thousands of people over many years. Events like this are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the externalized costs of coal. A Harvard study estimated that coal mining and use inflicts a public health burden to the Appalachian region of roughly $75 billion per year: http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_ful... (page 91). That's more than the entire GDP of West Virginia.

dbbolton 13y ago

Native West Virginian here. We have kind of a strange situation in that we are rather right-leaning politically and so many people are employed by coal and energy companies that anything that comes across as "environmentalist" is met with hostility by the general public, even though we are too often the victims of horrendous incidents such as this, as well as highly questionable business practices like fracking, mountain top removal, etc. Just Massey Energy's track record alone is pretty disturbing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Environmental_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy#Environmental_re... And in recent memory, the Chesapeake incidents: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/82EF516757FCD5DD85257C4600814C2B http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/82EF516757FCD5DD8... I think a lot of people have essentially accepted things the way they are now and aren't willing to rock the boat. There are a handful of documentaries that come to mind- namely The Last Mountain, Coal Country, and Coal Rush- that are pretty difficult to watch, but I think if more people in our area saw the effects of our beloved industry they might see things differently. However, I think most end up turning a blind eye to it out of fear of unemployment.