West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, left, takes the oath of office administered by State Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman, right, Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011 as his wife Joanne Jaeger and son Brent look on during the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol in Charleston, W.Va. (AP Photo/Jeff Gentner)
Not surprisingly, the coal industry got a favorable mention yesterday when Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin took the oath of office and delivered his inaugural address:
I will fight for our state’s coal industry, the backbone of our economy. We will continue to take on the federal government and oppose efforts by the EPA and others to stop production of the most efficient fuel our country knows.
Gov. Tomblin did not — as he has in the past – include any promise to take action on the mine safety reforms proposed by Davitt McAteer and others following the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster. Of course, also not mentioned by the new governor were the growing body of studies about the serious public health impacts of mountaintop removal, coal’s huge contributions to climate change (not to mention other serious air pollution problems) and the coming decline in Central Appalachian coal production.
Not so long ago, Gov. Tomblin was promising an open door policy — “frank and honest discussions” — once he took office. Perhaps the governor could start by taking a lengthy meeting with someone like Michael Hendryx, who could tell him about the West Virginia University coal mining health studies, of pulling together some climate-change experts to talk about coal’s contributions to the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.
The new governor drew some protests at Sunday’s event. As The Associated Press reported:
About two dozen demonstrators protested the ceremony from a lawn alongside the plaza. Most held signs targeting the mountaintop removal method of surface mining. They turned their backs when Tomblin took the oath and then began chanting, but they were largely drowned out during the cannon salute that followed.
Several protesters also heckled Tomblin during his 15-minute address, particularly when he vowed to defend the state’s energy industries and to “fight for our state’s coal industry, the backbone of our economy.” This continued when Tomblin decried “efforts by the EPA and others to stop production of the most efficient fuel our country knows.”
Protesters hold signs Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011 during the inauguration ceremony for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin at the Capitol in Charleston, W.Va. (AP Photo/Jeff Gentner)
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Gov. Tomblin confirmed what we already knew. He will fight for the coal industry. Notice that he didn’t say he would fight for “The People”. He didn’t say he would fight for a future for our children. He didn’t say he would fight to bring NEW jobs to WV. He didn’t announce a study seeking cause of ill health in mountaintop removal communities. He didn’t unveil an economic plan that would bring new industry with promise of a bright future for WV. He simply stated that he would fight for the coal industry. This is a governor with no vision and no plan for a better future for WV. As the coal industry dies, so will we.
Well there is something to be said about the people when a man is elected on a well known platform to do nothing but help an industry rather than his state. Amazing how he got the votes. WV must not be in that dire need of help then.
Ken … since when are you in to deleting posts of people who agree with the premise of the story?
I would ask that my posts be re-printed as I said nothing inflamatory …or in an inflamatory way …. just that IMO Posters should focus thier efforts in preassuring the state govt to create a better business environment, as when people don’t depend on king coal to fee dtheir kids, they are less likely to be a “friend” of coal.
Ofcoarse this one will probably be deleted as well.
Why should we even post if you are afraid of honest debate in a civil, non inflamatory way?
Regarding the “growing body of studies” of MTM, who has authored/co-authored these besides Hendyrx? Your link showed one by Hendyrx.
Perhaps the Governor will remember those that heckled him as he took the oath of office. Smooth move.
mike4352,
Our admin system does not show any posts from you having been blocked or deleted … is it possible that you inadvertently posted remarks with a different blog item?
You have several comments listed as having been posted with this item:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/10/03/is-it-too-late-for-central-appalachia-to-prepare-for-the-coming-collapse-of-the-coal-industry/
I’ll add those comments here in the interest of fairness —
Comment 1:
mike4352 says:
November 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm (Edit)
ekymtngrrl says:
October 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Good post Ken! (and Ted) The AP story got a lot of play including front page of Lexington Herald Leader and Letcher Co’s Mountain Eagle. I agree with you that there was too much complaining about over regulation but the gist of the story — that the resource is running out — was there. I hope the light bulb (which up to now can only be conceived of as being powered by coal) is starting to light up with our Friends of Coal
*******************************************
Many “friends of coal” DO understand this … matter of fact, alot of them (including me) have posted numerous times that Anti-MTR folks are not focusing their efforts in a critical area … that is, calling for Economic Diversification.
I promise you, you spur the State govt to pass some tax laws, and some tort reform in order to be MUCH more attractive to business, and work to create a business environment second to none, alot of folks who are currently on the side of coal, purely for the reasons of “jobs” are gonna switch sides.
As it is, having the money to feed your family, to keep them alive tomorrow is ALWAYS going to trump what might happen in 10-20 years due to pollution. That is human nature.
Until the State decides to become a place where business WANT to be, coal will reign supreme. The only reason COAL companies are even here is because this is where the coal is … otherwise they wouldn’t be here either.
Comment 2:
mike4352 says:
November 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm (Edit)
BTW … we’re ranked 46 in “REgulatory climate ” … which is what our government can most directly effect.
This is defined as … Measures regulatory and tort climate, incentives, government integrity, transportation and bond ratings.
Fixing ths will go along way to moving our economy away from king coal.
Comment 3:
mike4352 says:
November 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm (Edit)
Sorry … forgot to link …probably old news though.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/13/best-states-for-business-business-beltway-best-states-table.html
If you submitted another comment, please email me offline at kward@wvgazette.com with the text of that comment and I’ll see if it somehow got lost in the system.
However, I would point out that whether something is “inflammatory” or not is not the test for whether it will be published on this blog. Please read the comment policy, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/comment-policy/ … Any comments which do not comply may be deleted or not published. And, of course, we reserve the right to not post any comments at our discretion. It’s our website and we have every right to do that.
There’s little question that this blog does more to encourage an honest debate in a civil non-inflammatory way than any other media outlet covering these issues. Saying otherwise is simply ridiculous.
Ken.
Casey,
Regarding your comment:
“Regarding the “growing body of studies” of MTM, who has authored/co-authored these besides Hendyrx? Your link showed one by Hendyrx.”
It’s true that the post you referred to covers just one of the studies published by Dr. Hendryx — and his numerous co-authors.
I’ll eagerly await you providing us a link to even one study published in the peer-reviewed literature that shows anything that Dr. Hendryx has published to be incorrect or that provides a different conclusion.
I suspect you haven’t done so because you’re not aware of any such studies … or because they don’t exist.
Below is my most recent list of the studies published by Dr. Hendryx and numerous other researchers working with him … Ken.
1. Hendryx M, Ahern M, Nurkiewicz T. Hospitalization patterns associated with Appalachian coal mining. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 70, 2064-2070, 2007.
2. Hendryx M, Ahern M. Relations between health indicators and residential proximity to coal mining in West Virginia. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 669-671, 2008.
3. Hendryx M. Mortality rates in Appalachian coal mining counties: 24 years behind the nation. Environmental Justice, 1, 5-11, 2008.
4. Hendryx M, O’Donnell K, Horn K. Lung cancer mortality is elevated in coal mining areas of Appalachia. Lung Cancer, 62, 1-7, 2008.
5. Ahern M., and Hendryx, M., Health Disparities and Environmental Competence: A Case Study of Appalachian Coal Mining, Environmental Justice, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008.
6. Hendryx M. Mortality from heart, respiratory and kidney disease in coal mining areas of Appalachia. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2009, 82, 243-249.
7. Hendryx M, Ahern M. Mortality in Appalachian coal mining regions: the value of statistical life lost. Public Health Reports, 2009, 124, 541-550.
8. Hendryx M, Zullig K. Higher coronary heart disease and heart attack morbidity in Appalachian coal mining regions. Preventive Medicine, 2009, 49, 355-359.
9. Hendryx M, Fedorko E, Anesetti-Rothermel A. A geographical information system-based analysis of cancer mortality and population exposure to coal mining activities in West Virginia, United States of America. Geospatial Health, 2010, 4, 243-256.
10. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Schlesinger WH, Eshleman KN, Foufoula-Georgiou E, Hendryx MS, Lemly AD, Likens GE, Loucks OL, Power ME, White PS, Wilcock PR. Consequences of mountaintop mining. Science, 2010, 327, 148-149.
11. Ahern M, Mullett M, MacKay K, Hamilton C. Residence in coal-mining areas and low-birth-weight outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2010, epub ahead of print.
12. Zullig KJ, Hendryx M. A comparative analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for residents of US counties with and without coal mining. Public Health Reports, 2010, 125, 548-555.
13. Cain L, Hendryx M. Learning outcomes among students in relation to West Virginia coal mining: an environmental “riskscape” approach. Environmental Justice, 2010, 3, 71-77.
14. Hitt NP, Hendryx M. Ecological integrity of streams related to human cancer mortality rates. EcoHealth, 2010, 7, 91-104.
15. Epstein PR, Buonocore JJ, Eckerle K, Hendryx M, Stout BM, Heinberg R, Clapp RW, May B, Reinhart NL, Ahern MM, Doshi SK, Glustrom L. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2011, 1219, 73-98.
16. Zullig K, Hendryx M. Health-related quality of life among central Appalachian residents in mountaintop mining counties. American Journal of Public Health, 2011, 101, 848-853.
17. Hendryx M. Poverty and mortality disparities in central Appalachia: mountaintop mining and environmental justice. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 2011, 4(3), 50-59.
18. Ahern M, Hendryx M, Conley J, Fedorko E, Ducatman A, Zullig K. The association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in Central Appalachia, 1996-2003. Environmental Research, 2011, 111, 838-846.
19. Esch L, Hendryx M. Chronic cardiovascular disease mortality in mountaintop mining areas of central Appalachian states. Journal of Rural Health, in press.
20. Hendryx M, Wolfe L, Luo J, Webb, B. Self-reported cancer rates in two rural areas of West Virginia with and without mountaintop coal mining. Journal of Community Health, in press.
My apologies Ken. I think my point of confusion was that I started on THIS thread and then clicked on that link, regarding the “coming decline” in the coal indusry in appalachia. It’s always been a point of aggrevation for me that some blogs tend to “delete” posts, even if they are “on topic” and keep it clean so to speak, just because they bring up some good points that may go “against the grain” so to speak.
I am sorry that I jumped to conclusions and accused you of that behavior. It was my mistake, freely admited, for all to see.
More open discussion IMO is what is needed. There is alot more common ground between the various sides of this debate, than is apparent on the surface, but in order to see it, we have to talk to one another. I for one, tend to put “jobs” ahead of most other considerations in this debate BUT, like I said, I guarentee you if there were more real jobs in other industries (not Walmart jobs or seasonal toursim jobs) … then the coal industry loses TONS of support. No one want’s our mountains destroyed, or our streams polluted … but for most who depend on the coal industry putting food on the table is priority number 1…and the lack of other industries make these coal related jobs, to these people, that much more important.
It’s why I am firm in my beleif that the anti MTR folks would do more good if they protested the State Govt to do more in creating a Pro Business environment in the state, so that we COULD have a more diverse economy in WV.
mike4352,
Again, though, let me suggest you read our comments policy, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/comment-policy/ —
Please follow these few simple rules if you want your comments published:
1. Be respectful of others, especially those your disagree with — this includes other readers and commenters , public officials, and even coal industry executives.
2. No name calling.
3. Come to this comment section with an open mind, and try to learn about other people, not just spout off your own opinion.
4. Please provide links or citations to published material to back up your views, when appropriate.
5. Keep the cheer-leading comments to a minimum, and stay on topic of the post you’re commenting on. Coal Tattoo does not have free-for-all open threads. If you have a news item related to coal that you didn’t see mentioned on this blog, a good place to mention it is in the comments section of the weekly “Friday roundup.”
Please use an e-mail address that is working and that you check frequently. Your e-mail address will not be published, but I might need to contact you off-list with a question about your comment. Also, please pick a screen name and stick with it. It’s not fair for one person to use multiple screen names to make it appear others share their views.
Finally, if you are a a paid advocate — a lawyer, public relations person or lobbyist — involved in coal issues, please sign in under your real name. It’s not fair to other readers to have paid advocates pretending to be members of the general public.
Posts that don’t comply won’t be published or will be deleted.
Ken.
I think Mr. Tomblin is confusing “efficiency” with “abundance”.
Ken,
So to answer the question, since you did not:
“Regarding the “growing body of studies” of MTM, who has authored/co-authored these besides Hendyrx?”
It looks like it is no one except the prolific Hendyrx and his co-authors.
He certainly has exhausted the point with his statistically methods so it would seems like it would be time to actually find the cause and effect of any relationship with health. Can you provide a link to any studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that does this?
Cars kill people. Do we eliminate cars? No. We address specifics that save lives because thereis a benefit to having cars. I may be wrong but I just do not believe Hendyrx or those that quote his work have any interest in in actually finding and addressing any potential harm other than shutting down the industry.
Casey,
How many of the studies on the list I posted have you actually read?
It’s a little difficult to have this conversation with you, because it becomes more and more clear you haven’t bothered to do that.
If you had, you would have seen that these papers are building on studies done in other mining communities around the world, such as:
– Pless-Mulloli, T., King, A., Howel, D., Stone, I., and Merefield, J. 2000a.
PM10 levels in communities close to and away from opencast coal mining
sites in Northeast England. Atmos. Environ. 34:3091–3101.
– Pless-Mulloli, T., Howel, D., King, A., Stone, I., Merefield, J., Bessell, J., and Darnell, R. 2000b. Living near opencast coal mining sites and children’s
respiratory health. Occup. Environ. Med. 57:145–151.
– Brabin, B., Smith, M., Milligan, P., Benjamin, C., Dunne, E., and Pearson, M. 1994. Respiratory morbidity in Meyerside schoolchildren exposed to coal dust and air pollution. Arch. Dis. Child. 70:305–312.g
– Temple, J. M. F., and Sykes, A. M. 1992. Asthma and open cast mining.
Br. Med. J. 305:396–397.
And this doesn’t even begin to get into the well-established science about the impacts on public health (especially of children) of air pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Again — where is your evidence that any of this science is wrong? If the coal industry with its vast resources had this evidence, wouldn’t they have it published?
Whenever these studies are presented, you want to make it a personal issue — you don’t like Hendryx and his work, but you can’t provide any evidence he’s wrong. Where’s your science?
You can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you like, but by attempting to take anyone who chooses to follow the science on this and assuming their motives, you undercut any hint of credibility in your own arguments on this blog.
Ken.
Ken
Your comment above points out an interesting issue that I have heard many people discuss when disecting a Hendryx study. His studies only take others scientific work and draw conclusions from it. Where is the science in that? I’m not aware of his work ever including any actual medical testing his group has conducted, are you? There are those of us that look through the grand standing headlines of his work and actually find that no science exists. I’m sure I will here the “peer reviewed” response from you, but if your peers are also a group of statistic manipulating reasearchers, what good is their review?
Casey,
What I will refer to as “full blown mtr” has not been on the national radar of scientists up until now. Strip mining has been around for decades, but the act of actually blasting an entire mountain apart to extract thin layers of coal was unprecedented until the 1990′s. Since 2000,there has been a federal environmental impact statement on the subject and mtr has been widely written about , begging more research. A growing movement of effected residents and concerned citizens from around the country have also helped to expose why this type of mining needs to be examined more closely. Many of Hendryx’s co-authors are well respected scientists. Scientific research of this nature must first find that a problem actually exist. I think it has now been sufficiently proven that health problems do exist in mtr communities at a higher degree than non mtr communities. The next step is causation. This is a very expensive step, but one that government should be willing to go forth with. An existing health issue has been scientifically proven. Should it not be governments duty to find the cause and act accordingly? Cigarette smoking causes cancer. Government stepped in and protected people that desire to smoke with warning labels and protected the general public by banning smoking in places where the general public can be exposed. Those of us that live beneath mtr have zero protection from the toxic fumes we breath from mtr blasts and the effects of mtr operations. In short mountaintop removal has brought the workplace into our communities exposing us to its impacts. MTR should be banned.
The problem we face is that we have a governor and five national representatives that refuse to acknowledge the existence of these peer reviewed science research papers that clearly indicate a growing health crisis in mtr communities.
You say cars kill people but we don’t eliminate cars. That is comparing apples to oranges, but at any rate, defective cars are re-called. Cars kill people in accidents. Mountaintop removal is not an accident. It is planned and implemented.
Science on causation is moving forward and you will be hearing about some of that soon. Meantime, it would be great if all caring people petitioned government to conduct a health study in mtr communities. A health study would target causation and effect. Once that is done we will close a dark page in American Appalachian history.
concerned miner,
You wrote:
“His studies only take others scientific work and draw conclusions from it.”
That’s simply not true. Please point to one specific study on the list I posted and explain how your description applies …
Ken.
Ken
You wrote “If you had, you would have seen that these papers are building on studies done in other mining communities around the world, such as:” To me this means that his papers are based on the on the other studies. Can you find in one of his studies where his people have actually conducted any medical testing to back up his conclusions?
Concerned miner,
I didn’t mean to confuse the situation … what I meant to write is that there is a rich body of science in which researchers in other coal-producing areas have look at the same issues that Hendryx has examined. He’s not the first person to find these connections. That adds to the weight of his findings.
I don’t believe that any of his published work to date has included “medical testing”, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t done science. He’s used a wide variety of publicly available data about illnesses, deaths, cancer rates, etc., as well as a recent paper that used survey information from the Coal River area. Medical testing is not the only way to examine these issues, and I believe you know that.
So .. how many of the papers listed above have you read?
Ken.
Ken
I will be painfully honest, I read the papers until I see what is… at least in my mind… Hendryx’s bias against coal mining, then I find it difficult to go any farther, I understand my thinking is bias as well because I make my living mining coal, but still find it difficult to get past the grand standing, maybe not correct, but my thoughts for what it’s worth.
concerned miner,
I appreciate your honesty … that make sit very hard to have a discussion with you, though.
Perhaps you could pick one paper and start reading and explain to me exactly what you’re talking about.
Ken.
Ken,
Thanks for listing the other non-Hendyrx studies but I think you should provide links to each one. Temple/Sykes- took and analyzed air samples. Nothing was said of the rock types involved. Brabin, B., Smith, M., Milligan Study concluded “Although the association with known coal dust pollution is suggestive a cross sectional study cannot confirm a casual relation and further studies are needed.” Pless-Mulloli, T., Howel Study stated ” Little evidence was found for associations between living near an opencast site and an increased prevalence of respiratory illnesses, asthma severity, or daily diary symptoms..”
I do not know how you took my comments and construed them to mean that it is a personal issue and that I do not like Hendyrx. Your blog concerned the lack of attention given to Hendyrx’s studies by the Governor and I think that Hendyrx being a one man show cranking out statistical analyses without causation may be why elected officials do not pay him any mind. I would not call it a growing body of study. Just my thoughts.
You mentioned “as well as a recent paper that used survey information from the Coal River area”. Did Bo Webb assist in those surveys? How would you feel about a survey conducted by Chris Hamilton and Mr. Raney?
Casey,
Here are not only links to the studies, but the text of the abstracts (summaries) of each one …
1 — Pless-Mulloli, T., King, A., Howel, D., Stone, I., and Merefield, J. 2000a.
PM10 levels in communities close to and away from opencast coal mining
sites in Northeast England. Atmos. Environ. 34:3091–3101.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231099004744
“Concerns about levels of particulate matter of less than 10 μm (PM10) and their potential health effects have been raised by residents living near opencast coal mining sites in the UK. PM10 levels were measured by TEOM in 5 matched pairs of communities in northeast England, 5 near active opencast sites and 5 further away, to characterise the PM10 exposure of residents. 14 609 paired 30-min TEOM readings, and weather data were collected during 1996–97, over 6 weeks each in four pairs and for 24 weeks in one pair. Co-located samplers collected PM10 on an approximately weekly basis and samples were analysed using scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis (SEM-EDS). The patterns of PM10 levels over time were similar in Opencast and Control Communities and were mostly similar to readings from nearby automated urban network stations. This suggested regional influences on PM10 levels. The geometric mean PM10 was 17.0 μg m−3 in Opencast and 14.9 μg m−3 in Control Communities (arithmetic mean 22.1 μg m−3 in Opencast 18.2 μg m−3 in Control Communities): Opencast Communities thus had 14% higher PM10 levels than Control Communities on average. While the size distribution and proportion of shale particles indicated the opencast site as contributor to the PM10 load in adjacent communities, elevated PM10 levels in Opencast Communities were not positively linked with permitted working hours or wind direction being from the site to the community. No consistent relationship was found between PM10 levels and wind speed or day of the week.”
2 — Pless-Mulloli, T., Howel, D., King, A., Stone, I., Merefield, J., Bessell, J., and Darnell, R. 2000b. Living near opencast coal mining sites and children’s
respiratory health. Occup. Environ. Med. 57:145–151.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1739923/
OBJECTIVES—To answer the question whether living near opencast coal mining sites affects acute and chronic respiratory health.
METHODS—All 4860 children aged 1-11 from five socioeconomically matched pairs of communities close to active opencast sites and control sites away from them were selected. Exposure was assessed by concentrations of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <10 µm (PM10), residential proximity to active opencast sites, and particle composition. PM10 was monitored and sampled for 6 weeks in four pairs, and for 24 weeks in one pair. A postal questionnaire collected data on health and lifestyle. Daily health information was collected by a symptom diary (concurrently with PM10 monitoring) and general practitioner (GP) records were abstracted (concurrently with PM10 monitoring and 52 weeks before the study). Outcomes were the cumulative and period prevalence (2 and 12 months) of wheeze, asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory symptoms, and the prevalence and incidence of daily symptoms and GP consultations.
RESULTS—Patterns of the daily variation of PM10 were similar in opencast and control communities, but PM10 was higher in opencast areas (mean ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.13 to 1.16, geometric mean 17.0 µg/m3 v 14.9 µg/m3). Opencast sites were a measurable contributor to PM10 in adjacent areas. Little evidence was found for associations between living near an opencast site and an increased prevalence of respiratory illnesses, asthma severity, or daily diary symptoms, but children in opencast communities 1-4 had significantly more respiratory consultations (1.5 v 1.1 per person-year) than children in control communities for the 6 week study periods. Associations between daily PM10 concentrations and acute health events were similar in opencast and control communities.
CONCLUSIONS—Children in opencast communities were exposed to a small but significant amount of additional PM10 to which the opencast sites were a measurable contributor. Past and present respiratory health of children was similar, but GP consultations for respiratory conditions were higher in opencast communities during the core study period.
3 –- Brabin, B., Smith, M., Milligan, P., Benjamin, C., Dunne, E., and Pearson, M. 1994. Respiratory morbidity in Meyerside schoolchildren exposed to coal dust and air pollution. Arch. Dis. Child. 70:305–312.g
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1029784/
A cross sectional study was carried out to determine whether schoolchildren in a specific locality exposed to pollution from steam coal dust have an excess of respiratory symptoms compared with children in control areas. A total of 1872 primary schoolchildren (aged 5-11 years) from five primary schools in the Bootle dock area of Liverpool (exposed area), five primary schools in South Sefton (control area), and five primary schools in Wallasey (control area) were studied. A questionnaire was distributed through the schools and was completed by the parents of the children. The questionnaire inquired about respiratory symptoms (cough, wheezing, and shortness of breath), allergy, atopy, smoking, and socioeconomic factors. Height, weight, and peak expiratory flow were measured. Compliance was good (92%) and similar in the three study areas. The children in the three areas were of similar mean age (7.5 years), height (1.24 m), sex ratio, and had a similar prevalence of paternal (6.2%) and maternal (7%) asthma. The exposed zone contained more unemployed parents (41, 29, and 29% respectively), more rented housing (64, 45, 34%), and more smoking parents (71, 60, 59%) than the control areas. Respiratory symptoms were significantly more common in the exposed area, including wheeze (25.0, 20.6, and 17.5%), excess cough (40.0, 23.4, and 25.1%), and school absences for respiratory symptoms (47.5, 35.9, and 34.9%). These differences remained significant even if the groups were subdivided according to whether or not parents smoked or were employed. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed the exposed zone as a significant risk factor for absenteeism from school due to respiratory symptoms (odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.06) after adjusting for confounding factors. Standard dust deposit gauges on three schools confirmed a significantly higher dust burden in the exposed zone. An increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms in primary schoolchildren exposed to coal dust is confirmed. Although the association with known coal dust pollution is suggestive a cross sectional study cannot confirm a casual relation and further studies are needed.
4 — – Temple, J. M. F., and Sykes, A. M. 1992. Asthma and open cast mining. Br. Med. J. 305:396–397.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1883133/
There is widespread concern that environmental degradation is causing ill health. European law requires that any major industrial development is assessed for its likely effect on human health. There are few studies of the effect of industries on the general community. However, Kirn reported concern that one cause of the current increase in asthma deaths may be increasing atmospheric pollution.
In this study, collecting the data blind and the absence of obvious change in gradient occurring when the doctors learned of the date mining started excluded bias as the cause of the changes recorded. The sustained change in gradient after the start of mining suggests that the cause of the change has also continued. Thus it could not be due to seasonal or other transient factors.
Our findings are prima facie evidence to support the practice's concern about the risks to the general population from the open cast coal site. The results of this small study give cause for national concern in view of the current increasing trend towards open cast mining in Britain.
Reader might want to be sure to check for your very selective quotations from these studies —
For example, Brabin, B., Smith, M., Milligan, P., Benjamin, C., Dunne, E., and Pearson, M. … Here's the full quotation, as opposed to your truncated version:
Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed the exposed zone as a significant risk factor for absenteeism from school due to respiratory symptoms (odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.06) after adjusting for confounding factors. Standard dust deposit gauges on three schools confirmed a significantly higher dust burden in the exposed zone. An increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms in primary schoolchildren exposed to coal dust is confirmed. Although the association with known coal dust pollution is suggestive a cross sectional study cannot confirm a casual relation and further studies are needed.
And here's the full quote from the Pless-Mulloli study you truncated:
"Patterns of the daily variation of PM10 were similar in opencast and control communities, but PM10 was higher in opencast areas. Opencast sites were a measurable contributor to PM10 in adjacent areas. Little evidence was found for associations between living near an opencast site and an increased prevalence of respiratory illnesses, asthma severity, or daily diary symptoms, but children in opencast communities 1-4 had significantly more respiratory consultations (1.5 v 1.1 per person-year) than children in control communities for the 6 week study periods. Associations between daily PM10 concentrations and acute health events were similar in opencast and control communities."
You are once again showing a pretty basic misunderstanding of how this sort of science works, and a very backward view of what public health is all about. No study can prove 100 percent that a particular pollutant from a particular industrial activity caused a specific person's illness. Science and human life doesn't work that way. Demanding such proof is convenient for industry supporters like yourself, because it means you don't ever have to regulate anything — you can't prove it hurt anyone, so the government can't act.
Dr. Hendryx is not a one-man show — perhaps this blog has done him a disservice by referring to him singularly, when a variety of other scholars at WVU, Washington State, Virginia Tech and other institutions have worked on these papers as well. Other scholars have been involved in peer-reviewing them.
As for Gov. Tomblin not paying these studies any mind … well, Gov. Tomblin was asked about this stuff, and we wrote about that at the time:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/09/14/west-virginias-anti-science-gubernatorial-candidates/
The question was:
"A peer-reviewed study recently suggested that there are negative health effects for those who live near mountaintop removal sites. Do you believe that’s true, and, if so, should something be done about it?"
Gov. Tomblin's answer was:
"I think that was one report that was done. Before I would believe it, there would have to be additional studies done to prove that fact."
Of course, there is more than one study. And they've been researched and written by more than one scientist.
Prudent public policymakers take studies like these and say that it looks like something's going on, and we need our regulatory and public health agencies to do something about — to at the least work to get more answers and to find out what can be done about the situation. But public officials in West Virginia are instead simply pretending these studies don't exist. Neither they nor the industry have produced one shred of scientific evidence that suggests the conclusions are wrong or that the methods are problematic. Neither have you.
Are Chris Hamilton and Bill Raney assisting Dr. Hendryx or others in gathering more information to update the health study of the Coal River Valley? If so, good for them … and I'll look forward to seeing their work in a scientific journal. Once it gets there, then we can trust that it meets at least some test for scientific rigor.
Ken.
Casey, Again, you display a bias. I contacted and asked Dr. Hendryx if he would consider door to door research in the Coal River Valley. He said me may but I would have to first take a modular course from WVU on research ethics. I did that and I DO understand the absolute necessity of unbiased scientific research. I would like to encourage the coal industry right here and now (again) to join Hendryx in a joint research project here in the Coal River Valley. Bill Raney and Chris could join the project after they take a course in research ethics as I did. You know the answer to that invitation. They won’t do it. Doesn’t that give you pause to question just who is biased and who isn’t? If you are so convinced that the Hendryx research is flawed, why don’t you encourage the coal industry to participate in a joint research project? They are not going to do it Casey because they fear the results.
Bo,
Did I say any where in this conversion that Hendyrx research was flawed? That was not my point here. Ken also made a conclusion from the discussion that I did not like Hendryx and it was a personal issue when nothing in the diagolue should indicate that conclusion. I wish the discussion could stay focused on the points made. I guess to continue at this level I should say “I know you are but what am I?”-mild humor.
Casey,
OK … let’s go back then to your original comment —
“Regarding the “growing body of studies” of MTM, who has authored/co-authored these besides Hendyrx? Your link showed one by Hendyrx.”
A variety of scientists from a number of major universities (WVU, Washington State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Duke) have been co-authors on the studies that Dr. Hendryx has been involved in. Other scientists studying coalfields in other countries have published similar studies and reached similar conclusions.
So there you go … there’s your answer.
In a later comment, you wrote concerning Dr. Hendryx:
“He certainly has exhausted the point with his statistically methods so it would seems like it would be time to actually find the cause and effect of any relationship with health.”
In fact, Hendryx and others are working on exactly those sorts of studies. Why aren’t state or federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect public health doing that work or at least assisting him? Why isn’t the industry assisting in finding out these answers rather than taking cheap shots at the people who are?
Why do I get the notion that you just want to make personal attacks on this one man? Because that’s exactly what you did, when you wrote this:
“I may be wrong but I just do not believe Hendyrx or those that quote his work have any interest in in actually finding and addressing any potential harm other than shutting down the industry.”
That’s a serious allegation — one for which you’ve offered no evidence. And unless you can provide any, please do not make such personal attacks on this blog. You can’t get into someone’s head and understand their motives.
Please stick to commenting on the studies and what they say and what policy directions they should lead us to … and I’ll ask you the same question I asked concerned miner — Exactly how many of the studies I’ve listed above have you actually bothered to read?
Ken.
Ken – thank you for your comprehensive list of the water studies. Well done.
Ken,
In the past I have read interviews and in particular heard an interview with Dr. Hendyrx. He was pretty frank on where he stands on energy policy. Based on what I heard my opinion of what I said is true. I looked and looked to try and find a link to the live interview but could not. Sorry.
No I have not read every study but I have commented extensively on this blog site in the past on his work.
Okay Casey, you didn’t actually say the Hendryx studies are flawed; but you certainly have implied that notion. I’m enjoying this discussion, although I do feel that maybe I’m beating my head against a brick wall. For whatever it may be worth, I want to make my position clear. I’m from a long history of a coal mining family. I am not opposed to underground coal mining. I am 100% opposed to mountaintop removal . Although I am not opposed to underground mining I am clear headed enough to see the writing on the wall. No.1 The burning of coal has a tremendous impact on the health of people and the health of our planet as a whole. The cost of mining underground coal in WV continues to rise as thick seams are becoming more expensive to reach. . We simply cannot compete with western mined coal much longer unless we are willing to blast our mountains bare until none are left; and then we will truly be finished. Are we willing to accept that? I’m not. The coal industry will continue to mine coal here as long as it is a profitable investment and then they will move on; that is a fact of business. We must begin to build an economy in WV that doesn’t rely on coal as its mainstay and the sooner we begin to work toward that transition the better.
Casey,
Again, it’s difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who won’t bother to read the studies, but feels it’s OK to make gross generalizations about their methods or conclusions and to make wild allegations against one of the authors.
I’d like to know specifically which of the studies you have read in their entirety and which you have glanced at and which you haven’t bothered to read at all … that would allow me and other readers to judge whether your criticisms should be giving any weight at all.
Specifically regarding this previous comment that you made:
“I may be wrong but I just do not believe Hendyrx or those that quote his work have any interest in in actually finding and addressing any potential harm other than shutting down the industry.”
You explained this in your most recent comment by saying:
“In the past I have read interviews and in particular heard an interview with Dr. Hendyrx. He was pretty frank on where he stands on energy policy. Based on what I heard my opinion of what I said is true.”
First, it’s hard to judge the merits of your statement when you’re not able to share with us specifically what it is based on. You’re certainly welcome to your opinion, but so far you’ve prevented no evidence to support it — so hopefully readers will judge it based on that lack of evidence.
I’ve read all of these studies (most of them more than once) and done numerous interviews with Dr. Hendryx and many of his co-authors. You and other readers are suggesting that Dr. Hendryx has some unreasonable bias against coal as an energy source. Where’s the evidence of that?
If you read these papers — and the immense wealth of other evidence about coal’s impacts on worker health and safety, health of those living near mining operations, the environment — both locally and globally (especially climate change) — there is a great body of evidence to support a conclusion that moving away from coal as a major energy source is a sound policy for protecting public health, the environment and the very climate we rely on to live and function in our society.
It’s likely that whatever remarks you saw in which Dr. Hendryx stated some views on energy policy are based on his review of this huge amount of scientific evidence about coal’s impacts. Just because your personal choice is to ignore that evidence and oppose changes that would remove or at least greatly reduce those impacts doesn’t mean his views — whatever they are — are not well grounded in the science.
This is the same sort of thing we’ve seen in this comment thread from “concerned miner,” who wrote —
“I will be painfully honest, I read the papers until I see what is… at least in my mind… Hendryx’s bias against coal mining, then I find it difficult to go any farther, I understand my thinking is bias as well because I make my living mining coal, but still find it difficult to get past the grand standing, maybe not correct, but my thoughts for what it’s worth.”
That sort of comment indicates a serious lack of respect for the scientific method, a key part of which is to look for evidence to disprove your hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ).
I remain interested, though, in understanding what exactly in any of the studies I listed below indicates a “bias” or could possibly be considered “grandstanding.” You guys haven’t pointed to specific language in the studies — perhaps because you haven’t read them.
Personally, when I see an article in the popular press, or in the scientific literature — and even comments in this blog section — that contradict something I’ve written or that I believe to be true based on my own investigations, I make it a point to read that information more carefully than I would something that fits into my previous world view.
Regarding the scientific literature about mountaintop removal’s potential impacts on public health and the environment, though, there just isn’t much in the peer-reviewed literature that supports the notion that the impacts aren’t significant and something that calls out for government action.
Ken.
What I meant to say is I have read and studied some of Hendyrx’s work and I have commented extensively in the past on this blog regarding same. I have not read every study but when you cited his work as far back as 2009 I read and studied it. My comments and issues with the studies are in your archives.
I see a correlation between electrical generation and increased life spans. Coal has been a big part of that generation. Everything we use is grown or mined. You have to appreciate that and the fact that our standard of living and increasing life spans is not possible without mining. The benefits have outweighed the costs and that is not being recognized by some and many are ignorant of where their stuff comes from. It comes out of the ground.
It is always fascinating to me when people say that they read something just long enough until they hear something that they think that they don’t like for reasons that don’t have anything to do with the empirical facts nor analyses being presented, and then pretend that this is a rational serious attempt to discuss the facts. Amazing.
Beyond ironic that people continue to use that platform to exercise the audacity required to presume that other researchers are “manipulating statistics” or just using other people’s work to push an agenda.
Bo, everyone that reads this blog or works on energy policy could use a big fat dose of a research ethics course. Some of these comments border on defamation.
Casey, what you “see” other people actually measure. This is the difference between speculation and science.
It’s not hard to find these papers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114839/
also see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21339091
A great way to summarize this is that your “correlation” is highly contingent upon externalities. As Ken has said on this blog many times before, I believe.
So, Casey, Are you going to encourage the coal industry to join Hendryx and other scientists in a major health study in mountaintop removal communities? Is that not the right and just thing to do? Afterall, the coal industry spends millions on PR Ads telling us they are environmentally responsible. I’m sure they could pull a couple milion together to prove it.
Bo, sorry but I don’t have the ability to make that happen.
You know a lot of scientists publish their work and make certain conclusions which may be nothing more than there appears to be some relationship between two things. Not all of these conclusions, even if accepted by many other scientists, turn out later to be true. Anyone with an objective mind should realize that it could be a possibility here. Maybe we all think we are objective but if you are reading this blog you may already have strong beliefs and will blindly agree or aggressive look to discredit.
I really hope you are not going to leave us hanging for some examples here Casey. Citation needed!
Soyedina, I’ve read your comments for some time now and feel that you are intelligent and educated but I really can not believe that you are requesting examples. A quick google turns up many so you must be focused more on the exact wording that I used. Seriously how many times have you read conflicting studies on the health benefits of certain foods, vitamins, etc. What’s your ambush point here? Plus are you telling me that you have read the studies and that it is not possible that Hendyrx has not accounted for certain variables that has caused him to indicate a wrong relationship?
Casey, I didn’t ask you to make it happen. What I asked you, and I will ask again; are you going to encourage the coal industry to join a group of scientists to conduct a health study in mountaintop removal communities? Encourage is the word; you can do that here on this blog, in an lte, a letter to Bill Raney, a phone call, an op-ed and/or many other ways.
Your statement, “scientists make certain conclusions which may be nothing more than there appears to be some relation between two things”, doesn’t excuse the need for a health study. A health study will scientifically pinpoint the cause of illnesses and that is what the coal industry is afraid of. You certainly are not trying to make us believe that medical science is not real are you? If that is your point, then according to you we may as well allow unlimited dumping of arsenic , mercury, diesel, used motor oil and all other garbage into our water supply because science hasn’t proved those things are harmful to human beings.
So, will you join myself and others to call upon the coal industry to join Hendryx and other scientists in a health study in mtr communities? Think of the babies Casey. Think of your offspring. The relationship between mtr and ill health may go beyond mtr communities. Remember, mtr is unprecedented, we don’t know its long term effects.
Casey there is no ambush point my friend. I would however like to lead you to understand the very simple point that “this study didn’t measure everything” is never a valid objection. There are many many scientists (myself included) who work from the philosophy that making “certain conclusions which may be nothing more than there appears to be some relationship between two things” is exactly the business of science and nothing more. In other words, there is no such thing as proof.
And this speaks to your rhetorical talking point: nothing is ever proven, but things can be *disproven*. This is the part where you what science would do is actually offer some suggestions about what to measure instead of waving hands about “it is not possible that Hendyrx has not accounted for certain variables that has caused him to indicate a wrong relationship”. Sure it is possible, what did you have in mind?
I’ll say it again: the comment “How do they know what they didn’t measure” is not critical analysis and it is not a serious attempt at discussion, just obfuscatory rhetoric. If you wish to continue that line of reasoning then the honest thing to do is to offer your hypothesis. best
sorry not enough coffee this morning
“you what science would do is”
should read
you do what science would do and”
Soyedina, one hypothesis I would make is that the benefits from coal (including electrical generation and steel making) exceed the costs. Some studies have stopped short and just analyzed coal mining. These studies have gone both ways depending on who did them which of course is an interesting point about studies.
Another hypothesis is that the increasing life spans in the U.S. is largely made possible by coal (electrical generation and steel making) and exceed any negative effects. Everything we do in society is a comparison of costs and benefits. Every product we create comes from agricultural and/or mining.
One problem that I had with a Hendyrx study is that it indicated that surface coal mining decreases life expectancies in the community and he assigned a large dollar amount if a life was less by 1 year than his control group. Why not assign bigger benefit dollars for lives extended 10 or 15 years from all the modern conveniences made possible from coal?
I have been bashed for stating that I think Hendyrx is biased (my opinion). Here is what he (a social scientist with degrees in psychology) said in a 2009 on-line chat interview:
“I think there are enormous technical and financial barriers to clean coal technology. It can work on a small scale but to make it widely implemented would be incredibly expensive, and maybe not workable. The money we are investing in this technology should be invested in renewal energy in my opinion.”
“Also, air and water quality around mining should be more carefully monitored and controlled. And mountaintop mining should be eliminated.”
“I think we need to consider a mix of solutions including ecosystem restoration, sustainable timber, small agriculture, development of renewable energy like hydro and wind, and investments in entrepreneurial ventures.”
Google some of the co-authors and you’ll see things like Melissa Ahern, associate professor in the WSU Department of Pharmacotherapy of Washington State University is the Director of the Northwest Climate Change Center in Spokane, WA.
I might be wrong and crazy but I think that it is possible to take any of the Hendyrx hypotheses, re-write them to indicate the opposite, fund them from different sources, have different leaning scientists complete the study, and get different answers. I do not know why coal doesn’t do that other than playing defense against well-funded anti coal money on the many fronts would be really difficult.
Casey, I asked you what you thought Hendryx should have measured, and didn’t, that would have affected his results.
“the benefits from coal (including electrical generation and steel making) exceed the costs”
you understand that this could never be a scientific hypothesis, don’t you? at least without rigorously and meticulously [and ultimately subjectively] defining “Benefits” and “Costs” and then elaborating all of the material pathways and network connections of all aspects of activities affected.
“the increasing life spans in the U.S. is largely made possible by coal (electrical generation and steel making) and exceed any negative effects”
How would you test this hypothesis? i am not sure what you are saying, and even less clear how you might measure these things or compare between groups that I am pretty sure don’t materially exist.
Sounds like a great question to ask Hendryx! I would guess that he would say “we didn’t ask that question, should we?” I am sure that we would all love to hear his response!
I don’t see what you are getting at with the quotation, is that supposed to show “bias”?
What are you insinuating about Melissa Ahern? It is unclear to me what your point might be.
this is a popular view in some postmodernist circles. I do not agree with the implication that reality isontologically different for different observers but I am sure that in this world you can find some folks who would be willing to tailor a study to whatever conclusions you need to find. I am sure, however, that you are not insinuating that about these researchers you have personally named in this article, are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism