-
Let's say that you wanted
to conduct an experiment.
-
In this experiment,
you randomly assign people
-
to live in blasting zones.
-
Or in control locations without explosives
going off over their heads.
-
They live in the community for years,
-
just downwind and downstream
-
from sites where tons of explosives
are used almost daily.
-
And millions of gallons
of water contaminated.
-
With random assignment you could
-
carefully study the long-term
health effects
-
of living in these blasting communities
-
without a bunch of annoying
confounders and covariates.
-
Random assignment does wonders.
-
That would be a rigorous,
powerful scientific inquiry
-
into the effects of these
environmental exposures.
-
Of course, such a study
could never be done.
-
Most scientists wouldn't have
the stomach for it.
-
The institutional review board
would never approve it,
-
it would never pass human subjects review
because it would be unethical.
-
Immoral.
-
And yet in effect,
it is happening right now.
-
In my mind it's prompted some questions:
-
What is the ethical obligation
of the scientists who believes
-
populations are in danger?
-
How much evidence is enough
to be confident of our conclusions?
-
Where is the line between
scientific certainty and the need to act?
-
The unplanned experiment
that is happening right now
-
is called mountaintop removal.
-
The abbreviation for it is MTR.
-
It is a form of surface coal mining
-
that takes place in Appalachia
here in the United States.
-
MTR occurs in four states: Virginia,
West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.
-
Over 1.2 million acres
have been mined in this way.
-
This is an area about the size of Delaware
-
but it is spread over a footprint
-
as large as Vermont
and New Hampshire combined.
-
The process involves clear-cutting
ancient Appalachian forest,
-
home to some of the richest
biodiversity on the planet.
-
The trees are typically burned
or dumped into adjacent valleys.
-
Then, to reach the buried coal seams,
-
explosives are used to remove
up to 800 feet of mountain elevation.
-
Over 1500 tons of explosives
-
are used for coal mining
in West Virginia alone.
-
Every day.
-
Rock and soil debris is dumped
over the valley sides,
-
where it permanently buries
headwater streams.
-
So far over 500 mountains
have been destroyed.
-
About 2,000 miles of streams
have been permanently buried.
-
Water emerging from the base of the valley
fills as highly contaminated
-
and remains contaminated for decades.
-
The coal then has to be
chemically treated,
-
crushed and washed before it can be
transported to power plants and burned.
-
This cleaning takes place on-site.
-
The process produces more air pollution
-
and contaminates billions
of gallons of water with metals,
-
sulfates, cleaning chemicals,
and other impurities.
-
All of this to produce three percent
of US electricity demand --
-
only three percent
of US electricity demand.
-
As you can appreciate, this prompts
all sorts of other questions.
-
What are the health impacts
of mountaintop removal mining?
-
There are over a million people
who live in counties where MTR takes place
-
and millions more downstream and downwind.
-
What has been the response
of industry and government
-
when these issues are documented?
-
And again, what is the ethical
obligation of science
-
when faced with this disturbing situation?
-
I began to research this issue in 2006.
-
I had just taken a job
at West Virginia University,
-
before then I hadn't done
any research related to coal.
-
But I started to hear stories
-
from people who lived
in these mining communities.
-
They said that the water
they drank was not clean,
-
that the air they breathed was polluted.
-
They would tell me
about their own illnesses
-
or illnesses in their family.
-
They were worried about how common
cancer was in their neighborhoods.
-
I met with many people
in southern West Virginia
-
and eastern Kentucky
-
to listen to those stories
and hear their concerns.
-
I searched the scientific literature
-
and was surprised to learn
that nothing had been published
-
on the public health effects
of coal mining in the United States.
-
Let me say that again --
-
nothing had been published
on the public health effects
-
of coal mining in the US.
-
So I though, I can make
a new contribution,
-
no matter what I find.
-
To either confirm these concerns
or to alleviate them.
-
I had no personal
or organizational agenda.
-
Many of my colleague
initially were skeptical
-
that there would be any link
between public health and mining.
-
They predicted that the health problems
could be explained by poverty,
-
or by lifestyle issues,
like smoking and obesity.
-
When I started, I thought
maybe they would be right.
-
We started by analyzing existing databases
that allowed us to link
-
population health to mining activity
-
and to control statistically for age, sex,
race, smoking, obesity, poverty,
-
education, health insurance
and others we could measure.
-
We found evidence that confirmed
the concerns of the residents
-
and we started to publish our findings.
-
As a very brief summary,
-
we found that people who live
where mountaintop removal takes place
-
have significantly higher levels
of cardiovascular disease,
-
kidney disease and chronic
lung disease like COPD.
-
Death rates from cancer
are significantly elevated,
-
especially for lung cancer.
-
We've seen evidence
of higher rate for birth defects
-
and for babies born at low birth weight.
-
The difference in total mortality
equates to about 1200 excess deaths
-
every year in MTR areas,
controlling for other risks.
-
Twelve hundred excess deaths every year.
-
Not only are death rates higher,
-
but they increase
as the levels of mining go up
-
in a dose-response manner.
-
Next, we started to conduct
community door-to-door health surveys.
-
We surveyed people living
within a few miles of MTR
-
versus similar rural
communities without mining.
-
Survey results show higher level
of personal and family illness,
-
self-reported health status is poorer,
-
and illness symptoms across
a broad spectrum are more common.
-
These studies are only associational.
-
We all know that correlation
does not prove causation.
-
These studies did not include data
-
on the actual environmental conditions
in mining communities.
-
So we started to collect
and report on that.
-
We found that violations
of public drinking water standards
-
are seven times more common
in MTR areas versus non-mining areas.
-
We collected air samples
-
and found that particulate matter
is elevated in mining communities,
-
especially in the ultra-fine range.
-
The dust in mining communities
contains a complex mixture
-
but includes high levels of silica,
a known lung carcinogen,
-
and potentially harmful organic compounds.
-
We used the dust
in laboratory experiments.
-
And found that it induced
cardiovascular dysfunction in rats.
-
The dust also promoted the development
-
of lung cancer in human
in vitro lung cells.
-
This is just a quick summary
of some of our studies.
-
The coal industry does not like
what we have to say.
-
Neither does the government
in coal country.
-
Just like the tobacco industry
paid for research
-
to defend the safety of smoking,
-
so the coal industry
has tried to do the same
-
by paying people to write papers
claiming that MTR is safe.
-
Lawyers have sent me harassing demands
under the Freedom of Information Act,
-
eventually denied by the courts.
-
I'd been attacked at public testimony
at a Congressional hearing
-
by a congressman with ties
to the energy industry.
-
One governor has publicly declared
that he refuses to read the research.
-
And after a meeting
with a member of Congress,
-
in which I specifically
shared my research,
-
I later heard that representative say
they knew nothing about it.
-
I worked with scientists
at the US Geological Survey
-
on environmental sampling
for more than two years.
-
And just as they were starting
to publish their findings,
-
they were suddenly instructed
by their superiors
-
to stop work on this project.
-
In August of this year,
-
the National Academies of Sciences
was suddenly instructed
-
by the federal government
-
to stop their independent review
-
of the public health consequences
of surface mining.
-
These actions are politically
motivated, in my view.
-
But there is opposition
from researchers, too.
-
At conferences or meetings
they express skepticism.
-
OK, we are all taught
as scientists to be skeptical.
-
They ask, "What about
this possible explanation?"
-
"Have you considered that
alternative interpretation?"
-
They wonder, "There must be
some confounder that we missed.
-
Some other variable
we haven't accounted for."
-
"An in vitro study, what does that prove?"
-
"A rat study -- how do we know the same
effects would be found in people?"
-
Maybe so.
-
Technically, you have to acknowledge
that they could be right,
-
but you know, maybe, these health problems
-
are not the result
of some unmeasured confound.
-
Maybe they result
from blowing up mountains
-
over people's heads.
-
(Laughter)
-
(Applause)
-
There can always be doubt
if doubt is what you seek.
-
Because we can never do that
defining experiment.
-
Any next study must
always be associational.
-
So perhaps you can understand
why I've started to wonder,
-
how much evidence is enough?
-
I've published over 30 papers
on this topic so far.
-
Along with my coauthors, other researchers
have added to the evidence,
-
yet government doesn't want to listen
-
and the industry says
it's only correlational.
-
They say Appalachians
have lifestyle issues.
-
As though it had never occurred to us
-
to control for smoking or obesity
or poverty or education
-
or health insurance.
-
We controlled for all of those and more.
-
There comes a point
where we don't need more research.
-
Where we can't ask people
to be unwilling research subjects
-
so we can do the next study.
-
As scientists, we follow
the data wherever it goes
-
but sometimes data can only take us so far
-
and we have to decide,
as thinking, feeling human beings,
-
what it means and when it is time to act.
-
I think that is true, not only for MTR
but for other situations
-
where evidence is strong
and concerning but imperfect.
-
And when failing to act if you're wrong
means people's lives.
-
It may seem strange
that there is any controversy
-
over the health effects
of mountaintop removal mining.
-
But somehow, this subject has wound up
-
in a scientific
and political twilight zone
-
alongside the debate over climate change
-
or the argument years ago
-
about whether or not
smoking caused cancer.
-
In this twilight zone, much of the data
seems to point to one conclusion.
-
But the economics or the politics
or the prevailing public view
-
insist on the opposite conclusion.
-
When you're a scientist
and you think you have a valid insight
-
where the health
of entire population is at stake
-
but you find yourself trapped
-
in this twilight zone
of denial and disbelief,
-
what is your moral and ethical obligation?
-
Obviously, scientists are responsible
for telling the truth as they see it,
-
based on evidence.
-
Simply stated, we have an obligation
to stand up for the data.
-
It can be extremely frustrating
to wait around for public opinion
-
or political consensus to catch up
to the scientific understanding.
-
But the more controversial the subject
and the more frustrating the debate,
-
the more critical it is for scientists
to preserve our objectivity
-
and our reputation for integrity.
-
Because integrity is the coin of the realm
-
in scientific and public policy debate.
-
In the long run,
our reputation for integrity
-
is the most powerful tool that we have,
-
even more powerful than the data itself.
-
Without an acknowledged integrity
on the part of scientists,
-
no amount of data
will ever convince people
-
to believe painful or difficult truths.
-
But when we cultivate and guard
our reputation for integrity,
-
when we patiently stand up for the data
and keep doing the studies
-
and keep calmly bringing
the results to the public,
-
that's when we have our greatest impact.
-
Eventually, scientific truth
does and will win out.
-
How many lives will be lost while we wait?
-
Too many already.
-
But prevail we will.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)