Community Health and Big Coal--Activist Forum

Monday, May 9, 2011

In case you aren't already seeing red...

Collaborating with Environmentalists

http://thepeoplesmusic.us/2010/05/fight-mountain-top-removal-with-good-music/

http://mountainkeeper.blogspot.com/

As the organizations linked above will show, the multitude of different strategies for achieving goals reflects the variety of goals themselves. Our topic of community health should be broadly interesting to environmentalist groups--improvements in mining practices that are meant to affect community health will inevitably promote environmentalist concerns as well.

However, coalition building can be very tricky! The political culture in West Virginia, especially in the legislature, can be very negative towards environmentalist initiatives, along with anything anti-coal and anything seen as anti-business. Therefore, in collaborating with such organizations, the movement aimed at securing healthy lives for those affected by industrial negligence must be careful in constructing its public image as PRO-PEOPLE and PRO-HEALTH and, surprisingly, PRO-COAL. The aim of the social movement is the improvement of mining practices to improve the lives of people living near the mines, not to stop coal mining itself.

The importance of collaborating with other organizations in this instance will be to learn from one another's successes and failures, to share contacts and resources, and to search for common ground--there is power in numbers.

Friday, May 6, 2011

A Closer Look at the Problem and a Definition of Success

Environmental Protection Agency

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/upload/Spruce_No-_1_Mine_Final_Determination_011311_signed.pdf

On pages 94-96 of this document, the EPA addresses the human impact of one particular surface mining project. Several big points they address are:

More conclusive health research is needed (pg. 96)! Regardless, the studies that do exist "identify significant associations between surface coal mining activity and a variety of health disparities. They indicate that mortality rates in Appalachian coal mining regions for chronic respiratory, cardiovascular, and kidney disease, and for some forms of cancer including lung cancer are disproportionately elevated when comparing to other regions." In other words, the research shows strong correlations but have not worked towards establishing causation.
The EPA itself feels that the local community did not have access to necessary information or opportunities to participate in decision-making about the mine.

Science (Magazine)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5962/148.summary
*Full article not available online, but worth a read if you can find it at the library! The link provides other articles that cite this one.*

"Despite much debate in the United States, surprisingly little attention has been given to the growing scientific evidence of the negative impacts of (mountaintop removal)...Our analyses of current peer-reviewed studies and of new water-quality data from WV streams revealed serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address. Published studies also show a high potential for human health impacts."

Even after the mine has been reclaimed (supposedly everything is put back into place), water and air quality are poorer than they should be due to the presence of mine chemicals.

"Adult hospitilizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a funciton of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortlity; lung cancer; and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease." Authors point out that it cannot only be due to direct occupational exposure--THIS IS A COMMUNITY-LEVEL HEALTH ISSUE!

The authors also point out that, despite the regulation of the Clean Water Act, streams are still polluted with mine-related toxins. In other words, government regulation of this aspect of coal industry negligence has been ineffective.

National Resources Defense Council

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coal/mtr/
This group does have a movement underway to stop mountaintop removal. However, a movement to secure community health would not support the cessation of the industry, just ensuring responsible and ethical industrial practices.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coal/mtr/fmtr.asp
   The .pdf page that is attached to this website has some interesting things to say about mountaintop removal's effects on communities. Most gripping is the statistics about coal mining itself. Based on 2002 data, coal mining accounts for 1.2% of jobs in West Virginia and 2.6% of the state's total revenues.
   For a state that is so pro-coal, these are shockingly small statistics. If coal mining really accounts for so little in terms of income to our state, why can we turn a blind eye to the possible negative effects on public health that this industry causes?
   This article also indicates just how far-reaching the pollution of current coal mining practices are. According the the NRDC, mountaintop removal is impacting 1000s of miles of streams and rivers. If it is true that coal mining, and mountaintop removal specifically, makes people in the surrounding area ill, can the far-reaching pollution be affecting the health of more people?

We cannot continue to look the other way while thousands of people are potentially affected by this. We have it in our power to influence change.

The United States Geological Survey

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3096/pdf/fs2009-3096.pdf
   This article (January 2010) reviews out some of the sparse research done on the negative effects of pollution from energy resources on health of nearby people. It boldly challenges the dearth of research done on these adverse health effects: "Clean water is fundamentally important to human health, but the impact of toxic substances derived from energy resources (especially coal) in water supplies has received little attention."
   In this article, Appalachia receives direct attention about the health concerns raised from coal slurry impoundment. This toxic waste solution left over from coal mining is suspended in waste ponds throughout the Appalachia region. Beyond the fact that these containment ponds are often precariously placed above valley communities and have the potential to flood in a disaster, the toxins within these gunk ponds have the potential to leach into groundwater and poison individuals in the surrounding area. AGAIN, THERE IS A LACK OF CONCLUSIVE INFORMATION: "Little is known about the chemistry of coal slurry, contamination of surface and groundwater by chemical substances from coal slurry, or human health and environmental issues linked to coal slurry. Citizen groups are becoming increasingly concerned about potential health hazards from coal-slurry impounds."

SUCCESS?!

   From this dual problem of illness in coal mining communities and a lack of information as to whether or not industrial practices are causing these problems, a definition of success for this new social movement can be identified.

MOVEMENT SUCCESS WILL BE DEFINED BY THE ADOPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT ADDRESSES THESE PROBLEMS WITH CONCLUSIVE MEDICAL RESEARCH. MOVEMENT PARTICIPANTS CANNOT SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN SOLID RESULTS IN THEIR HANDS THAT FINALLY STATES WHETHER OR NOT COAL MINING IS CAUSING COMMUNITY HEALTH PROBLEMS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFINITION OF SUCCESS WILL CHANGE INTO SOMETHING EVEN MORE MEANINGFUL--SUCCESS IS WHEN SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTIVITIES PRODUCE SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH IN THESE AREAS BY GETTING COAL COMPANIES TO CLEAN UP THEIR ACTS.

   This must be the goals of social movement activity aimed at addressing these problems. To move forward with full force without solid factual evidence that coal mining is, in fact, creating health concerns would be difficult. However, a second but more important measure of success will be the tangible improvement of community health in these communities as quickly as possible!
   Although research on these topics is in its infant phases, citizens must push for clear tangible results. These results must be made public knowledge quickly. There must be a greater presence of this issue in region-wide and national conversation and media. The human impact of coal waste is staggering, and yet few people outside of the region are aware of the problem at all.

Getting Started!

Here's where the idea began:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/us/13lindytown.html?_r=2&hp

This article briefly identifies the problem at hand. Page 4 of the article by Dan Barry of the New York Times mentions that community health issues linked to coal mining practices has become a growing concern. He cites an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that indicates that health problems in Appalachia are worse in areas near mountaintop removal mines.

This EPA report does directly mention health concerns for residents near a coal mine:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/upload/Spruce-No-1-Mine-Recommended-Determination.pdf#page=73

From page 73-74, this EPA document states how there is a potential for "disproportionately high and adverse impact on the low income population affected by the mining activity." It also hints at the issues that this group faces in confronting these concerns as a marginalized group. They are often left out of the processes of decision making about these things, and therefore their concerns are often left unheard.

So, is coal mining causing health problems for the residents of nearby towns? The answer--We don't know. There are many other studies and sources that point to inconclusive speculations about whether or not these health issues are related to coal mining.

As if destroying natural habitats, flora, and fauna wasn't enough. As if encroaching on the property of thousands of people weren't bad enough. As if the contaminated well water and paltry solutions weren't enough to get the ball rolling, this should be. Why is it okay for any corporation to usurp anything? We know it happens all the time, but can we really accept that a company can be accused of potentially ruining the health of the people around them with impunity?

Granted, we do not know conclusively whether or not these health problems are directly related to coal mining activities. However, that becomes our goal. We need organization to push the government to recognize these problems and sponsor scientific and medical investigation into whether or not these problems can and should be directly and conclusively linked to coal mining. After this is done, and if and when health concerns are conclusively linked to coal mining, we must move to the next step to remedy the problem.

This blog is designed for many purposes:
1. To allow viewers to post their story and open the door for contact and communication between individuals, communities, and organizations willing to address the problem.
2. To serve as a source of information for interested parties.
3. To document and suggest social movement activities aimed at remedying this problem.