The study's budget was only $1m. Seems like the readership of HN could easily pull that money together and donate the funding, if the researchers could accept it.
I'd be surprised if this "community" could gather money for anything remotely useful.
Also: I'd like to see the outcome of a fundraising, and the demographics of the donators, to see how many pledge outside of CA, and outside of the USA. This would give me an impression about the extent of the Trump is Satan and the world is about to end mindset. (imho nothing changes, things proceed with trump as before. business as usual)
Just to make it clear: I'd not give a single penny for it, I care for the health of US citizens only as much as they care for the health of citizens of other countries.
> I'd be surprised if this "community" could gather money for anything remotely useful.
You can't go right by starting an "attack" on a bunch of people of very diversified backgrounds and ideologies.
> Also: I'd like to see the outcome of a fundraising, and the demographics of the donators, to see how many pledge outside of CA, and outside of the USA. This would give me an impression about the extent of the Trump is Satan and the world is about to end mindset.
If you are not my ally then you are my enemy. I'm really sick of this ideology. There is a whole set of people interested in green tech that have exactly 0 opinion in politics let alone Donald Trump.
> Just to make it clear: I'd not give a single penny for it, I care for the health of US citizens only as much as they care for the health of citizens of other countries.
This is just plainly and unnecessarily aggressive. It's like the "non-existant" fund-raising is relying on your donation. No it isn't. Just like the rest of the 7 billion humans and hundred of millions of other companies and entities.
You're not thinking strategically. The US is one of the biggest emitters of CO2, and coal plants are about 1/3 of that. If the study can convince the population to reduce their use, even if with a different argument, that's helpful for the whole planet.
James Cromwell was arrested for protesting a dirty and unnecessary coal power plant in NY, but I don't think it made a difference. I think academic research that's newsworthy has much more and different punch than direct action. Using the existing broadcasting platforms scales more that all the screaming and picketing in Times Square, grandmas with prayer stick beaten down, dogs dripping with human blood or girls arms blown off when the news isn't watching.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume any important outcome of said study will be seen as valid by the people in power who can do something about the results of the study. Many high power people in the government actively try to present scientists as liars and frauds, and you think we should just let the data speak for itself? How's that working out so far?
Almost all research has ulterior motives in this sense, particularly government-funded research. You want to guide policy so you collect information on the impact of that policy, existing or proposed. The alternative is to make policy in the absence of data.
Research guided this way is problematic only if it amounts to cherry-picking of facts, studying only the benefits or costs to the exclusion of the other.
And what different argument? By giving them away money for free in addition to the amounts they ransack from the rest of the world already? (just think about 1$ = 1€ as an example)
The information age is built on gathering raw data and doing pure research, neither of which are profitable activities.
The implied threshold for wastefulness here is offensively low; basically any project that might require one moderately competent PhD researcher for a year.
You hit the nail on the head, pure research is not a profitable activity. This is why we can't trust companies and corporations to research.. their motives are almost always profit driven. This only underlines the importance of government funded research, and the need to have a government in place who is willing to put the advancement of our society over their own personal gain (We don't have that right now..).
I don't understand your issue with people making money. Why should people not make money while doing beneficial research for humankind? Is there some reason why making money and helping people are mutually exclusive?
Even assuming that the 100K doesn't include indirect costs, and is only for one-year (and I'm not convinced either one of those assumptions is correct)...yeah, that's basically "All projects"
Note, I know this isn't 1:1, not about the communities surrounding mountaintop removal, but there are some good notes in it about modern changes to mining techniques all the same.
You don't need anymore research to know it is obviously dangerous. What we do need is leadership that doesn't bow down to cronies & supports stupid beliefs.
Hello from WV. (Northern panhandle here) Most of my family were steel mill folks but before the mills took off they were miners. Coal and mining (in general) are hell on the body.
I grew up in a county with two coal burning power plants in it. The air quality and asthma rates and improvement in my asthma when I moved away alone were enough for me, my wife had horrible asthma until she moved outside a 10 mile radius of one. I don't need a study to tell me they're not good for air quality.
In all seriousness though, the most important bit wasn't even clarified by the article:
The agency says it is reviewing spending on all projects that cost more than $100,000.
So is it actually true and I'm supposed to be manipulated into outrage due to cherry picking this one project? Or is it false and I'm supposed to be actually outraged at this shadowy deceitful action?
There's no reason to disbelieve that statement. Trump has said he wants to expand coal production, and that climate change is a hoax.
Just take him at his word. He doesn't need a study telling him coal is unhealthy.. he already has a plan, and he doesn't care what this study says. Therefore it is 100% a waste (to him).
It's not shadowy or deceitful.. he has been right up front with everyone on his anti-science, anti-climate change, and pro-coal agenda.
It can be true and you can still be outraged, because that justification is probably just an excuse to can projects that the current government doesn't like.
As I recall, one couldn't (and still can't) get funding for research into medicinal uses of drugs like marijuana and heroin.
Politics always drives what gets government research funding and what doesn't. Politics defines what is "legitimate" and what isn't, and those shift over time.
It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come.
Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.
> There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending.
Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public.
Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech".
When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
> Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted.
The weasel words in that are "almost never".
If something has merit then let it stand on its merit.
> Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public.
Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach.
> Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech".
That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out.
> When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on.
If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
> Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach.
So you request a specific approach with reason and care offered, but base this on the generalism, "Science is not sacred?" Seems contratradictory but okay...
Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?"
Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency.
> If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them.
It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford.
To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why?
Why is this your cherries and why should the public not only be on the hook for long term health and cleanup issues, but be forbidden from even asking questions about said potentialities? Can't we at least study and plan for potential expenses?
> So you request a specific approach with reason and care offered, but base this on the generalism, "Science is not sacred?" Seems contratradictory but okay...
> Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?"
Sure but there's plenty of other things we should be measuring too. Canceling one doesn't mean we're against measuring things. It just means that the executive branch has prioritized other things above this particular one. That's a natural side effect of limited resources.
> Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is the one that championed the phrase "Clean Coal". It didn't make much sense when he said it either (though sequestration is interesting).
> I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them.
So go make some money and fund a project to research the negative effects of things you don't like. Or lobby your representatives to do so. Or organize your fellow citizens to elect a group of officials that will do so.
It's "your cherries" because you're clearly offended by something in this action.
> It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford.
What we can afford is a sliding scale that has to factor in deficit spending and taxation levels. If you're of the opinion that budgets should be balanced and taxes should be low, then you have to be more selective in what you can afford.
> To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why?
I haven't proposed any specific policy proposals in this thread. All I've claimed from the beginning is that I think we need to look at funding proposals individually. Just because something is "for the public good", "involves public health", "will further science", does not mean the Federal government can or should spend money on it.
Similarly just because the prior administration funded a project does not mean the current one must continue it. If that were true would you be standing behind every executive order that President Trump puts forward, regardless of the outcome of future elections?
> Sure but there's plenty of other things we should be measuring too. Canceling one doesn't mean we're against measuring things.
But you've shown very clearly that you're against measuring THIS specific thing. You've authored multiple long posts defending the idea that we can and should defund this specific study.
You've taken the default position that the majority of people upset over this are upset about the concept of defunding science. While there are concerns like that present here, we're discussing how concerning it is that Trump, who's shown himself to be anti-modern-energy & anti-environmental-regulation, is going to further damage the future of the US energy economy with actions like this.
> I'm pretty sure President Obama is the one that championed the phrase "Clean Coal".
He said it a few times, then distanced himself from it as it came out what an absolute fraud it is. His admin also kicked off this effort we're describing, so maybe we can balance the accounting for this one instance.
> It didn't make much sense when he said it either (though sequestration is interesting).
Thanks, Wikipedia. Carbon Sequestration is indeed linked off the "Clean Coal" page, but is ultimately an unrelated topic. Indeed, multiple carbon sequestration efforts are underway and they in no way justify the use of coal power plants or offset the damage of coal mining.
> So go make some money and fund a project to research the negative effects of things you don't like. Or lobby your representatives to do so. Or organize your fellow citizens to elect a group of officials that will do so.
We have done all these things, and part of the success of those efforts was the Obama administration kicking off these studies. But thanks for recapping history and implying that no one has done anything, thus far.
> It's "your cherries" because you're clearly offended by something in this action.
Offended? No, that'd imply that I'm surprised and was expecting better. I don't. The Trump industry is meticulously dismantling as much climate science, environmental regulation, and health & safety oversight as they can. This administration makes the W. Bush admin look positively pro-science.
> If you're of the opinion that budgets should be balanced and taxes should be low, then you have to be more selective in what you can afford.
But again, you show up here to say that tiny sums of cost for informing regulatory oversight are bad. You've dodged multiple attempts by multiple people to engage on subsidization, defense, and entitlement inefficiency. You've dodged or ignored it.
> All I've claimed from the beginning is that I think we need to look at funding proposals individually.
Your actions have demonstrated very clearly: you're not interested in balancing the budget. You're interested in defunding this science. That's why I asked Why. I repeat: Why are you interested in defending the decision to defund a study on the coal industry's health & safety impact?
You keep talking about how we should consider specifics, but you yourself refuse to address the specifics of this effort nor the more constrained domain of US budget balancing. This is why people don't believe you when you say this, it seems more like a quotable defense than a description of your actions in these threads.
> Similarly just because the prior administration funded a project does not mean the current one must continue it.
Trump & the Republican hose have made it pretty clear that the opposite is true: if the Obama admin started it, it should be erased. Too bad they're all so bad at their jobs.
I was unaware that political appointees were good at judging scientific merit. That's why previous administrations (Republican and Democratic) have generally not messed with research grants.
> I totally missed this in my reply, but in 2017 if folks are frequently calling you a Nazi it probably isn't a Seinfeld joke.
You also missed that I was referring to small minded people jumping to using the word "Nazi" when commenting on anything that involves the President or executive branch.
I usedit tactically for folks heavily implicated in pro-fascist movements lime Gorka and Bannon.
But after Trump has repeatedly equovacated for and defended the honor literal, flag carrying neo-nazis, I feel comfortable directly addressing the executive's actions with these words. I think he's shown he's genuinely racist, and wants to help execute a racist agenda.
But my original post was referring to political "equal funding" laws that give money to any group that can get signatures on a page to run for office. You're just defensive about the executives politics, so you felt this was an attack.
Likely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
Oh, you know, that parable about the squirrels. One hoards acorns for winter but gets hit by a truck. The other one eats all of his acorns, becomes obese, and is worshipped by other squirrels for his acorn eating prowess, who bring him more acorns.
I'm still waiting for us to actually cut wasteful spending in areas like defense. Too bad that will never happen. The Gov can just keep cutting science spending.
Fun fact: even when you exclude defense spending, total government expenditures per capita (federal, state, and local) are $1,500 per year higher in the US than in Canada.
This is very true. However it also creates weapons that are sitting around waiting for justifying their existence. Unless you really need these weapons (and I absolutely recognize it can be the case), shouldn't we use the money on other pursuits that will not have this nasty side effect?
This study is on the health risks of surface coal mining (also known as mountaintop removal) on the surrounding communities, not on the miners. As the article notes there is some evidence of unusually high lung cancer and birth defect rates in communities near such mines.
I was eating dinner with two doctors about a month ago, and they were discussing this. They said it was difficult to prove that coal mining causes things like lung cancer in the miners themselves because it is just about impossible to find a coal miner who doesn't smoke.
What does that have to do with mountain top removal causing health problems in the surrounding communities? Because the study that this article refers to isn't about lung cancer in coal miners.
"widely known" is useless in science. Anyone can claim that they know something is X, i.e. pretty much every one of Trump's statements is him claiming that "I know <insert subject> is bad, therefore we must do <insert solution>". His statement isn't any more true than merely stating that he's wrong without anything to prove his falseness. Science and actual studies do make it true that he's wrong.
Just bring back the rule of law. Tort law would mean that coal burning would be sued to extinction. Accepting the death of all tomorrow so that some may survive today is absurd. The church of pseudo-finance tells us that burning our forests down and poisoning all our rivers is 'growth'. Any child would laugh this away as insanity.
I don't have an opinion on whether the government should complete the study, but one reason for doing so is that such government agency studies are admissible in court to prove facts. The rules of evidence are complex, but long story short such government investigative studies can be extremely valuable for both plaintiffs and defendants by making it easier and cheaper to meet evidentiary burdens of production and persuasion.
If an administration believes a study's findings would be detrimental to a group it wishes to protect, it might choose to terminate the study before it gets published.
Some millennials certainly will work in the petroleum business. They get paid good money in the extraction industry and are willing to train you & keep you certified.
That it's destroying the environment - well I'm sure the folks so employed will be as happy for their jobs as the ones on hedge funds front-running the entire market or those in big pharma who research and market the next addictive pain-killer.
That's not what the study in question was about. It was about the health effects of dumping mountaintops into adjacent valleys, causing the streams to turn acidic.
You're probably premature on the oil bit, the latest oil boom is over but it was a good run for high paying, manual labor without any education requirements.
Coal jobs had the double whammy of cheaper energy sources for power reducing demand and replacement of mining veins to mechanized mountaintop removal reducing need for manual labor.
Oil demand will probably come back for the same jobs - until they can mechanize oil/natural gas drilling like mountaintop coal removal.
They cut the research. So what? People are free to end their own robbery (paying taxes) to fund the research themselves. The taxes of five working people can finance a PhD.
These studies are often started with political goals in mind -- the article confirm this when it highlights "the political nature of the topic". Maybe the money is better spent on a study on the health effects of lithium extraction?
So glad POTUS did this. It is a huge waste of money to find out what the general public already know. The health effects are very, very bad! The worst!
