Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawyers For Mining Companies Threaten Scientific Journals

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-can't-handle-the-truth dept.

The Courts 205

An anonymous reader writes "ScienceInsider got hold of a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals (PDF) concerning data from the U.S. 'Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study.' Many occupational health researchers believe the study will show a link between diesel exhaust and cancer. A handful of scientists have commented on the letter and its implications."

cancel ×

205 comments

it's (0, Offtopic)

sveinb (305718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172723)

ITS

Re:it's (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172757)

who cares?

Re:it's (2)

mwfischer (1919758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172783)

I see you're also paid by the mining company.

Re:it's (0, Flamebait)

cassidylaker (826104) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172985)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I assume AC meant, "Who cares if the word is "it's" or "its"?" Some people don't care about proper spelling and grammar. Many people do.

Re:it's (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172879)

Myself for one. OP is right to point that out.

Re:it's (4, Funny)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173061)

If you care about that, you might also care that "myself" is a reflexive pronoun, and there's no reflexive action here. Your use is a hypercorrection.

(Of course, according to Muphry's Law, this post will have an error in it somewhere, too.)

Re:it's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173119)

Incorrect: "Myself, for one, care."

Correct: "I, for one, care."

Also correct: "I'm going to go fuck myself now."

Re:it's (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173447)

Of course, according to Muphry's Law, this post will have an error in it somewhere, too.)

This is either brilliant satire or the quickest response time from Murphy I've seen yet.

Re:it's (4, Informative)

amck (34780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173967)

To quote the Oracle, wikipedia:

Muphry's law is an adage that states that "if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written". The name is a deliberate misspelling of Murphy's law.

Re:it's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173019)

People who speak English.

Re:it's (3, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173055)

People who speak English.

Honestly, I think there are plenty of people who speak English, yet are incapable of giving a fuck about spelling errors. Speaking != literate.

Re:it's (3, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173155)

There are plenty of people who are literate who don't give a fuck about spelling errors, either. Literate != pedantic.

Re:it's (1, Interesting)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173187)

There are also people who care, but have trouble learning to spell. One acquaintance of mine is a native English speaker but an exceptionally poor speller, and an even more exceptional engineer. He's done quite well for himself, but I imagine if he posted on sites like this, people would assume he was stupid.

There's all sorts of reasons someone might not spell well. So who cares?

Re:it's (1, Offtopic)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173265)

There's all sorts of reasons someone might not spell well. So who cares?

Because presumably, this stuff goes through an editorial process....

Re:it's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173369)

There are all sorts of technological tools a person could bring to bear against his inability to spell well. Grammar can be propped up similarly.

So when obviously using a computer to write something, basic errors suggest a general inattention to the matter and an attitude of 'who cares', which is much different from simply not learning it easily. A lack of concern for one of the most basic means of communicating with others warrants more than a shrug of the shoulders.

Re:it's (2, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173459)

So who cares?

Words and punctuation have meaning. If you use them improperly, you change the meaning of what is being said. This matters a lot in contracts as well as everyday communication.

Secondly, this is a website for technically minded people. Presumably, many of us have been programmers at some point, or at least we have some familiarity with coding. If you are not such, let me assure you that a compiler cares about spelling and punctuation. It cares a lot.

Re:it's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173625)

Words (and punctuation) have meaning if you use them improperly. You! Change the meaning of what is being said.

Re:it's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173749)

Readers do. Any spelling or grammatical error slows comprehension. The reason editors exist is so that comprehension of published written work can be enhanced.

Re:it's (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173969)

Spelling != Grammar

Re:it's (1, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173067)

who cares?

Michael Palin. [youtube.com]

you mean "whom cares?" (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173351)

right?

Re:it's (0, Offtopic)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172991)

Definately.

Re:it's (1, Funny)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173015)

I sea what you did their.

Re:it's (2, Funny)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173415)

Your so hilarious.

Re:it's (1, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173443)

Me two

Re:it's (1, Funny)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173559)

I could care less.

Re:it's (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173081)

ITS

Monty Python's Flying Circus!

Re:it's (0)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173523)

Oh no it's not.

Re:it's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173959)

ITS

But it is implications! What not get you are not.

Link not working (2)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172759)

Interesting the link to the to "a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals " is not working. Maybe the letters have had effect?

Re:Link not working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172789)

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS%20documents.pdf

Re:Link not working (5, Informative)

wbav (223901) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172803)

Re:Link not working (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173611)

Where's the scandal over heating foods in plastic containers being linked to cancer?

Re:Link not working (0, Redundant)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172827)

Interesting the link to the to "a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals " is not working. Maybe the letters have had effect?

v_v with that and the obvious spelling error confusing "it's" with "its"... isn't there someone who's supposed to be checking this stuff? I think they're called... editors?

Nah, this is slashdot! I must be new here. :(

Re:Link not working (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173603)

You're not new here, you ought to know this:

They aren't that kind of editor. Now, exactly what Slashdot editors are supposed to be editing has always be a mystery to me but long experience has shown it's not content, hypertext links, grammar or spelling.

Re:Link not working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172847)

Take the slashdot info out of the URL and the document loads fine.

Re:Link not working (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173257)

Yes. It is a conspiracy, not just a fucked up link.

Hmmm... Let's see... (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172861)

1) put lots of (mostly) men down in holes in the ground.

2) Give them powered machinery that predominately runs on diesel power.

3) Fail to properly ventilate the hole in the ground (citation: all of the major mining disasters in the US in recent memory have cited poor ventilation and air circulation).

4) Act surprised when combustion gas fumes and particulates demonstrate being bad for said men?

5) Profit!

I guess we figured out the "???" step...

I understand the importance of mining. I understand also that the direct cost of what we purchase as finished products is based in part on extraction costs of those raw materials that go into finished products, but I have a hard time believing that minor increases in extraction costs because of safety and equipment improvements would massively increase the costs of finished products, and honestly, I'd be willing to pay a little more for something if it means I'm not at least mildly culpable in killing people in order to get it.

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172951)

I wonder why we see considerably more "we need more women in science/engineering", but we don't hear much (if anything) about more women in mining.
Where's the equality police?

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (4, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173051)

Because mining jobs don't look fun and "empowering" on brochures.

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (5, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173197)

I wonder why we see considerably more "we need more women in science/engineering", but we don't hear much (if anything) about more women in mining.
Where's the equality police?

Most concern about under-representation is for desirable jobs. I never saw people complaining that white people are underrepresented in fast food restaurant service staff in Seattle. Why? Because it's not a desirable job, and population representation is really only of significant importance with desirable jobs.

When you have 500 applicants lined up for one job, then it's more likely that you will fill job positions statistically consistent with the population, but when you have 50 slots open per single applicant, then your job population will statistically represent those people who apply, and a lack of one particular subpopulation will usually indicate less of a "we don't hire people with trait XY" and more of a "we hire everyone who applies, but people with trait XY don't apply."

This should always raise the question of "why are people with trait XY not applying?" but the answer for undesirable jobs is easy: because the jobs are undesirable. However, for desirable jobs (like software engineer, doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc), the question becomes much harder. Supposedly, these jobs are highly desirable, so why would people with trait XY not be applying?

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (2)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173281)

You do in Australia because the wages are crazy here ($100,000 to drive a truck) and apparently female operators are gentler on the equipment.

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173633)

Who's equipment?

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173135)

Maybe they could first switch all underground machinery to electricity. Then stop struggling with fire prevention technology and trying to ventilate the entire mine and instead just treat it like the hostile environment that it is by giving them breathing apparatuses. Run strong pipes (so they can't be easily crushed) with connection points every 10 ft or so and give the workers sealed breathing masks and a 1 hr or so backup oxygen tank. Run two separate lines so there is a backup. Then you can flood the mine with an inert gas like nitrogen so fires and explosions can't occur. You could even chill the air to keep the workers cooled when working in deep, hot mines.

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173191)

I have a hard time believing that minor increases in extraction costs because of safety and equipment improvements would massively increase the costs of finished products

But that's just it - even if drastically improving the workers' health adds just a few cents per ton, and even if it saves a hundred times that in health care costs down the road, the market will still drive production to whoever does NOT do those things, because they'll be two cents cheaper.

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173549)

only for companies dumb enough to make such a short term decision.

See, things like health care are long term decisions involved with making your business viable. Literally spending the 2 cents a ton in healthcare costs saves them probably 200k per employee in the long run (including lawsuits, health claims, etc).

Re:Hmmm... Let's see... (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173195)

People are willing to pay a little more. The key word there is little. People do not understand that a change of this magnitude will affect end price in a big way.

Don't You Know? (-1, Flamebait)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173279)

Everything causes cancer.

"Threaten"? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172891)

Not to stick up for the mining companies, but the letter actually seems like it's asking publishers nicely.

Re:"Threaten"? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172987)

It's also not some random idle threat of "don't you publish this or else". They've clearly already gone through proper legal channels, and the litigation is ongoing. They're simply making publishers aware of the litigation, and that they should not publish the report until the litigation is concluded.

Re:"Threaten"? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173555)

Thank you both. Now I don't have to post. The letter was not threatening in any way and is complying with litigation, which is basically what one would want.

Re:"Threaten"? (4, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173721)

It is a polite "lawyer talk" letter which points out they they have already sued the US Government to suppress the results of the study and they have lined up some well paid congressmen to suppress the results of the study and they are "just sayin" that it would really be a shame for anything bad to happen to that nice journal you have there and that if you all go along with the game here to suppress the results of the study then we will leave you alone... for now.

Shorter mining industry: yes, we kill people (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39172897)

Shorter mining industry: "Yeah, we've been killing people for generations. Whadda YOU gonna do about it?"

Deja vu ? (0)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172899)

link or no link, maybe I'm going to far with this but will this have a similar affect like the tobacco industry years ago ? you know, they all worked and did everything to could to make profit even if they murdered people to do profit. (I call it murder since that industry was aware of the health problems, lots of studies and proof exists)

Re:Deja vu ? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173323)

Most everyone is/was aware of the health problems.

Yet people still smoke and government still makes lots of money from taxing it.

"America's Choice 2012 (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172913)

..brought to you by: Coal! America's power source."

That one cracks me up every time.

Re:"America's Choice 2012 (3, Informative)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172977)

Or even more infuriating.... Clean coal. Those two words should not be allowed NEAR each other in a pro-coal ad until at least 5% of the coal industry is actually clean.

So? (4, Informative)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172953)

The lawyers aren't being egregious, they are just making people aware of ongoing litigation and court orders that might land them in the middle of something they don't want to be in the middle of if they publish. I don't think it's extortion as they don't claim they will sue if the study is published, they just warn the publication there's an ongoing issue and an injunction. Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction. Without reading the lawsuit I can't judge at all if the mining industry is being nasty and litigious to the authors or if they have a valid claim but either way warning publications to talk to counsel seems like a good idea.

Re:So? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173045)

Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction.

90 days after the complaints have all been addressed. As the USA is appealing the decision, this likely has not occurred yet. The court order also says that the defendant (the USA) was supposed to distribute this exact material to scientific journals as well. I suppose the plaintiff, not wishing to wait for the appeal to be heard before the government would move and notify the publishers, decided instead to fulfill that part of the court order on behalf of the defense, rather than suffer potential harm from them publishing the study.

Re:So? (2)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173139)

For anyone interested in a fairly unbiased, but lengthy, rundown on the history of the issue: Here [politicsdaily.com]

Re:So? (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173373)

90 days after the complaints have all been addressed.

Really? My reading of the court order (in the first link that doesn't work) says 90 days after they provide the paper to the opposing side in the lawsuit. 90 days after that, they can do whatever they want. Here is the relevant part from the court order, so you can interpret it yourself:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as agreed to by Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's counsel, agents, or contractors shall not disclose or disseminate further the drafts, data, or materials produced hereunder during the 90 days commencing on the date the Defendants send those drafts to Plaintiffs except for the purpose of making comments about the drafts to defendants, the publishing journals, or to the Congressional Committee.

Also, here is another paragraph from the court order that explains why the lawyers sent the letter in the first place:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants immediately inform all recipients, including journals, of the above described study draft reports, not yet published, that they are prohibited from further distribution of said drafts until at least 90 days after Defendants have complied with this order

Re:So? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173475)

I should rephrase, when I said "complaints had been addressed", I meant legal complaints... namely, that the drafts had been sent to the plaintiffs. They're claiming in the letter that they don't think that the defense has actually met the conditions of the court order, and so that the 90-days have not actually even started.

Of course, that's just what they're claiming.

Re:So? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173609)

They sent the letter because the court order requires them to, in the second paragraph I quoted.

Re:So? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173811)

They sent the letter because the court order requires them to, in the second paragraph I quoted.

The court order didn't require the PLAINTIFF to send the letter, it required the DEFENDANT to send the letter. But since the defendants are appealing, and so likely are not going to follow the court order until the appeal fails, the plaintiff decided to send the letter instead.

Re:So? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173921)

True, true

Re:So? Really? (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173185)

Isn't this an obvious attempt to suppress publication of data that will likely lead to mining companies having to pay in full for the health consequences of what until now have been cost-cutting practices that only save money as long as they don't have to pay for the cancers that result? Having one judge in the Deep South who goes along with this attempt at suppressing both science and the rights of mine workers to a healthy work environment show only that our courts too are deeply corrupt - something we've known at least since Bush v. Gore. It hardly means the judge in question, or the law firm firmly on the side of evil here, deserve any respect. The journals should publish this data, aggressively, and assert First Amendment rights to do so.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173699)

It's a scientific study. You attack it on its merits or lack thereof. A legal challenge to the publication of scientific is a direct attack on science.

Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! (1, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172967)

Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! Peoples lives depend on results kept hidden by two gangs of crooks, and only wikileaks and/or anonymous can save peoples lives... The government sure as heck won't help the people, the crooks are actively against us... the only people who can save lives are you two. go go go

1) One bunch of crooks makes money by letting people die in mines for higher profit. Evil personified.

2) One bunch of crooks makes money by charging both authors and readers to distribute research funded by taxpayer dollars. Pointless dying intermediaries.

I would love it if both evil groups of crooks get screwed. Anyone got a link to a torrent on the pirate bay yet? Or a .onion tor link, or a i2p link, or ... note I'm not looking for links to rickrolls and goatse, only links to the genuine documents (assuming there's no false flag operation where the mining co. themselves release "massaged" data, not outside the realm of possibility)

Are there no superheros anymore? Is this just too difficult for anon and wikileaks? Come on guys, get it in gear and save some lives.

Re:Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173087)

Do you understand how Wikileaks works or are you just trying to be funny ?

Re:Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173745)

No, Annoymous and WikiLeaks should not publish this. The journal should. This, folks is how science is done:

1. Do research
2. Publish research
3. Critique research

Critique can include request for information concerning materials, methods and results. BUT you don't do that before the results are published. They diesel dudes will get their day in court and in the lab, they just have to sit on their hands for a bit. But coopting the system is a very, very bad precedent.

Re:Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173883)

Anonymous and Wikileaks please help! Peoples lives depend on results kept hidden by two gangs of crooks, and only wikileaks and/or anonymous can save peoples lives... The government sure as heck won't help the people, the crooks are actively against us... the only people who can save lives are you two. go go go

1) One bunch of crooks makes money by letting people die in mines for higher profit. Evil personified.

2) One bunch of crooks makes money by charging both authors and readers to distribute research funded by taxpayer dollars. Pointless dying intermediaries.

I would love it if both evil groups of crooks get screwed. Anyone got a link to a torrent on the pirate bay yet? Or a .onion tor link, or a i2p link, or ... note I'm not looking for links to rickrolls and goatse, only links to the genuine documents (assuming there's no false flag operation where the mining co. themselves release "massaged" data, not outside the realm of possibility)

Are there no superheros anymore? Is this just too difficult for anon and wikileaks? Come on guys, get it in gear and save some lives.

It's like reading the first two pages of a script for an episode of The A-Team.
Cue George Peppard with a cigar hanging out of the side of his mouth.

Declare it a dead-zone and evacuate the area (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39172989)

You know the drill, any increased risk of cancer = dead zone, mandatory evacuation.

Re:Declare it a dead-zone and evacuate the area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173193)

Given a high enough cancer rate and enough time and it will be a dead zone, literally.

There's a court order here... (5, Informative)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173007)

It seems that this report is the subject of litigation, and there is a court order outstanding that says:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants immediately inform all recipients including journals (emphasis mine) of the above described study draft reports, not yet published, that they are prohibited from further distribution of said drafts until at least 90 days after Defendants have complied with this Order;

The "threatening" letter, which seems to be from the Plaintiffs in the action, informs the journal that the report is the subject of litigation, draws their attention to the court order, informs the journals that the Plaintiffs don't think the Defendant has yet complied with the court order and asks them to check with their legal counsel before publishing.

This isn't a standard "publish and we'll sue" letter, it's "publish and you risk contempt of court". It looks like an advisory letter rather than a direct threat.

So...lawyers blocking publication? (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173229)

It seems to me that this is utterly backwards. The scientific journals should be sending cease-and-desist to the lawyers, saying that a peer reviewed study is pending and all litigation should cease until 90 days after it has been published.

Sound stupid? But the idea that lawyers are the best judge of science is currently having more and more of a throttling effect on the USA. In fact, if you weigh in sociology and experimental psychology, it can be argued that scientists should have more part in law making than at present. Though the concept that people who make laws should have exact knowledge of something might adversely affect some politicians.

Re:So...lawyers blocking publication? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173747)

The idea that lawyers are the best judges of anything other than the intentionally complex navel gazing industry they themselves created is what I find the worst aspect of this. They have basically become the high priests of the law.

Re:There's a court order here... (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173533)

Any press publication with a two-bit lawyer will laugh at a judge who issues an injunction to prevent publication of a factual story.

They'll go back through the story with a fine-toothed comb and make sure everything is 100% based on reliable sources, but they'll publish nonetheless and have the full backing of the Constitution as their defense.

Right-wing anti-science (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173093)

More right-wing anti-science.

These are the same people who are paying professional shills and con artists to lie about global warming for their own private profit. Their actions speak for themselves.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173439)

Why would mining companies care about Global Warming?

Or are all shill-payers (music industry, Apple, Microsoft) suddenly right-wing anti-scientists?

I fail to see the connection in your conspiracy.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (4, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173723)

Why would mining companies care about Global Warming?

No idea. Haven't a clue why companies that mine coal would care about global warming or related regulation. It obviously wouldn't have any effect on them or their market.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173503)

you sir, are a fucking moron.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (0)

MatthiasF (1853064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173541)

This is not about environmentalism or global warming, this is about miner's lungs.

So, please stop being a left-wing religious nut. You're making the rest of us look bad.

Thank you.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (1, Flamebait)

cirby (2599) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173637)

Oh, look - another idiot who bought into Gleick's fraudulent "memo."

The "anti-science" part gave it away.

Re:Right-wing anti-science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173653)

Isn't it funny how the cure for "global warming" reads like a shopping list of everything the Left has wanted for a generation? Moreover, how can Science be corrupted by an intense longing for a particular outcome? Discuss.

Saying bad companies do bad things, therefore the outcome is bad, is faulty logic. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are Nazis. Discuss.

Am I misreading this? (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173213)

Are they essentially claiming a copyright on a subset of reality?

If so, then wow. Just, wow.

Re:Am I misreading this? (1)

cirby (2599) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173613)

Actually, it's "a court order following a strong possibility raised in court that the study isn't reflecting reality."

So it's the other way around.

Here's a tip, folks: just because it's a "scientific study," it's not always correct or honest.

Threatening? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173273)

When I read the summary, I thought it was some letter (maybe in the style of Jack Thompson) threatening anyone who published any research related to the lawsuit, thus attempting to create a chilling effect over any impartial researcher who might be studying the field.

Instead, it's one group in a lawsuit against another. I have no clue which side is right, but clearly neither side is impartial. Furthermore, it is overall a rather polite letter, and doesn't threaten anyone.

Most importantly, it doesn't prevent anything from being published, merely requests a 90 day waiting period before publishing anything from the parties in the lawsuit. There could be some funny business going on here, but this letter doesn't show it.

Perspective (3, Interesting)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173287)

I am a computer science major from West Virginia. One summer I bit the bullet and took a summer job at McDonald's, and one of the guys working there quit his job in a coal mine because it was so bad he'd rather work fast food.

Every time I hear about a mining disaster, it strikes a little close to home... most of them are in my state. Virtually all the money made from it goes out of state. All of them could have been prevented, had money not been placed above improving safety or mining technology.

Greed is king.

Then clearly school buses cause cancer (0, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173355)

They're mostly old diesel buses that have been running continuously since the 1960s.

So if the environmentalists want to make this argument then clearly the municipalities would be liable. Of course, buses that use natural gas would be able to avoid this issue but most buses haven't switched.

I'm tired of every industry in america getting shut down for bogus reasons.

What we need from science is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. If there's a problem, please offer a solution.

Re:Then clearly school buses cause cancer (2)

bamwham (1211702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173481)

Adequete ventilation, alternatives to diesel fuels, better vehicle maintenance and so forth. The CONSTRUCTIVE part is already there. The industry is claiming that the cost of those changes is prohibitevly expensive, or at least would make their industry uncompettive in the global market. Probably so, lives are cheap in many countries...

Certainly I am concerned about the effect of commercial diesel engines, many of which seem to often be woefully under-maintained in the emissions category, but I don't think the wide open spaces above ground compare with the effect of the same engines running in a poorly ventilated mine below ground. Though these buses probably do increase the chance of cancer...

Re:Then clearly school buses cause cancer (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173813)

As to the industry's claims... you seem to dismiss them without questioning whether they're right?

Shouldn't you at least hear them out and see what they're trying to say rather then just dismissing it out of hand? Because if that's where you are how can you blame your opposition for doing the same thing to you in return?

We can both stick our fingers in our ears and ignore each other. If you wish to be listened to then you should listen in return.

Industries survive on the bottom line. If they're not in the black they're dying. They're a man having a heart attack. So not taking the bottom line seriously shows an indifference to their situation. If your policies push them below the line... they die.

The argument they might be making is that they're close to the line already and they worry that any pervasive change in how they do business will push them over it.

How about this for a compromise... Have the mining company hand out material to the miners and other people exposed. Something that makes the risks clear. And then have the miners choose if they want to work under those conditions?

My guess is that the easiest way to fix this problem is to just give the miners simplified gas masks. Many miners have been wearing gas masks for generations. Especially coal miners and salt miners.

In any case, if your plan effectively shuts down all mining in the US it's a bad plan.

And if you push a bad plan... I'll have to ask in the sweetest voice possible... why you want to give cancer to school children? It's just politics. But if that's how the issue is deflected then so be it. We need mining. The miners know the health risks. We cannot afford anything that makes our industry any less competitive.

Re:Then clearly school buses cause cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39173499)

So how many schoolchildren stay in the bus for 8-10 hours a day while in a small tunnel with no ventilation? Something tells me your school bus was short, eh?

Re:Then clearly school buses cause cancer (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173641)

"What we need from science is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. If there's a problem, please offer a solution."

I know, right? Lazy jerks still haven't bothered to cure cancer, but they still keep complaining about all these things causing cancer.

Disputing the Obvious (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173525)

Micro and nano particulates have long been known to cause various lung problems: asbestos, smoke particles, cooking "fumes" from wood fires in Asia, silica, farm dust, etc. Living near those sources gives people more problems.

Anyone on either side of the issue has to admit the evidence is rather clear that you don't want those in your lungs and it is not a left or right issue, but just plain human health.

It is time past to fix the problems. So those who waited to do the fix will now suffer the legal bills.

Surprise? No.

CA has known this for years (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173563)

Everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer. The lawyers should sue them.

Posturing (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#39173647)

It is posturing only. There is freedom to conduct research as seen fit. If I got a letter like that I would politely wipe my ass with it and return it certified mail.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...