The shocking danger of mountaintop removal -- and why it must end | Michael Hendryx

Let's say that you wanted to conduct an experiment.

翻译人员: Jingle duan 校对人员: Tianji Li

假设你想要做一个实验。

In this experiment,

在这个实验中，

你随机分配人们住在 一些爆炸区域内，

you randomly assign people to live in blasting zones

or in control locations without explosives going off over their heads.

或者住在一些爆炸物不会 飞过他们头顶的控制区内。

They live in the community for years,

他们要在社区生活多年，

just downwind and downstream

在顺风处或者河的下游

from sites where tons of explosives are used almost daily.

而在其上游几乎每天 都有数吨炸药爆炸。

And millions of gallons of water contaminated.

并且有数百万加仑的水被污染。

With random assignment, you could carefully study

进行随机的分配，你就 能够仔细地研究

the long-term health effects of living in these blasting communities

生活在这些爆炸社区 对健康带来的长期影响

without a bunch of annoying confounders and covariates.

而且你的研究会没有 大量的干扰因素介入。

Random assignment does wonders.

随机分配确实能创造一些奇迹。

That would be a rigorous, powerful scientific inquiry

这将是一个严谨而有力 的科学探索，它针对

into the effects of these environmental exposures.

环境暴露造成的影响。

Of course, such a study could never be done.

毫无疑问，这样的研究 永远不可能被执行。

Most scientists wouldn't have the stomach for it.

因为大多数科学家对此并无兴趣。

The institutional review board would never approve it;

研究委员会永远不会审批它；

it would never pass human subjects review,

它也永远不会通过 人们的课题审查清单，

because it would be unethical, immoral.

因为它将是一个违法伦理 且不道德的事情。

And yet in effect, it is happening right now.

而实际上，它却正在发生着。

In my mind, this prompts some questions.

在我看来，这件事揭示了一些问题。

What is the ethical obligation

那些相信人类处在危险 中的科学家，

of the scientists who believes populations are in danger?

他们的伦理职责是什么？

How much evidence is enough to be confident of our conclusions?

多少证据才能令我们 对自己的结论有信心？

Where is the line between scientific certainty and the need to act?

科学确定性和需要采取 行动的分界线在哪里？

The unplanned experiment that is happening right now

这个没有计划却 正在发生着的实验

is called mountaintop removal.

叫作 “山顶削除”。

The abbreviation for it is MTR.

它的缩写是 MTR。

It is a form of surface coal mining

这是一种表层式煤矿开采技术

that takes place in Appalachia, here in the United States.

这种开采方式正在美国的 阿巴拉契亚山地区使用着。

MTR occurs in four states: Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.

MTR 存在于四个州：弗吉尼亚， 西弗吉尼亚，肯塔基和田纳西州。

Over 1.2 million acres have been mined in this way.

超过120万英亩的土地 在被使用此法开采煤矿。

This is an area about the size of Delaware

这相当于差不多特拉华州的面积

but it is spread over a footprint

但是它却正在蔓延着 ，其危及的面积

as large as Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

几乎等同于佛蒙特州和 新罕布拉尔州的面积总和。

The process involves clear-cutting ancient Appalachian forest,

这个过程包括了对 古阿巴拉契亚森林的铲除，

home to some of the richest biodiversity on the planet.

该森林是这个星球上最 富有多样性生物的家园。

The trees are typically burned or dumped into adjacent valleys.

树木通常被烧毁或者 铲除进附近的峡谷。

Then, to reach the buried coal seams,

然后，为了找到煤的埋藏点，

explosives are used to remove up to 800 feet of mountain elevation.

人们用炸药来摧毁 海拔达到800尺的山。

Over 1,500 tons of explosives

超过1500吨的炸药被用于

are used for coal mining in West Virginia alone.

西弗吉尼亚的煤矿开采过程。

Every day.

每天，

Rock and soil debris is dumped over the valley sides

岩石碎片被倾倒在山谷边上

where it permanently buries headwater streams.

这些倾倒的碎石永久的 埋没了一些河流的源头。

So far, over 500 mountains have been destroyed.

截至目前，超过500座山 已经被毁坏。

About 2,000 miles of streams have been permanently buried.

大约 2000 英里的 河流被永久填埋。

Water emerging from the base of the valley fills is highly contaminated

流出山谷的水被严重污染

and remains contaminated for decades.

并且会持续污染数十年。

The coal then has to be chemically treated,

然后煤又需要进行化学处理，

crushed and washed before it can be transported to power plants and burned.

在运往发电站燃烧前 需要进行压碎和清洗。

This cleaning takes place on-site.

清洗过程就在旁边进行。

The process produces more air pollution

煤的处理过程产生了 更多的空气污染

and contaminates billions of gallons of water with metals,

并且清洗过程产生的金属, 硫酸盐，清洁化学试剂，还有

sulfates, cleaning chemicals and other impurities.

其他杂质污染了几十亿加仑的水。

All of this to produce three percent of US electricity demand --

而这一切只供应了美国 百分之三的电力需求 --

only three percent of US electricity demand.

仅仅只是美国百分之三的电力需求。

As you can appreciate, this prompts all sorts of other questions.

正如你可能会感受到的， 这些活动带来了各种问题。

What are the health impacts of mountaintop-removal mining?

推山挖煤对健康会带来哪些影响呢？

There are over a million people who live in counties where MTR takes place

在 MTR 发生的区域 居住了上百万的人口。

and millions more downstream and downwind.

并且在其河流下游和下风口 居住了数百万计的人口。

What has been the response of industry and government

当这些问题被报告出来的 时候，当地工业体系和

when these issues are documented?

政府的反应是什么呢？

And again, what is the ethical obligation of science

再次重复我们的问题， 当面对这些烦恼的案例时，

when faced with this disturbing situation?

科学的道德职责是什么呢？

I began to research this issue in 2006.

我在2006年开始研究这个问题。

I had just taken a job at West Virginia University.

那时我刚入职西弗吉尼亚大学。

Before then, I hadn't done any research related to coal.

在那之前，我从未从事过 和煤矿相关的研究。

But I started to hear stories

但是，我开始倾听那些 居住在煤矿社区的人们

from people who lived in these mining communities.

给我讲他们的故事。

They said that the water they drank was not clean,

他们说他们饮用的水是不干净的，

that the air they breathed was polluted.

他们呼吸的空气被污染了。

They would tell me about their own illnesses

他们给我讲述关于 他们自己的疾病

or illnesses in their family.

或者他们家人患的病症。

They were worried about how common cancer was in their neighborhoods.

他们为癌症在他们附近频发而感到担忧。

I met with many people in southern West Virginia

我见到了许多西弗吉尼亚南部的人

and eastern Kentucky

还有肯塔基州东部的人

to listen to those stories and hear their concerns.

倾听他们的故事和忧虑。

I searched the scientific literature

我查阅了科学文献，然后发现

and was surprised to learn that nothing had been published

令人震惊的是，关于 煤矿开采对公共

on the public health effects of coal mining in the United States.

健康带来的影响在美国 居然没有任何报道。

Let me say that again --

让我再重复一遍 --

nothing had been published on the public health effects

没有任何关于煤矿开采 对公共健康带来

of coal mining in the US.

影响的报道被发布或者公开。

So I thought, "I can make a new contribution,

所以我想：“我可以 做一个新的贡献，

no matter what I find,

那就是，不论我发现什么，

to either confirm these concerns or to alleviate them."

要么证实他们的忧虑， 或者缓解他们的忧虑。“

I had no personal or organizational agenda.

我没有任何个人或者 某个组织形式的计划。

Many of my colleagues initially were skeptical

我很多同事一开始怀疑

that there would be any link between public health and mining.

采矿和公共健康是否存在联系

They predicted that the health problems could be explained by poverty

他们预计健康问题 可能源于贫困或者

or by lifestyle issues, like smoking and obesity.

不良的生活习惯， 比如抽烟和肥胖。

When I started, I thought maybe they would be right.

当我开始调研时，我认为 他们或许是对的。

We started by analyzing existing databases

我们从分析已经存在的数据开始

that allowed us to link population health to mining activity

这些数据使得我们能够把 人口健康和煤矿活动联系起来

and to control statistically for age, sex, race, smoking, obesity, poverty,

并且对老龄化，性行为， 人种，抽烟，肥胖，贫困，

education, health insurance and others we could measure.

教育，健康保险以及其他可衡量 的因素进行统计学的控制。

We found evidence that confirmed the concerns of the residents,

我们找到证据验证了 当地居民关心的问题，

and we started to publish our findings.

我们开始公开我们的发现。

As a very brief summary,

简而言之，

we found that people who live where mountaintop removal takes place

我们发现居住在 削山活动附近的人们

have significantly higher levels of cardiovascular disease,

有很高的患病几率， 特别是在心血管疾病，

kidney disease and chronic lung disease like COPD.

肾病，和长期肺病， 慢性阻塞性肺疾病等。

Death rates from cancer are significantly elevated,

并且癌症引起的死亡率大幅增加，

especially for lung cancer.

特别是肺癌。

We've seen evidence for higher rates of birth defects

我们发现导致高几率 出生缺陷的相关证据

and for babies born at low birth weight.

还有会导致婴儿出生时体重偏轻。

The difference in total mortality equates to about 1,200 excess deaths

总的死亡率相当于每年 在MTR区域会多出

every year in MTR areas, controlling for other risks.

1200例死亡，排除其他风险。

Twelve hundred excess deaths every year.

是每年多出1200例死亡。

Not only are death rates higher,

不止是死亡率高，

but they increase as the levels of mining go up

并且死亡几率会随着 煤矿开采的等级上升而增加

in a dose-response manner.

以一种剂量效应的方式增加。

Next, we started to conduct community door-to-door health surveys.

然后，我们开始对社区进行 挨家挨户的健康调研。

We surveyed people living within a few miles of MTR

我们调研居住在MTR 几英里范围之内的人们

versus similar rural communities without mining.

相对于居住在乡下远离 煤矿区的人们的健康情况。

Survey results show higher levels of personal and family illness,

调查结果显示矿区附近的个人病患 或者家庭患病几率更高，

self-reported health status is poorer,

个人自身健康检查 报告的情况也很糟糕，

and illness symptoms across a broad spectrum are more common.

并且多种疾病发作 的情况也更常见。

These studies are only associational.

这些研究只是我们 自发协作完成的。

We all know that correlation does not prove causation.

我们都知道有相关性并 不一定就是其本质原因。

These studies did not include data

这些研究并没有有 包括煤矿开采社区附近

on the actual environmental conditions in mining communities.

的实际环境状况等因素。

So we started to collect and report on that.

于是所以我们开始收集并 发布这些关于环境的数据。

We found that violations of public drinking-water standards

我们发现矿区附近的 公共饮水不达标情况

are seven times more common in MTR areas versus non-mining areas.

是非矿区附近饮水 不达标情况的七倍多。

We collected air samples

我们收集空气样本并且发现

and found that particulate matter is elevated in mining communities,

在矿区附近的小区 颗粒物含量也有提高，

especially in the ultra-fine range.

特别是超细范围内的颗粒物含量。

The dust in mining communities contains a complex mixture,

矿区附近的灰尘中 含有复杂的混合物，

but includes high levels of silica, a known lung carcinogen,

包括大量的二氧化硅， 一种已知的肺癌致癌物，

and potentially harmful organic compounds.

以及可能有害的有机化合物。

We used the dust in laboratory experiments

我们在实验室中试验这些灰尘

and found that it induced cardiovascular dysfunction in rats.

发现它们有导致鼠类 心血管功能紊乱的成分。

The dust also promoted the development

这些灰尘还能增加离体肺细胞

of lung cancer in human in vitro lung cells.

患肺癌的几率。

This is just a quick summary of some of our studies.

这些只是我们 一些研究的概要总结。

The coal industry does not like what we have to say.

煤矿工业不喜欢我们所说的话。

Neither does the government in coal country.

煤矿区的的政府也 不喜欢我们的言语。

Just like the tobacco industry paid for research

就像烟草行业投资研究用以

to defend the safety of smoking,

维护吸烟健康的说法一样，

so the coal industry has tried to do the same

煤矿行业也尝试做了类似的事情

by paying people to write papers claiming that MTR is safe.

他们花钱雇人来撰写文章 声明MTR是安全的。

Lawyers have sent me harassing demands under the Freedom of Information Act,

律师根据《信息自由法案》 给我发送函件骚扰我，

eventually denied by the courts.

最终被法庭拒绝。

I'd been attacked at public testimony at a Congressional hearing

我在国会听证会的 公开证词中遭到

by a congressman with ties to the energy industry.

和能源行业有缔结的国会议员的攻击。

One governor has publicly declared that he refuses to read the research.

一个州长公开声明他 拒绝阅读我们的研究。

And after a meeting with a member of Congress,

在一次和一个国会议员 的会议中，我专门分享了

in which I specifically shared my research,

我的研究，而在 那个会议之后不久，

I later heard that representative say they knew nothing about it.

我却听说那位发言人说 他们对该研究一无所知。

I worked with scientists at the US Geological Survey

我与来自美国研究环境 取样的地理勘探科学家

on environmental sampling for more than two years.

合作了两年多时间。

And just as they were starting to publish their findings,

就在他们准备公布 他们研究结果的时候，

they were suddenly instructed by their superiors

突然收到来自上司的指令

to stop work on this project.

通知他们停止那个项目的工作。

In August of this year, the National Academy of Sciences

在今年八月份，美国国家科学院

was suddenly instructed by the federal government

突然收到来自联邦政府的指令

to stop their independent review

要求他们停止对于 表层采矿所引起

of the public health consequences of surface mining.

的公共健康问题 进行的独立调研。

These actions are politically motivated, in my view.

在我看来，这些行为 都是具有政治动机的。

But there is opposition from researchers, too.

但是，同时还有来自 研究者的反对意见。

At conferences or meetings, they express skepticism.

在相关会议上，他们 表示怀疑态度。

OK, we are all taught, as scientists, to be skeptical.

是的，作为科学家， 我们需要保持怀疑态度。

They ask, "What about this possible explanation?"

但是他们问：“这个可能 的解释怎么样？”

"Have you considered that alternative interpretation?"

“你有考虑过其他的解释吗？”

They wonder, "There must be some confounder that we missed.

他们在想，“一定有其他可能 的因子被我们错过了，

Some other variable we haven't accounted for."

或者我们没有考虑 其他的变量因子”

"An in vitro study, what does that prove?"

“一个在体外的研究， 又能证明什么？”

"A rat study -- how do we know the same effects would be found in people?"

小白鼠不等同与人类

Maybe so.

或许是这样的。

Technically, you have to acknowledge that they could be right,

你不得不承认，他们的说法 在技术上说是正确的，

but you know, maybe these health problems

但是你知道，或许这些 健康问题并不是源于

are not the result of some unmeasured confound.

那些不可测量的混淆因子。

Maybe they result from blowing up mountains

或者这些疾病因为 人们头脑中的高山在

over people's heads.

不断加高而产生。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（鼓掌，微笑）

There can always be doubt, if doubt is what you seek.

如果你追寻的是质疑， 那么质疑会一直存在。

Because we can never do that defining experiment.

因为我们永远不可能做 那些最具决定性的实验。

Any next study must always be associational.

任何一个未来的研究 都可能是联想性质的。

So perhaps you can understand why I've started to wonder,

所以你可能会理解 为什么我在思考，

how much evidence is enough?

到底多少证据才足够？

I've published over 30 papers on this topic so far.

有关这个主题，我已经 发表了超过30多篇论文。

Along with my coauthors, other researchers have added to the evidence,

尽管我的合著者，还有其它 学者一起为此增加了证据，

yet government doesn't want to listen,

政府仍然不愿意听信我们的结论，

and the industry says it's only correlational.

并且（采矿）工厂表示 这只是有关而已。

They say Appalachians have lifestyle issues.

他们说阿巴拉契亚山地区的 人们存在生活方式上的问题

As though it had never occurred to us

好像这些针对吸烟，肥胖 或者贫困，或者教育

to control for smoking or obesity or poverty or education

或者健康保险的管控从未在我们

or health insurance.

身上发生过一样。

We controlled for all of those and more.

我们控制了所有这些 以及更多的问题。

There comes a point where we don't need more research,

总要达到某一个点时， 我们不再需要更多的研究，

where we can't ask people to be unwilling research subjects

在这个点我们找不到愿意 作为研究对象的人员，

so we can do the next study.

以便于我们能做下一项研究。

As scientists, we follow the data wherever it goes,

作为科学家，我们会 一直跟踪我们发现的数据，

but sometimes data can only take us so far

但是有时候数据把 我带到了太远的地方

and we have to decide, as thinking, feeling human beings,

作为有思想和有感觉的人类， 这时我们不得不做出决定，

what it means and when it is time to act.

决定这些意味着什么，以及 我们什么时候应该开始行动起来。

I think that is true, not only for MTR but for other situations

我想这个对于MTR和其他那些

where evidence is strong and concerning but imperfect.

证据很足并且有相关性，但是 却不完美的情况很是适用。

And when failing to act if you're wrong means people's lives.

并且当你的错误导致失败时， 通常意味着他人的生命。

It may seem strange that there is any controversy

人们对于削山挖煤导致的 健康问题的说法存在争议，

over the health effects of mountaintop-removal mining.

这一现象看起来貌似有些奇怪。

But somehow, this subject has wound up

但是不知何故， 这个话题已经结束了－

in a scientific and political twilight zone

在科学和政治的的模棱两可间

alongside the debate over climate change

或者在气候问题的争论中，

or the argument years ago

或者在多年来关于

about whether or not smoking caused cancer.

吸烟是否致癌的争辩中结束了。

In this twilight zone, much of the data seems to point to one conclusion.

在这样的模糊状态中，大量的数据 似乎指向了一个同一个结论。

But the economics or the politics or the prevailing public view

但是经济学家，政治家 或者当前流行的公共观点

insist on the opposite conclusion.

却坚持了相反的结论。

When you're a scientist and you think you have a valid insight

如果你是一个科学家并且认为 自己具有一种洞察力，能够让你

where the health of entire populations is at stake

意识到整个民族的 健康正处在危险关头，

but you find yourself trapped

但是你却发现自己陷入了这种

in this twilight zone of denial and disbelief,

否定和不信任的模量两可中时，

what is your moral and ethical obligation?

什么又是你在道德 和伦理上的职责？

Obviously, scientists are responsible for telling the truth as they see it,

很显然，科学家的职责 就是把看到的，基于

based on evidence.

证据的东西客观的讲出来。

Simply stated, we have an obligation to stand up for the data.

简单来说，就是我们有 义务来维护这些数据。

It can be extremely frustrating to wait around for public opinion

可能等待大众的观点，或者 政治上对科学理解达成一致

or political consensus to catch up to the scientific understanding.

的过程会相当令人沮丧。

But the more controversial the subject and the more frustrating the debate,

但是当话题越具有争议性， 辩论就越令人沮丧，

the more critical it is for scientists to preserve our objectivity

同时科学家保持客观性 和我们诚信的声誉这一

and our reputation for integrity.

要求就越变得关键。

Because integrity is the coin of the realm

因为诚信是科学和

in scientific and public policy debate.

公共政策辩论的王国货币。

In the long run,

长远来说，

our reputation for integrity is the most powerful tool that we have,

我们正直的名声，是 我们拥有的最强大的武器，

even more powerful than the data itself.

甚至比数据本身更强大。

Without an acknowledged integrity on the part of scientists,

就科学家而言，没有被 普遍被认可的正直的名声

no amount of data will ever convince people

就不会有任何可以说服人们

to believe painful or difficult truths.

去相信痛苦和艰难事实的数据。

But when we cultivate and guard our reputation for integrity,

但是当我们培养并且 保护我们名声完善的时候，

when we patiently stand up for the data and keep doing the studies

当我们耐心的站出来 为了数据，保持工作，

and keep calmly bringing the results to the public,

保持冷静的把结果 带给公众的时候，

that's when we have our greatest impact.

那就是我们具备伟大影响力的时刻。

Eventually, scientific truth does and will win out.

最终，科学的真相将会 并且一定会胜出。

How many lives will be lost while we wait?

当我们等待的时候， 又失去了多少生命？

Too many already.

已经太多了。

But prevail we will.

但是我们一定会胜利的。

Thank you.

谢谢大家。

（掌声，呐喊，站立）

(Applause)