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

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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Melody Tang

假設你想要進行一項實驗。

[麥可·亨德利克斯]

In this experiment,

在這個實驗中，你隨機指派一些人

you randomly assign people to live in blasting zones

去住在爆破區，

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

或是住在沒有爆裂物 會在頭上炸開的控制區。

They live in the community for years,

他們住在社區很多年，

just downwind and downstream

社區就在幾乎每天會使用

from sites where tons of explosives are used almost daily.

大量爆裂物之地點的 下風處和下游處。

And millions of gallons of water contaminated.

數百萬加侖的水都受到污染。

With random assignment, you could carefully study

透過隨機分派， 你可以很仔細地研究

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

住在這些爆破地區的長期健康影響，

without a bunch of annoying confounders and covariates.

而不須考慮一堆惱人的 干擾因子和共變量。

Random assignment does wonders.

隨機分派能帶來神奇的效果。

That would be a rigorous, powerful scientific inquiry

這會是一項嚴格且強大的科學探索，

into the effects of these environmental exposures.

來研究暴露在這些環境下 所受到的影響。

Of course, such a study could never be done.

當然，永遠不可能做這樣的研究。

Most scientists wouldn't have the stomach for it.

大部分的科學家不會有這種膽量的。

The institutional review board would never approve it;

研究倫理委員會也絕對不會批准；

it would never pass human subjects review,

它永遠無法通過人體試驗審查，

because it would be unethical, immoral.

因為這麼做是不合倫理，也不道德。

And yet in effect, it is happening right now.

但，實際上，這種事正在發生。

In my mind, this prompts some questions.

這在我腦中浮現出了一些問題。

What is the ethical obligation

相信人們正處在危險中的科學家， 有什麼倫理的義務？

of the scientists who believes populations are in danger?

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

要有多少證據， 才能夠對我們的結論有信心？

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

科學的必然性和行動的必要性 之間的界線在哪裡？

The unplanned experiment that is happening right now

目前正在進行的那個未規劃之實驗

is called mountaintop removal.

叫做「山巔移除」。

The abbreviation for it is MTR.

它的縮寫是 MTR。

It is a form of surface coal mining

它是露天煤礦開採的一種形式，

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

在美國這裡的 阿帕拉契山區就有被使用。

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

山巔移除發生在四個州： 維吉尼亞州、西維吉尼亞州、

肯塔基州，和田納西州。

Over 1.2 million acres have been mined in this way.

超過一千兩百萬英畝的面積 都是用這種方式來開採的。

This is an area about the size of Delaware

這個面積大約等同於 德拉威州的大小，

but it is spread over a footprint

但受到影響的地區

as large as Vermont and New Hampshire combined.

等同於佛蒙特州及新罕布夏州 加起來一樣大的面積。

The process involves clear-cutting ancient Appalachian forest,

過程涉及對古老的阿巴拉契亞 山脈森林進行皆伐作業。

home to some of the richest biodiversity on the planet.

這裡是地球上生物多樣性 最豐富的地區之一。

The trees are typically burned or dumped into adjacent valleys.

通常，樹木會被燒掉 或丟棄在毗連的溪谷中。

Then, to reach the buried coal seams,

接著，為了開採被埋在下面的煤礦，

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

他們使用爆裂物來移除

高達八百英呎的山脈高度。

Over 1,500 tons of explosives

光是在西維吉尼亞州， 煤礦開採就用了

are used for coal mining in West Virginia alone.

超過一千五百噸的爆裂物，

Every day.

這是每天的用量。

Rock and soil debris is dumped over the valley sides

岩石和土壤殘骸被丟棄在溪谷邊，

where it permanently buries headwater streams.

將河源上游的溪流永遠掩埋住。

So far, over 500 mountains have been destroyed.

到目前為止， 超過五百座山已經被摧毀。

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

大約兩千英哩的溪流 已經被永遠掩埋。

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

從溪谷底部的填土中所流出來的水

都受到嚴重污染，

and remains contaminated for decades.

且接下來數十年 都仍然會是受污染的。

The coal then has to be chemically treated,

接著，煤礦還需要經過 化學處理、壓碎，並清洗，

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

之後才能被運送到電廠做燃燒用。

This cleaning takes place on-site.

清潔是直接在現場進行。

The process produces more air pollution

過程產生更多的空氣污染，

and contaminates billions of gallons of water with metals,

並讓數十億加侖的水 受到金屬、硫酸鹽、

sulfates, cleaning chemicals and other impurities.

清潔化學物，及其他雜質的污染。

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

所有這一切，就是為了產生 3% 的美國電力需求——

only three percent of US electricity demand.

僅僅 3% 的美國電力需求。

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

各位應該可以理解， 這會帶來各種其他的問題。

What are the health impacts of mountaintop-removal mining?

山巔移除採礦對於健康 會有什麼影響？

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

在使用山巔移除的郡中， 有超過一百萬的居民，

and millions more downstream and downwind.

在下游和下風處還有其他數百萬人。

What has been the response of industry and government

當有證據證明這些議題時，

when these issues are documented?

產業和政府的回應是什麼呢？

And again, what is the ethical obligation of science

同樣的，在面對這種 讓人不舒服的情況時，

when faced with this disturbing situation?

科學家的倫理義務是什麼？

I began to research this issue in 2006.

我從 2006 年就開始 研究這個議題。

I had just taken a job at West Virginia University.

我那時剛才在西維吉尼亞 大學接了一份工作。

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

在那之前，我從來沒有 做過任何和煤相關的研究。

But I started to hear stories

但我開始聽到一些

from people who lived in these mining communities.

由住在這些採礦社區的人 所說的故事。

They said that the water they drank was not clean,

他們說，他們喝的水並不乾淨，

that the air they breathed was polluted.

他們呼吸的空氣是受污染的。

They would tell me about their own illnesses

他們告訴我他們自己的疾病，

or illnesses in their family.

或是他們家人的疾病。

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

他們擔心在他們的鄰里中 癌症有多麼常見。

I met with many people in southern West Virginia

我見過許多西維吉尼亞州南部 和肯塔基州東部的人，

and eastern Kentucky

我傾聽那些故事， 聽他們訴說他們的擔憂。

to listen to those stories and hear their concerns.

I searched the scientific literature

我搜尋科學文獻，

and was surprised to learn that nothing had been published

很驚訝地發現，沒有任何 關於美國煤礦開採

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

對大眾健康造成什麼 影響的文獻被出版。

Let me say that again --

讓我再說一次—— 沒有任何關於美國煤礦開採

nothing had been published on the public health effects

對大眾健康造成什麼 影響的文獻被出版。

of coal mining in the US.

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

所以，我心想： 「我可以做一點新的貢獻，

no matter what I find,

不論我發現什麼，

to either confirm these concerns or to alleviate them."

無論是確認或是緩解那些擔憂， 都會是貢獻。」

I had no personal or organizational agenda.

我沒有個人或是組織的動機。

Many of my colleagues initially were skeptical

我的許多同事一開始都懷疑

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

大眾健康和採礦之間 會有任何連結嗎？

They predicted that the health problems could be explained by poverty

他們的預測是， 健康問題可以用貧困，

or by lifestyle issues, like smoking and obesity.

或抽煙和肥胖這類 生活習慣議題來解釋。

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

剛開始，我心想他們可能是對的。

We started by analyzing existing databases

我們一開始先分析既有的資料庫，

that allowed us to link population health to mining activity

那讓我們能夠將居民健康 和採礦活動連結起來，

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

並在統計上控制年齡、 性別、種族、抽煙、

肥胖、貧困、教育、健康保險， 及其他我們能測量的變數。

education, health insurance and others we could measure.

We found evidence that confirmed the concerns of the residents,

我們發現了證據， 證明居民的憂慮是真的，

and we started to publish our findings.

我們開始刊登我們的發現。

As a very brief summary,

非常簡短地總結一下，

we found that people who live where mountaintop removal takes place

我們發現，住在山巔移除地區的人

have significantly higher levels of cardiovascular disease,

明顯比較有可能得到心血管疾病、

kidney disease and chronic lung disease like COPD.

腎臟疾病，和慢性肺部疾病， 如慢性肺部阻塞。

Death rates from cancer are significantly elevated,

癌症造成的死亡率顯著較高，

especially for lung cancer.

特別是肺癌。

We've seen evidence for higher rates of birth defects

我們看到造成較高的 嬰兒出生缺陷率

and for babies born at low birth weight.

及新生兒體重過輕率的證據。

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

在其他風險都被控制的情況下，

山巔移除地區每年的總死亡人數 至少多出一千兩百人。

every year in MTR areas, controlling for other risks.

Twelve hundred excess deaths every year.

每年至少多一千兩百人死亡。

Not only are death rates higher,

不僅是死亡率提高，

but they increase as the levels of mining go up

採擴的程度提升時， 死亡率也會跟著增加，

in a dose-response manner.

就像劑量反應一樣。

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

接著，我們開始進行 挨家挨戶的健康調查。

We surveyed people living within a few miles of MTR

我們調查的對象，是住在 山巔移除附近幾英哩內的人，

versus similar rural communities without mining.

與附近沒有採礦的 類似的農村社區中的居民做比較。

Survey results show higher levels of personal and family illness,

調查結果顯示個人和家庭 疾病的比率比較高，

self-reported health status is poorer,

自我呈報的健康狀況比較差，

and illness symptoms across a broad spectrum are more common.

各種疾病症狀也都比較常見。

These studies are only associational.

這些研究只是關聯性的。

We all know that correlation does not prove causation.

我們都知道，有相關性 不能證明有因果關係。

These studies did not include data

這些研究並沒有納入採礦社區 實際環境條件的資料。

on the actual environmental conditions in mining communities.

So we started to collect and report on that.

所以我們開始收集和呈報那些資料。

We found that violations of public drinking-water standards

我們發現，公共飲用水 違反標準的狀況，

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

山巔移除地區 是非採礦地區的七倍。

We collected air samples

我們收集空氣樣本，

and found that particulate matter is elevated in mining communities,

發現在採礦社區， 懸浮微粒的比率比較高，

especially in the ultra-fine range.

特別是超細的微粒。

The dust in mining communities contains a complex mixture,

採礦社區的塵土，成份相當複雜，

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

包括了相當多的矽， 已知會導致肺癌的物質，

and potentially harmful organic compounds.

還有一些可能會造成傷害的 有機化合物。

We used the dust in laboratory experiments

我們把塵土拿到實驗室做實驗，

and found that it induced cardiovascular dysfunction in rats.

發現它會造成老鼠 出現心血管功能問題。

The dust also promoted the development

將肺細胞放在試管中做實驗，

of lung cancer in human in vitro lung cells.

發現這種塵土也會 促進人體的肺癌發展。

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

這只是我們部分研究的總整。

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

煤礦業並不喜歡我們所提出的資訊。

Neither does the government in coal country.

煤礦地區的政府也不喜歡。

Just like the tobacco industry paid for research

就像香菸業會花錢資助研究

to defend the safety of smoking,

來捍衛抽菸的安全性，

so the coal industry has tried to do the same

煤礦業也試著做同樣的事，

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

他們付錢給一些人，要他們寫論文 來宣稱山巔移除是安全的。

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

律師也依據資訊自由法 寄給我一些擾人的要求，

eventually denied by the courts.

最終都被法庭否決。

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

我曾經在國會聽證上被公然攻擊，

by a congressman with ties to the energy industry.

攻擊我的是一名和能源產業 有關係的國會議員。

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

有位州長曾經公開宣稱 他拒絕閱讀這項研究。

And after a meeting with a member of Congress,

我曾和一位國會成員開會，

in which I specifically shared my research,

並在會議中明確分享了我的研究，

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

我後來卻聽說那位代表跟別人講， 他們對這研究一無所知。

I worked with scientists at the US Geological Survey

我和美國地質調查局的科學家合作，

on environmental sampling for more than two years.

進行環境採樣，合作超過兩年。

And just as they were starting to publish their findings,

當他們正要開始公佈 他們的發現時，

they were suddenly instructed by their superiors

他們突然接到他們主管的指示，

to stop work on this project.

停止做這項專案計畫。

In August of this year, the National Academy of Sciences

今年八月，美國國家科學院

was suddenly instructed by the federal government

突然接到聯邦政府的指示，

to stop their independent review

要求他們停止一項獨立審查，

of the public health consequences of surface mining.

審查主題就是露天採礦 對公眾健康造成的後果。

These actions are politically motivated, in my view.

在我看來，這些動作 背後的動機都是政治。

But there is opposition from researchers, too.

但，也有來自研究者的反對。

At conferences or meetings, they express skepticism.

他們會在討論會上或會議上 表達他們的懷疑。

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

好，身為科學家， 我們都被教導要會懷疑。

They ask, "What about this possible explanation?"

他們會問：「那這個 可能的解釋又該怎麼說？」

"Have you considered that alternative interpretation?"

「你是否有考量過那一個 不同的詮釋方式？」

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

他們納悶：「我們一定有 遺漏掉某個干擾因子。

Some other variable we haven't accounted for."

一定有我們沒考慮到的其他變數。」

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

「在試管中做的研究， 證明了什麼？」

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

「老鼠實驗——我們怎麼知道 在人身上也會有同樣的效應？」

Maybe so.

也許是如此。

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

技術上來說，你必須承認 他們有可能是對的，

but you know, maybe these health problems

但你知道，也許這些健康問題

are not the result of some unmeasured confound.

並非是由一些未被測量的 複雜因素所造成的。

Maybe they result from blowing up mountains

也許它們就是把人們頭上的山頂

over people's heads.

炸掉所造成的結果。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

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

只要你的目的是懷疑， 你一定都能找到可懷疑的點。

Because we can never do that defining experiment.

因為我們不可能做 那麼有決定性的實驗。

Any next study must always be associational.

任何接下來的研究， 都一定只是關聯性的。

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

所以，也許你們可以了解， 為什麼我開始納悶，

how much evidence is enough?

要有多少證據才夠？

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

針對這個議題，目前我已經 刊登了超過三十篇論文。

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

此外我的共同作者及其他研究者 也補充了許多證據，

yet government doesn't want to listen,

但，政府並不想傾聽，

and the industry says it's only correlational.

產業則是說，那只是有相關性存在。

They say Appalachians have lifestyle issues.

他們說，阿巴拉契亞山脈 有生活方式的議題。

As though it had never occurred to us

說得好像我們從來沒有想過

to control for smoking or obesity or poverty or education

要去控制抽菸、肥胖、貧窮、教育，

or health insurance.

或健康保險這些變數。

We controlled for all of those and more.

我們不只控制了 這些變數，還有其他的。

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

早晚會有一個時間點， 我們將不再需要更多的研究，

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

我們無法要求大家成為 非自願的研究對象

so we can do the next study.

來讓我們進行下一項研究。

As scientists, we follow the data wherever it goes,

身為科學家，我們跟著資料跑，

but sometimes data can only take us so far

但有時，資料能提供的有限，

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

做為能思考且有感覺的人類， 我們得要決定

what it means and when it is time to act.

採取行動的意義是什麼， 及何時該採取行動。

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

我想，不僅是針對山巔移除， 在其他情況也一樣，

where evidence is strong and concerning but imperfect.

其他證據夠有力且讓人關注， 卻不夠完美的情況。

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

若沒有採取行動， 你錯了的代價就是人命。

It may seem strange that there is any controversy

關於山巔移除的採礦方式 對健康所造成的影響，

over the health effects of mountaintop-removal mining.

有任何爭議似乎是很奇怪的。

But somehow, this subject has wound up

但，這個主題最後不知怎麼地

in a scientific and political twilight zone

進入了科學和政治的灰色地帶，

alongside the debate over climate change

同樣在這地帶的 還有對氣候變遷的辯論

or the argument years ago

或是多年前關於抽菸 是否會致癌的爭執。

about whether or not smoking caused cancer.

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

在這個灰色地帶，

大部分的資料似乎都指向一個結論。

But the economics or the politics or the prevailing public view

但經濟、政治，或佔優勢的公眾觀點

insist on the opposite conclusion.

都堅持相反的結論。

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

若你是名科學家， 且你認為你有一項有效的洞見

where the health of entire populations is at stake

會攸關所有人的健康，

but you find yourself trapped

但你卻發現你被困在

in this twilight zone of denial and disbelief,

這個否認和不相信的灰色地帶中，

what is your moral and ethical obligation?

你的道德和倫理義務是什麼？

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

很顯然，科學家在看到真相時 有責任要將它說出來，

based on evidence.

且要以證據為基礎。

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

簡單來說，我們有義務 要為資料站出來。

It can be extremely frustrating to wait around for public opinion

若要等待公眾意見或是政治共識

or political consensus to catch up to the scientific understanding.

趕上科學了解，可能會很讓人挫折。

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

但，主題越是有爭議性， 辯論越是讓人挫折，

the more critical it is for scientists to preserve our objectivity

科學家就越需要能夠保有客觀性

and our reputation for integrity.

和正直名譽。

Because integrity is the coin of the realm

因為正直就是科學和公眾政策

in scientific and public policy debate.

辯論中具有最高價值的。

In the long run,

長期來看，

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

我們的正直名譽 是我們最強大的工具，

even more powerful than the data itself.

甚至比資料本身都更強大。

Without an acknowledged integrity on the part of scientists,

若科學家這一邊無法肯定正直，

no amount of data will ever convince people

不論有多少資料，都不可能說服大家

to believe painful or difficult truths.

去相信痛苦且難以相信的真相。

But when we cultivate and guard our reputation for integrity,

但當我們能培養 和保衛我們的正直名譽，

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

當我們能有耐心地為資料站出來，

並持續做研究，

and keep calmly bringing the results to the public,

持續平靜地將結果帶給民眾，

that's when we have our greatest impact.

那就是我們的影響達到最大的時候。

Eventually, scientific truth does and will win out.

最終，科學真相確實會， 也一定會勝出。

How many lives will be lost while we wait?

我們的等待，代價是多少條性命？

Too many already.

已經太多了。

But prevail we will.

但我們最後一定會勝利的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）