31–40 of 97 posts
The implied threshold for wastefulness here is offensively low; basically any project that might require one moderately competent PhD researcher for a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Would they get cancer sooner or have different effects than non-miner smokers?
"But think of the freedom of speech!" 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?
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.
All administrations do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> can projects that the current government doesn't like. All administrations do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> can projects that the current government doesn't like. All administrations do that.