Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers For Mining Companies Threaten Scientific Journals
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."
Document link:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS%20documents.pdf
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
This is the right link: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS documents.pdf
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Not to stick up for the mining companies, but the letter actually seems like it's asking publishers nicely.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Because mining jobs don't look fun and "empowering" on brochures.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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.)
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.
There are plenty of people who are literate who don't give a fuck about spelling errors, either. Literate != pedantic.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
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?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Have you not been paying attention? In the last 10 years or so, both the stock market and the way most companies has become very focused on short-term decisions. Long-term thinking seems to have gone away.
Now it's all about meeting your quarterly numbers so the executives can get their bonuses ... by the time any of this "future" stuff you talk about comes along, they'll have moved onto other companies and it won't be their problem anymore. They don't invest in infrastructure or R&D to make sure they'll be viable in 10 years ... they cut, slash, and tweak to make sure that they're profitable in the near term.
It also means they're leaving themselves a bunch of things which they'll never be able to properly fix, because by the time it becomes an issue they'll not be in a position to fix it. Kind of like having a baloon payment on your mortgage and ignoring that you don't have the money for it.
Sadly, the stock market has come to expect this ... if you're not growing 10% every year (which is impossible to sustain indefinitely) you're "underperforming". I find it completely unsurprising that companies are acting penny wise and pound foolish ... the incentive is to save the pennies now and look good on paper, and hope that down the road is someone else's problem.
In part, I blame the shift in management that happened when all of a sudden you had people who only had a business education, no actual experience, and no experience in the industry they're working in. It became a purely "cut costs/increase performance bonuses for the management team" mentality.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You assume spending money on healthcare costs saves money down the road. My take is that in practice, looking for expensive healthcare problems finds expensive healthcare problems and those who pay for such healthcare don't actually save money by being proactive. For example, if an employee suddenly drops dead of a untreated preventable illness, that's a win for the insurance company. Even if the employee doesn't pick up large expenses from a preventable illness, odds are good that they would have picked up large expenses from some illness anyway.
There are some exceptions to this. I imagine insurance companies would be relatively eager for child immunizations and prenatal care, both which are low cost ways to prevent high cost problems for the insurance company.
If you are a mining industry PR man paid to defuse any discussion of this problem on geek sites, you could not have more successfully torpedoed budding slashdot discussions than in the way you have just done with this first post.
If so, I stand humbled. Disgusted, but humbled.
May the Maths Be with you!