[Coach_Owens87]

Coach, I ran across this article about Ethanol Fuel, earlier today and thought you may want to check it out.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacob...ST0207.pdf

Thats a very interesting article, I knew that Ethanol had some potential concerns, and it's good to see a study done that shows these issues.

Those concerns are very real, but I don't believe ethanol (e85) will ever be a complete replacement for gas. The production of that much ethanol is nearly impossible, and would be an environmental disaster if we tried to produce that amount. I read somewhere that 10 percent of the demand for fuel could be supplied with ethanol. The US produced 4 billion gallons of this fuel last year. And an estimated 30% percent of our nations gas is blended with ethanol, I know that the hazard wal-marts gas station (Murphy USA) blends it gas with 10% Ethanol. Ethanol has it's negatives too, and I believe they should be thouroughly investigated before converting more fuel use. The use of Ethanol is a start in the production of bio-fuels.

Ive read many articles that really praise the use of Butonal. I know that it can be produced from basically the same things as ethanol (sugar cane, wheat etc.) And most ethanol plants could be converted to butanol. A negative for me is the Butanol can be produced from fossil fuels like petroleum. I dont really know as much about the fuel use of Butanol as I should, Ive been trying to research some on it lately, so when I learn more, I will post something about it.

[Old School]

Every issue will have articles released that are very one sided or misleading, I wont disagree there. And im sure that the article I read

Im sure that Mr. Harden is a great person, and it's great that he has accomplished the things he has done is his life. But where not debating his life, were debating MTR. I'm glad he believes the water quality has improved in his community, but that doesn't happen very often. There are hundreds of cases of wells drying up orbeing polluted, and it has been proven that water downstream from mine sites typically have high levels of toxins, and decreased aquatic life.

Winning awards for reclamation doesn't mean much to me. The awards are given from mine companies, there is no way they can put the land back to the state is was before mining, so such awards are meaningless to me.
Destroying thousands of acres of mixed mesophytic forest, and then putting in a small wetlands area, and planting a couple hundred trees does not offset the damage caused during mining, and does not impress me, or change my mind on MTR.

I have been to many active mine sites, I actually visited one today. I had to take photos for a humanities course I am taking.

I oppose the methods used for creating roads in this region, becuase as you already stated it uses the same methods as MTR, although roads don't cause near as much damage as MTR sites. They're re-routing a section of KY 15 in Breathitt county just outside of Jackson, the new route is going to be 4 lanes, and cuts off about 1 mile from the previous route. I dont think this new road was really necessary, and it's a really big eye soar, which makes me hate driving that route when I go to Lex.

I realize this discussion is not about Mr. Harden, but your opinion (at no fault of your own)of him was based on a one sided article by Mr. Ward, and I wanted to give you a chance to consider what was actually said by Mr. Harden.

I totally disagree with you about the water quailty downstream of mine sites, I know of several mining operations where the water quailty is just as good or better than it was before mining started. We have mined areas where the water quailty was deficient prior to mining and was still low quailty after mining was completed.

I will give you credit, your the first person that I've heard who is anti-coal to say that highway construction uses the same methods as surface mining. Here's one big difference between road construction and surface mining, next time you drive by a construction site look at how they control the silt and water run off, you should see a black silt fence at the edge of the distrubed area with a few straw bails placed here and there, that's it, that's their silt control. Before the first tree can be cut, before the first foot of road can be built a surface mine has to construct a sediment pond or ponds designed for the size of the hollows their located in, and ditches have to be constructed below all distrubed areas.

Do you realize how many acres on the average are distrubed per mile of a 4 lane highway? Try around 36 acres per mile, that's based on a average width of 300 feet.

[Coach_Owens87]

I realize this discussion is not about Mr. Harden, but your opinion (at no fault of your own)of him was based on a one sided article by Mr. Ward, and I wanted to give you a chance to consider what was actually said by Mr. Harden.

I totally disagree with you about the water quailty downstream of mine sites, I know of several mining operations where the water quailty is just as good or better than it was before mining started. We have mined areas where the water quailty was deficient prior to mining and was still low quailty after mining was completed.

I will give you credit, your the first person that I've heard who is anti-coal to say that highway construction uses the same methods as surface mining. Here's one big difference between road construction and surface mining, next time you drive by a construction site look at how they control the silt and water run off, you should see a black silt fence at the edge of the distrubed area with a few straw bails placed here and there, that's it, that's their silt control. Before the first tree can be cut, before the first foot of road can be built a surface mine has to construct a sediment pond or ponds designed for the size of the hollows their located in, and ditches have to be constructed below all distrubed areas.

Do you realize how many acres on the average are distrubed per mile of a 4 lane highway? Try around 36 acres per mile, that's based on a average width of 300 feet.

I knew you would disagree with me on water quality, you work in the coal industry, so you're stance is obvious. The mining industry wants people to think they don't harm water qaulity, when in most cases they do. They're have only been a few studies on water quality in astern ky, the most notable was the 2005 EPA report. They stated that mining was causing a significant in crease in chemicals downstream, and was dramatically decreasing aquatic life. They're was also a study done by some biologist from U of L that stated the same things. They compared an active mine site, with some old reclaimed one, and compared their effects on water quality. Many people like to simply think that controlling run-off will protect water quality, which is completely wrong. The root system of trees, and plants, and the leafs laying on the ground, naturally filter the water, and absorb large amounts of water before they reach the stream, MTR completely destroys this natural process. In many cases the whole headwater streams are buried, which just intensifies the problem and causes major flooding.

I don't know a whole lot about road construction, or the committee's who oversee it, but I do know that they use the same type of explosives, which is a ammonium nitrate based explosive. The process's are very similar also. I like that little state about 1 mile of road disturbing 36 acres, which is a silly argument when you compare that to a 5-600 acre mine site. A 600 acre mine site would be as much land disturbance as 16 miles of of a four lane highway, and since most highways here are 2 lane, that means one 6000 acre mine site would be equivalent to 32 miles of road, which everyone could use, and not destroyed wasted land, which is what MTR leaves behind. People here are going without decent roads to their homes ( alot of which are destroyed by overweight coal trucks), but were destroying enough land to build hundreds of miles of roads, don't make sense to me.

The sediment ponds you so happily talk about are jokes, most are very poorly constructed, just like the one that broke in Inez. They're also dozens of more that could break at any point, and those are just the ones we know about. The one in Marsh Fork WV is probably the most notable. SO If all I have to rely on to protect my water is a **** poor constructed pond holding back millions of gallons of sludge, I don't feel to comfortable.

[Coach_Owens87]

One little quick stat, there has been enough land mined to build a 1 mile wide highways from New York to San Francisco, this is based on the sloppy data by the EPA. in other terms, that amounts to a land the size of Delaware that has been mined by the MTR method.

I just thought those where some interesting figures.

[DevilsWin]

I totally disagree with you about the water quailty downstream of mine sites, I know of several mining operations where the water quailty is just as good or better than it was before mining started.

What kind of water are you refering to, well water? Run-off? What?:confused:

[Old School]

I knew you would disagree with me on water quality, you work in the coal industry, so you're stance is obvious. The mining industry wants people to think they don't harm water qaulity, when in most cases they do. They're have only been a few studies on water quality in astern ky, the most notable was the 2005 EPA report. They stated that mining was causing a significant in crease in chemicals downstream, and was dramatically decreasing aquatic life. They're was also a study done by some biologist from U of L that stated the same things. They compared an active mine site, with some old reclaimed one, and compared their effects on water quality. Many people like to simply think that controlling run-off will protect water quality, which is completely wrong. The root system of trees, and plants, and the leafs laying on the ground, naturally filter the water, and absorb large amounts of water before they reach the stream, MTR completely destroys this natural process. In many cases the whole headwater streams are buried, which just intensifies the problem and causes major flooding.

I don't know a whole lot about road construction, or the committee's who oversee it, but I do know that they use the same type of explosives, which is a ammonium nitrate based explosive. The process's are very similar also. I like that little state about 1 mile of road disturbing 36 acres, which is a silly argument when you compare that to a 5-600 acre mine site. A 600 acre mine site would be as much land disturbance as 16 miles of of a four lane highway, and since most highways here are 2 lane, that means one 6000 acre mine site would be equivalent to 32 miles of road, which everyone could use, and not destroyed wasted land, which is what MTR leaves behind. People here are going without decent roads to their homes ( alot of which are destroyed by overweight coal trucks), but were destroying enough land to build hundreds of miles of roads, don't make sense to me.

The sediment ponds you so happily talk about are jokes, most are very poorly constructed, just like the one that broke in Inez. They're also dozens of more that could break at any point, and those are just the ones we know about. The one in Marsh Fork WV is probably the most notable. SO If all I have to rely on to protect my water is a **** poor constructed pond holding back millions of gallons of sludge, I don't feel to comfortable.

I find it very amusing that in post # 27 you said "I do not, and will never believe the majority of information given from the government" but, yet you have refered to the EPA study several time in this thread.

Again I guess we agree to disagree. One interesting point you made was that "the root system of trees, and plants, and the leafs laying on the ground, naturally filter the water and absorb large amounts of water before they reach the stream". I remember when I was growing up my parents which grew up in the 1920's telling me how they and most everyone else used to plow and plant their gardens on the hillsides as their parents did before them, now it seems to me that in order for that to have happened there would have been very few trees, plants and leafs to absorb the water before reaching the streams.

You believe that MTR causes major flooding, where I on the other hand believe that after mining has been completed with the designed drainage in place will help decrease the chance of flooding, but regardless if we receive over 2 inches of rain in a short period of time this region will more than likely flood.

I could believe that some ponds which were built prior to 1980 could have been poorly constructed, but since 1980 pond design and construction have improved immensely. Why do you think ponds built today are poorly constructed? During my career in the mining industry, I have either worked on the construction or supervised the construction of over 50 sediment ponds so what I'm about to say comes from experience and not from some book or web site. Each pond is designed for that particular watershed area, and these ponds are constructed to their design. The dam or embankment is built out of top soil or other cohesive material, all undesirable material such as rocks and sandy dirt is placed below the dam or embankment. One foot lifts of dirt are place at the dam to ensure good compaction, pipes, emergency spillways, crest elevation and width along with the upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment are constructed according to the design. These ponds are then certified by a Registered Engineer that they are built to their designed specifications. Next a Mine Inspector will then conduct an on-site inspection of the pond along with the certified as-built drawing.

I think you may be a little confused about a sediment pond and a slurry impoundment, sediment ponds are small, generally around 1/4 acre in size and they catch surface run-off water and not sludge. From the time these ponds are built and certified to when they are either removed or a bond release has been obtained are inspected along with a quarterly certification sent to the State every three months, most ponds are inspected by the company on weekly or monthly basis.

Impoundments which hold coal slurry are constructed with more stringent guidelines, they require weekly inspection by a certified person. Compaction test are also conducted weekly to ensure the proper compaction, impoundments also require quarterly certification to be sent to MSHA. I have seen several pictures of impoundments, and one thing that I've noticed was that preperation plants and mining offices are often located below these impoundments, so why would a company be careless in the construction of the impoundment and risk losing tens of millions of dollars if the impoundment ever broke.

If you are referring to the slurry spill in Inez, your way off base, the Dam or Embankment did not fail, and the spill had nothing to do with the way the Dam or Embankment was constructed. The spill occured because the impoundment was either built over an abandoned underground mine or in close proximity the underground mine, over time the roof of the underground mine collasped, allowing the slurry inside to impoundment to drain into the mine and out the portals.

I threw the 1 mile of 4 lane road = 36 miles scenairo out there for this reson, if you calculate the area in Eastern Kentucky used for 4 lane roads it would be around 26,000 acres by using the same methods that surface mining does now. How many miles of streams have been (as you say) buried by these roads, but I have yet to see one environmentalist make the first complaint about roads buring streams why is that?

[Old School]

What kind of water are you refering to, well water? Run-off? What?:confused:

I was refering to run-off.

[DevilsWin]

I was refering to run-off.

Well what about well water?

[Old School]

Well what about well water?

I can only refer to the areas that I'm familiar with and know the history, but actually we have had very few complaints, with the majority of those coming from residents whose wells are located near creek level and were made during the dry season when the creeks had a very low flow.

[Coach_Owens87]

Old school, I keep telling myself that I wont get into these pointless debates, but I always do.


I only mentioned the EPA study becuase it is really the only written study of the effects of MTR that has been completed. I do not believe the majority of it, just like I mentioned in my post, because the data they used is really questionable, but it's the only real source on the subject.

You state that the spill in Inez was not to be blamed on a poorly constructed pond, but I would say the building an impoundment meant to hold millions of gallons of water over an old abandoned mine would be poorly planned, but I guess thats just me.


You state that a propoerly constructed draniage system on a mine site would control flooding, and I will agree that a perfectly constructed drainage system would do that, but nothing is perfect. It;s not just the drainage that controls flooding, it the root system of the dense forest that absorbs a large amount of the rain that really controls flooding. MTR sites completly destroy that.

You keep trying to throw mud on highway construction, and you do so by throwing the silly figure of 26,000 acres being destroyed by roads. I dont really think that can be fairly compared to the estimated 1.4 million acres that will be destroyed by MTR by the year 2010. There isnt any substantial data that I could find on highway construction and stream disturbance in East ky, so I really dont think there is much to debate. But I do feel comfortable saying that comparing the thousands of large valley fills which completly destroy headwater streams with the smaller damage caused by road construction is insane. Stop trying to change the subject, and just admit to the damage that valley fills cause.

You also constantly feed me with the rules and regulations from the coal industry, which are mostly BS. No matter what guidlines you follow, or what stringent rules you must obey, there is no changing the destruction caused by MTR. And I believe like many others, that if this proposed "Rule Clarification" takes place, it will lead to only more destruction. I think people need to open thier eyes and see that this area is quickly being devastated. I cant drive more than 2 miles without seeing a former or active MTR site. I really wish I could travel this area and marvel in the beuaty that is appalachia, but that wish was taken away long ago. Now im just left with the hope that I can protect what little piece of this paradise that is left.

[BoondockSaint]

Yeah yeah yeah...We've had this debate before. I know that most companies claim that they will use the land for development to save them from reclaiming the land. Well reclaiming it with more than grass anyways.

I don't really know how they go about choosing a plan, but from the dozen or more reclaimed sites that I have visited, I'm guessing there is a big demand for unused pasture land. Only 2-5 Percent of abandoned mine land is used in some sort of developmental way (according to what source you read). From what I read that includes Pasture land also.

This is from the Kentucky environmental quality control, and they state that only 5 Percent is being used. Coal companies and people like you claim that we need the flat land, if we need it so **** bad, why don't we use it? My guess would be that we don't really need it in the first place, or people would be jumping all over the opportunity to have it.
http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/Minutes/EQC/050928.pdf



I really cant believe that 600-800 trees per acre, that must be some sort of unwritten law that coal companies claim to go by. From what I understand there is no law set on how many they must plant, so I really doubt any company would plant 600-800 on mine sites, many of which are 1,000 acres or more. Like I stated, ive visited over 15 mine sites, and none of those have had more than 15-20 trees per acre. The ones I've visited average around 5-10 trees per acre.

The damage being caused by Mountaintop removal is destroying this place, and everyone with knowledge on the subject knows it. There has been several Environmental impact studies done on the subject, and they all state the same thing. All except the last one, which was edited substantially by the bush administration, they didn't want people knowing the destruction being caused.

The following sites show how the estimated 6.8% of land to be mined is really a horrible estimation. The math to get that number is really flawed. It also shows photos of the mined land, and future mine sites.

http://windpub.com/mtr2.htm

http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm


A recent survey also shows that 71% of people oppose MTR within 50 miles of their home. And 70% percent of people disagree with the new proposal by the current administration. But only 49% of Americans know about MTR. Thats a really low number.
90 Percent of people, crossing all political lines, agree that the US should look into other energy sources before expanding MTR.

The coal companies are losing support, and their losing it fast. It's good to know that the majority of Americans think like I do. Ahhh, it's a great feeling.

This survey is unbiased, they surveyed 501 men, 500 women, from all across the country. They based this survey on Geographic region, sex, age and race. All people surveyed are over 18.

http://www.700mountains.org/release091307.cfm

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/09/17...-for-coal/

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/spotlight/23024

Any information that I didnt give, should be contained on those sites.

Do you know how much how coal per minute has to be mined to operate your computer?

Being the enviromentalist that you portray yourself to be one would think that you would mail a letter to all of those who disagree with your opinions. Oh wait, that may cause a tree to be cut down, too.

What about the clothes you wear? Are they cotton? Did that **** just magically appear?

Natural rescources provide us with the lives we have grown accustomed to living. Do I think it could be safer or cleaner? Of course I do. Will I put many more into poverty or on our disfunct welfare system to do so? **** no!!!

A radical stop in MTR or coal mining in general will kill our economy, point blank. And until better solutions are provided, or exist, then MTR should continue as planned.

No one I know is short of breath from all the trees being cut down due to MTR, nor are any of them short of fresh drinking water. Find something more important to ***** about. Like the fact that your country is being over-ran by illegal immigrants, OPEC, the 1%, and a mixed minority that will eventually lead to another civil war.

[Old School]

Old school, I keep telling myself that I wont get into these pointless debates, but I always do.


I only mentioned the EPA study becuase it is really the only written study of the effects of MTR that has been completed. I do not believe the majority of it, just like I mentioned in my post, because the data they used is really questionable, but it's the only real source on the subject.

You state that the spill in Inez was not to be blamed on a poorly constructed pond, but I would say the building an impoundment meant to hold millions of gallons of water over an old abandoned mine would be poorly planned, but I guess thats just me.


You state that a propoerly constructed draniage system on a mine site would control flooding, and I will agree that a perfectly constructed drainage system would do that, but nothing is perfect. It;s not just the drainage that controls flooding, it the root system of the dense forest that absorbs a large amount of the rain that really controls flooding. MTR sites completly destroy that.

You keep trying to throw mud on highway construction, and you do so by throwing the silly figure of 26,000 acres being destroyed by roads. I dont really think that can be fairly compared to the estimated 1.4 million acres that will be destroyed by MTR by the year 2010. There isnt any substantial data that I could find on highway construction and stream disturbance in East ky, so I really dont think there is much to debate. But I do feel comfortable saying that comparing the thousands of large valley fills which completly destroy headwater streams with the smaller damage caused by road construction is insane. Stop trying to change the subject, and just admit to the damage that valley fills cause.

You also constantly feed me with the rules and regulations from the coal industry, which are mostly BS. No matter what guidlines you follow, or what stringent rules you must obey, there is no changing the destruction caused by MTR. And I believe like many others, that if this proposed "Rule Clarification" takes place, it will lead to only more destruction. I think people need to open thier eyes and see that this area is quickly being devastated. I cant drive more than 2 miles without seeing a former or active MTR site. I really wish I could travel this area and marvel in the beuaty that is appalachia, but that wish was taken away long ago. Now im just left with the hope that I can protect what little piece of this paradise that is left.

We now know that there was an abandon mine under part of the impoundment, but did you ever think that perhaps no one new about the mine. I do know that there are several mines that have never been mapped, some dating back to the early 1900's.

I realize comparing acreage used for highway construction to mining is like comparing apples to oranges, but the point I'm trying to make is the same method's used in mining are used in highway construction and land development for shopping centers and sub-divisions. You and your anti-coal friends seem to have a problem when mining companies use these methods, you claim coal companies bury streams and destroy the environment, yet you or your anti-coal friends have never made the first complaint about streams being buired or our environment being destroyed by highway construction or land development by using these same methods. This is why I call you and these other groups anti-coal. I would think the true environmentalist would be concerned about the whole stream environment including raw sewage and illegal trash dumps that find their way to the streams.

How can you say the rules and regulations are mostly BS, when your not familiar with the mining process, and know absolutely nothing about coal mining. I forgot you've read web sites (which we all know wouldn't stretch the truth) prepared by people that have never seen a mine site other than maybe to occasional fly over or view from a distance.

[Coach_Owens87]

We now know that there was an abandon mine under part of the impoundment, but did you ever think that perhaps no one new about the mine. I do know that there are several mines that have never been mapped, some dating back to the early 1900's.

I realize comparing acreage used for highway construction to mining is like comparing apples to oranges, but the point I'm trying to make is the same method's used in mining are used in highway construction and land development for shopping centers and sub-divisions. You and your anti-coal friends seem to have a problem when mining companies use these methods, you claim coal companies bury streams and destroy the environment, yet you or your anti-coal friends have never made the first complaint about streams being buired or our environment being destroyed by highway construction or land development by using these same methods. This is why I call you and these other groups anti-coal. I would think the true environmentalist would be concerned about the whole stream environment including raw sewage and illegal trash dumps that find their way to the streams.

How can you say the rules and regulations are mostly BS, when your not familiar with the mining process, and know absolutely nothing about coal mining. I forgot you've read web sites (which we all know wouldn't stretch the truth) prepared by people that have never seen a mine site other than maybe to occasional fly over or view from a distance.

It's really funny how you constantly insult my intelligence. You dont really know how much I know about mining. I will openly admit that I do not know everything, or know every rule inside and out, but I do have a good understanding of the rules. I have over 20 family members that have had long careers in the mining industry. Some of those have been underground, but the majority have worked on surface mining. I talk to most of them on a very regular basis, and they all know my stance on MTR. But I have gathered a lot of info from them, and respect what they do, although I dont agree with the methods their companies use.


I never said that I dont complain about littering, illegal sewage lines, or other environmental issues, I just dont think this is the forum to speak of those things since this is about MTR, not environmentalism as a whole. I actually done a school project on littering, and illegal sewage, and have joined in many community cleanups to try and help the issue. And please stop calling me anti-coal, use the term anti-mtr, it describes me much better.

[DevilsWin]

I can only refer to the areas that I'm familiar with and know the history, but actually we have had very few complaints, with the majority of those coming from residents whose wells are located near creek level and were made during the dry season when the creeks had a very low flow.

Are you saying that in you professional opinion that mining companies and their practices are not affecting well water knowingly or that the evidence isn't there?

[Old School]

Are you saying that in you professional opinion that mining companies and their practices are not affecting well water knowingly or that the evidence isn't there?

No... I'm just saying that in the areas that I have worked in and have first hand knowledge of have recieved very few complaints from our surface mining activies, I can't comment about other companies because I don't know what problems they have had with water wells.

[Coach_Owens87]

No... I'm just saying that in the areas that I have worked in and have first hand knowledge of have recieved very few complaints from our surface mining activies, I can't comment about other companies because I don't know what problems they have had with water wells.

IMO you recieved few complaints because most people know that complaining we get nothing resolved.

And since you admit that you can't speak for other companies and their issues with water, I dont see how you can stand up for the coal industry when you do not know all the facts.

[Old School]

IMO you recieved few complaints because most people know that complaining we get nothing resolved.

And since you admit that you can't speak for other companies and their issues with water, I dont see how you can stand up for the coal industry when you do not know all the facts.

LOL, Here you go again talking about things you know nothing about, have you reviewed each and everyone of these cases, I thought not....and we're talking about water wells and not stream quailty, FYI every complaint we recieve on water wells, we turn over to the OEB office, they investigate each complaint and make a ruling to every case.

You tell me, how do you talk about things when you don't know all of the facts?

[BlackcatAlum]

:popcorn:

[Old School]

:popcorn:

Do you have enough popcorn for the both of us.

[BlackcatAlum]

Do you have enough popcorn for the both of us.

Sure do...

[Old School]

It's really funny how you constantly insult my intelligence. You dont really know how much I know about mining. I will openly admit that I do not know everything, or know every rule inside and out, but I do have a good understanding of the rules. I have over 20 family members that have had long careers in the mining industry. Some of those have been underground, but the majority have worked on surface mining. I talk to most of them on a very regular basis, and they all know my stance on MTR. But I have gathered a lot of info from them, and respect what they do, although I dont agree with the methods their companies use.


I never said that I dont complain about littering, illegal sewage lines, or other environmental issues, I just dont think this is the forum to speak of those things since this is about MTR, not environmentalism as a whole. I actually done a school project on littering, and illegal sewage, and have joined in many community cleanups to try and help the issue. And please stop calling me anti-coal, use the term anti-mtr, it describes me much better.

Coach, I've known from day one how little you actually know about mining, and it's rules and regulations, remember the little comment you made a while back I know all of coals dirty little secerts, but I'm glad you informed everyone else that you don't know it all. Yet you say you gave a good understanding of the rules and regulations, several times over the past months you've made comments about how much you've studied the subjects that you disscussing. How can you say you've studied mining prior to these discussions when you didn't know or still don't know:
1) What Contour Mining is.
2) Difference between Contour Mining and MTR.
3) About the different types of post mining land use.
4) That Streams are monitored for at least 6 months prior to starting a permit and are continued to be monitored until it is time for the bond release.
5) About AOC (Approximate Original Contour) you said "Reclaimation had to be back to original contour or better".
6) Difference between a sediment pond and an Impoundment.
7) Claiming sediment ponds are poorly constructed, when you don't have a clue how these ponds are constructed.
These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went back through your post I could find many more, but if you would have studied like you claimed you should have known this and much more.


As far as your family members being miners, I'm sure they are very good miners, but like I've said before, I have family and friends in the Medical field and I talk to them quite often but that doesn't mean that I know anything about the Medical profession.

If I remember correctly on another thread when we were discussing raw sewage, you claimed that Knott County (or the county that you live in) did not have a problem with raw sewage being dumped into the streams.

Sorry, but with your current stance on this issue the term Anti-Coal fits you perfectly.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach, I've known from day one how little you actually know about mining, and it's rules and regulations, remember the little comment you made a while back I know all of coals dirty little secerts, but I'm glad you informed everyone else that you don't know it all. Yet you say you gave a good understanding of the rules and regulations, several times over the past months you've made comments about how much you've studied the subjects that you disscussing. How can you say you've studied mining prior to these discussions when you didn't know or still don't know:
1) What Contour Mining is.
2) Difference between Contour Mining and MTR.
3) About the different types of post mining land use.
4) That Streams are monitored for at least 6 months prior to starting a permit and are continued to be monitored until it is time for the bond release.
5) About AOC (Approximate Original Contour) you said "Reclaimation had to be back to original contour or better".
6) Difference between a sediment pond and an Impoundment.
7) Claiming sediment ponds are poorly constructed, when you don't have a clue how these ponds are constructed.
These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went back through your post I could find many more, but if you would have studied like you claimed you should have known this and much more.


As far as your family members being miners, I'm sure they are very good miners, but like I've said before, I have family and friends in the Medical field and I talk to them quite often but that doesn't mean that I know anything about the Medical profession.

If I remember correctly on another thread when we were discussing raw sewage, you claimed that Knott County (or the county that you live in) did not have a problem with raw sewage being dumped into the streams.

Sorry, but with your current stance on this issue the term Anti-Coal fits you perfectly.

lol, if youve known from day one how little I know about mining, then why debate with me? If you know your right, why waste your time?

You list 7 silly points there and claim I dont know anything about mining. The first point you mention is contour mining, you claim I dont know what it is, which is a lie. In our discussion on that you asked if I opposed contour mining, which was really just trying to get our debate away from MTR, becuase countour mining (or bench mining, is used to extract several seams of coal where it is not feasible through other methods. Contour mining describes itself, you build roads to acces the seam, then you create a bench so you can move equipment to mine the coal. After that simple mining techniques are used, drill holes through the top, blast, remove overburden, and then mine the coal the same way. There is an old abandonded countour/ridge mining site above the former 80 flea market in perry county on Highway 80. So I have seen contour mining.) Another point you mention is sediment ponds being poorly constructed, which a lot of them are. Even the OSM blamed poor construction for the spill in martin county, and buffalo creek in WV. You can claim that I dont know how they are constructed, which is fine, I dont care, but a simple google search will give you a plethora of information on how they are constructed for each industry that used them.

In all your posts I answered your responded to your questions truthfully and with facts. I may have made mistakes in the way I presented my debate, but that in no way shows that I dont know anything about mining. It's not rocket science, and anyone with half a brain and internet access can find out anything and everything about the mining industry.

As far as the raw sewage issue, I never stated knott county didnt have an issue with it, I just stated that things have gotten better. Big difference, so please stop lying and distorting my words. That makes twice you have done this on the same issue.

And you also distorted what I meant by saying that I frequently talk to family members who work in the mining industry. I never stated I knew EVERYTHING about mining,or that they knew everything, but by talking to family members I do get a good perspective of what occurs during mining, and the regulations they must follow. I like to see how workers view the industry, and not only go by what I read. To make sure im correct I always check for my facts through a documented source, usually a couple from both sides of the issue.

And as far as checking my post for innacuracies and errors, you could go through any members post on here and do the same. But since you already know that im wrong about everything, you really shouldnt waste your time looking.

Call me whatever you want, but please stop lying about what Ive said.

It does feel good to know that church groups like the one in this post, and according to a recent poll the majority of americans agree with my stance. MTR is not worth the price appalachia is paying.

[DevilsWin]

Coach, I've known from day one how little you actually know about mining, and it's rules and regulations, remember the little comment you made a while back I know all of coals dirty little secerts, but I'm glad you informed everyone else that you don't know it all. Yet you say you gave a good understanding of the rules and regulations, several times over the past months you've made comments about how much you've studied the subjects that you disscussing. How can you say you've studied mining prior to these discussions when you didn't know or still don't know:
1) What Contour Mining is.
2) Difference between Contour Mining and MTR.
3) About the different types of post mining land use.
4) That Streams are monitored for at least 6 months prior to starting a permit and are continued to be monitored until it is time for the bond release.
5) About AOC (Approximate Original Contour) you said "Reclaimation had to be back to original contour or better".
6) Difference between a sediment pond and an Impoundment.
7) Claiming sediment ponds are poorly constructed, when you don't have a clue how these ponds are constructed.
These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went back through your post I could find many more, but if you would have studied like you claimed you should have known this and much more.


As far as your family members being miners, I'm sure they are very good miners, but like I've said before, I have family and friends in the Medical field and I talk to them quite often but that doesn't mean that I know anything about the Medical profession.

If I remember correctly on another thread when we were discussing raw sewage, you claimed that Knott County (or the county that you live in) did not have a problem with raw sewage being dumped into the streams.

Sorry, but with your current stance on this issue the term Anti-Coal fits you perfectly.

Conversely you seem to know alot about every aspect of mining except for it's effect on Well Water.

In an earlier post you claimed to not know of any instances concerning mine site that you have worked.
Yet on every other mining subject you claim to have superior knowledge.

You can't have it both ways Old School.

Either you know everything about mining. Or you're being subversive on the subject of Well Water(Drinking water).

[Old School]

lol, if youve known from day one how little I know about mining, then why debate with me? If you know your right, why waste your time?

You list 7 silly points there and claim I dont know anything about mining. The first point you mention is contour mining, you claim I dont know what it is, which is a lie. In our discussion on that you asked if I opposed contour mining, which was really just trying to get our debate away from MTR, becuase countour mining (or bench mining, is used to extract several seams of coal where it is not feasible through other methods. Contour mining describes itself, you build roads to acces the seam, then you create a bench so you can move equipment to mine the coal. After that simple mining techniques are used, drill holes through the top, blast, remove overburden, and then mine the coal the same way. There is an old abandonded countour/ridge mining site above the former 80 flea market in perry county on Highway 80. So I have seen contour mining.) Another point you mention is sediment ponds being poorly constructed, which a lot of them are. Even the OSM blamed poor construction for the spill in martin county, and buffalo creek in WV. You can claim that I dont know how they are constructed, which is fine, I dont care, but a simple google search will give you a plethora of information on how they are constructed for each industry that used them.

In all your posts I answered your responded to your questions truthfully and with facts. I may have made mistakes in the way I presented my debate, but that in no way shows that I dont know anything about mining. It's not rocket science, and anyone with half a brain and internet access can find out anything and everything about the mining industry.

As far as the raw sewage issue, I never stated knott county didnt have an issue with it, I just stated that things have gotten better. Big difference, so please stop lying and distorting my words. That makes twice you have done this on the same issue.

And you also distorted what I meant by saying that I frequently talk to family members who work in the mining industry. I never stated I knew EVERYTHING about mining,or that they knew everything, but by talking to family members I do get a good perspective of what occurs during mining, and the regulations they must follow. I like to see how workers view the industry, and not only go by what I read. To make sure im correct I always check for my facts through a documented source, usually a couple from both sides of the issue.

And as far as checking my post for innacuracies and errors, you could go through any members post on here and do the same. But since you already know that im wrong about everything, you really shouldnt waste your time looking.

Call me whatever you want, but please stop lying about what Ive said.

It does feel good to know that church groups like the one in this post, and according to a recent poll the majority of americans agree with my stance. MTR is not worth the price appalachia is paying.

Coach you ask why do I debate you, because it's fun and I really enjoy it.

Let's go back the the Thread titled "Are you against Coal Mining" and read post #62 where on 6/27/07 you said and I quote "Since Contour Mining is rarely used. I don't think it really plays an important role in this discussion. I know contour mining was used a lot in the 70's and is still being used somewhat in Tennessee. The reclaimation done on contour sites is no better than what is used on MTR, The highwalls cannot be filled in so they just remain there," You live in a area that has Contour Mining all around you and all you can say is that it's used somewhat in Tennessee. Contour mining has always been used, and is still used today, oh and by the way the Highwall's are reclaimed. That comment tells me you didn't know what Contour Mining was.

In the same thread look at post # 67 where you said and I quote"The sewage running into the water could have been an issue 20 years ago, but not today" I take that to say that you don't have a raw sewage problem.

Buffalo Creek happened in 1972 and is the main reason behind the Federal Act of 1977. That's why I said ponds built prior to 1980 could be poorly constructed.

It also feels good to see the many ministers, preachers, deacons, and church members working in and on the mine sites every day.

I have listed a couple of points that are not lies, if you don't believe me check them out for yourself. BTW I'll look for the others later, because I don't like to be called a liar.

[Old School]

Conversely you seem to know alot about every aspect of mining except for it's effect on Well Water.

In an earlier post you claimed to not know of any instances concerning mine site that you have worked.
Yet on every other mining subject you claim to have superior knowledge.

You can't have it both ways Old School.

Either you know everything about mining. Or you're being subversive on the subject of Well Water(Drinking water).

Nope, not being subversive about anything as I've stated before we've had very few complaints about water wells, but apparently that's not a good enough answer for you. Would you rather I'd make something up or what.

What are you asking, that statement doesn't make any sense.

Where have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge? Now I know that you and coach have given be that title several times, BTW I really appreciate it.

Here's the deal I've worked in the mining industry since the late 70's, I've worked in Engineering Departments, I've worked on the Underground Production Crews, I've also worked on the Surface Production Crews, I've been around all phases of mining except for longwall mining and a drag line. I am a certified foreman for both Underground and Surface mines, and I have been able to pick up a lot of knowledge over the years.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach you ask why do I debate you, because it's fun and I really enjoy it.

Let's go back the the Thread titled "Are you against Coal Mining" and read post #62 where on 6/27/07 you said and I quote "Since Contour Mining is rarely used. I don't think it really plays an important role in this discussion. I know contour mining was used a lot in the 70's and is still being used somewhat in Tennessee. The reclaimation done on contour sites is no better than what is used on MTR, The highwalls cannot be filled in so they just remain there," You live in a area that has Contour Mining all around you and all you can say is that it's used somewhat in Tennessee. Contour mining has always been used, and is still used today, oh and by the way the Highwall's are reclaimed. That comment tells me you didn't know what Contour Mining was.

In the same thread look at post # 67 where you said and I quote"The sewage running into the water could have been an issue 20 years ago, but not today" I take that to say that you don't have a raw sewage problem.

Buffalo Creek happened in 1972 and is the main reason behind the Federal Act of 1977. That's why I said ponds built prior to 1980 could be poorly constructed.

It also feels good to see the many ministers, preachers, deacons, and church members working in and on the mine sites every day.

I have listed a couple of points that are not lies, if you don't believe me check them out for yourself. BTW I'll look for the others later, because I don't like to be called a liar.

Well im glad that your superior knowledge gives you pleasure when you debate with me.

I make a comment that in my opinion contour mines arent reclaimed, becuase simply putting back dirt and planting grass isnt reclamation, and you say that I dont know what contour mining is. To me thats making a stretch, I gave you an example of what a contour mine was, and how the method is used, so I think my understanding of it is complete. The point I was trying to make, and I failed to do so, is that in the 70's contour mining, and auger use was the typical surface mine, and the SMCRA wasnt signed until 1977, so thats why many highwalls are left and not filled in.

Again your taking my comments, and using your opinion on what I said as a basis for my knowledge and accuracy. The sewage problem still exist, but it's not as bad as it was in the past. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

You keep mentioning that good people work in the mines, which really has no meaning, I never said miners are bad people. So what if preachers work in the mining industry, that doesnt mean I have to agree with it, or that theyre right becuase they're "good people". Catholic preachers rape kids, does that make it right becuase they're preachers?

you keep mentioning that regulations are tight on slurry ponds. If that is so the cleanup of the spill in martin county should have been thorough, but instead most of the six toxic chemicals realeased in that spill remained. The Tug river still turned black when it rained, and sludge could still be seen on the banks. Many residents sued Massey energy for contaminating thier property, but it got nowhere. Most estimations say that they are over 500 "slurry ponds" are in appalachia, and some of those remain abandoned and unmonitored.

You also keep mentioning that coal mining does not affect water quality, whether it be well water, or run-off. The only info you provide for proof of this is first hand experience you have, and the few complaints your company recieves. Just becuase people dont complain doesnt mean there isnt a problem, and you cant speak for the industry as a whole based on only your experience.

here are a few stats, between 2000-2003 17,000 pollution violations in the kentucky river.

All kentucky waters have high levels of mercury, and women of childbearing age are warned not to eat fish, or drink from the water.

Silt or sediment from coal extraction accounts for 22% of impaired streams in Ky, and 34% in the cumberlands. I would call that damaging water quality.

Selinum levels exceed allowed amounts downstream in 13 of 15 mine sites studied by the EPA. Selenium is an essential element, and is healty in low amounts, but is toxic to wildlife and humans in large amounts exceeding 400 micrograms per day. So 13 of 15 sites studied have water issues, but you claim coal companies have a tight control over water quality. I just dont see how you get that.

I got these facts from http://windpub.com/kywatershed.htm check the bottom of that link to see thier refrences, they are all legit and trustworthy.

[DevilsWin]

Nope, not being subversive about anything as I've stated before we've had very few complaints about water wells, but apparently that's not a good enough answer for you. Would you rather I'd make something up or what.

What are you asking, that statement doesn't make any sense.

Where have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge? Now I know that you and coach have given be that title several times, BTW I really appreciate it.

Here's the deal I've worked in the mining industry since the late 70's, I've worked in Engineering Departments, I've worked on the Underground Production Crews, I've also worked on the Surface Production Crews, I've been around all phases of mining except for long wall mining and a drag line. I am a certified foreman for both Underground and Surface mines, and I have been able to pick up a lot of knowledge over the years.

I just think it's ironic that you project to have the superior knowledge about every aspect of mining except for its effect on Well Water(drinking water).

[JCHS_EAGLE]

I have all kinds of family in the Coal Mines, My Grandfather was Super at MARTIKI in Martin Co. In the 90's and even though Mining pays the bills its killing the environment.

Coach is right just because good people work in the mines doesn't make them good. Coal Companie owner are only out for one thing and thats MONEY. I don't believe they give one thought as to what its doing to the environment.

[Old School]

Well im glad that your superior knowledge gives you pleasure when you debate with me.

I make a comment that in my opinion contour mines arent reclaimed, becuase simply putting back dirt and planting grass isnt reclamation, and you say that I dont know what contour mining is. To me thats making a stretch, I gave you an example of what a contour mine was, and how the method is used, so I think my understanding of it is complete. The point I was trying to make, and I failed to do so, is that in the 70's contour mining, and auger use was the typical surface mine, and the SMCRA wasnt signed until 1977, so thats why many highwalls are left and not filled in.

Again your taking my comments, and using your opinion on what I said as a basis for my knowledge and accuracy. The sewage problem still exist, but it's not as bad as it was in the past. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

You keep mentioning that good people work in the mines, which really has no meaning, I never said miners are bad people. So what if preachers work in the mining industry, that doesnt mean I have to agree with it, or that theyre right becuase they're "good people". Catholic preachers rape kids, does that make it right becuase they're preachers?

you keep mentioning that regulations are tight on slurry ponds. If that is so the cleanup of the spill in martin county should have been thorough, but instead most of the six toxic chemicals realeased in that spill remained. The Tug river still turned black when it rained, and sludge could still be seen on the banks. Many residents sued Massey energy for contaminating thier property, but it got nowhere. Most estimations say that they are over 500 "slurry ponds" are in appalachia, and some of those remain abandoned and unmonitored.

You also keep mentioning that coal mining does not affect water quality, whether it be well water, or run-off. The only info you provide for proof of this is first hand experience you have, and the few complaints your company recieves. Just becuase people dont complain doesnt mean there isnt a problem, and you cant speak for the industry as a whole based on only your experience.

here are a few stats, between 2000-2003 17,000 pollution violations in the kentucky river.

All kentucky waters have high levels of mercury, and women of childbearing age are warned not to eat fish, or drink from the water.

Silt or sediment from coal extraction accounts for 22% of impaired streams in Ky, and 34% in the cumberlands. I would call that damaging water quality.

Selinum levels exceed allowed amounts downstream in 13 of 15 mine sites studied by the EPA. Selenium is an essential element, and is healty in low amounts, but is toxic to wildlife and humans in large amounts exceeding 400 micrograms per day. So 13 of 15 sites studied have water issues, but you claim coal companies have a tight control over water quality. I just dont see how you get that.

I got these facts from http://windpub.com/kywatershed.htm check the bottom of that link to see thier refrences, they are all legit and trustworthy.

Coach, in all honesty, I do enjoy these discussions, but the main reason I respond to your comments is to try and correct as many misleading and false statements from you and the anti-coal groups as I can.

Let's start with your last post, now you've tried to use the "windpub" website several times and as I've mentioned they are anti-coal, and will only post infromation against coal. I did however find something interesting from your post and this site. You said and I quote "All Kentucky waters have high levels of mercury, and women of childbearing age are warned not to eat fish or drink from the water". which you took from the "windpub site or Kentucky River Watershed Site" which said and I quote "All Kentucky waters are under advisory for excessive quantities of mercury. Women of childbearing age and children 6 years of age and younger are warned not to eat more than one meal per week of freshwater fish." Remember these are Environmental sites that are against mining.

Below is the advisory information provided by the Kentucky Department of Water, and it said A statewide fish cosumption advisory was issued on April 11, 2000, because of low levels of Organic Mercury found in samples of fish from Kentucky waters. Women of childbearing age and childeren 6 years and younger are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of fresh fish from Kentucky Rivers, Streams, and Lakes because of the prersence of mercury.
http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/advisories/fish.htm
Coach, Did you notice any difference between the to two? Nowhere do you or "windpub" mention Organic Mercury. Exactly what is Organic Mercury....well Organic Mercury comes from Antiseptics, Bactericidals, Embalming Agents, The Farming Industry, Fungicides, Germicials Agents, Insecticidal Products, Laundry Products, Diaper Products, Paper Manifacturing, Pathology Products, Histology Products, Seed Preservation and Wood Preservatives. Sorry but coal or carbon is not found in Organic Mercury, Coal is however found in Inorganic Mercury which was not part of this advisory.
Mercury is a naturally occuring metal which has several forms, but manmade mercury emissions comes from Industral Boilers, Burning Hazardous Waste, and Chlorine Production and one-third comes from coal fired power plants, which is in the process of reducing those emissions. Were you aware that on March 15, 2005, the EPA issued the first-ever Federal Rule to permanently cap and reduce Mercury emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants by 70%.

You mentioned that 17,000 pollutions violations were issued, are you suggesting that these are all mining related? I checked out several sites and found information about violations, but none said what consitutes a violation? Were these violations made by industry, or were they made by private land owners or business?

I'm glad you brought up Selenium, Did you realize that Water Plants that supply drinking water are allowed to release 10 times the amount selenium into the drinking water (50ppb), than Mining Companies are allowed to discharge into the Streams (5ppb), now tell me, does that make sense.

I looked, but couldn't find where you found the information on the impaired streams, maybe you could give me the site, regardless Silt/Sediment which can come from stream bank collaspe and overland sediment loads that are usually associated with incompatible land use that remove riparian vegation for land development, logging, mining, farming, poor construction practices, stream dredging to name a few causes. One interesting fact is that Mining is the only one of the causes that uses any type of sediment contol, and this problem is not isolated to Appalachia it is also happening in non coal producing states.

Calling "Windpub and Kentucky watershed" and some of their refrences (such as water keepers which is opearted by Cindy Rank another coal critic who is also on many boards for anti-mining groups) a legit and trustworthy site...please the misleading and false information on the mercury alone is enough to discredit any information they give.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach, in all honesty, I do enjoy these discussions, but the main reason I respond to your comments is to try and correct as many misleading and false statements from you and the anti-coal groups as I can.

Let's start with your last post, now you've tried to use the "windpub" website several times and as I've mentioned they are anti-coal, and will only post infromation against coal. I did however find something interesting from your post and this site. You said and I quote "All Kentucky waters have high levels of mercury, and women of childbearing age are warned not to eat fish or drink from the water". which you took from the "windpub site or Kentucky River Watershed Site" which said and I quote "All Kentucky waters are under advisory for excessive quantities of mercury. Women of childbearing age and children 6 years of age and younger are warned not to eat more than one meal per week of freshwater fish." Remember these are Environmental sites that are against mining.

Below is the advisory information provided by the Kentucky Department of Water, and it said A statewide fish cosumption advisory was issued on April 11, 2000, because of low levels of Organic Mercury found in samples of fish from Kentucky waters. Women of childbearing age and childeren 6 years and younger are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of fresh fish from Kentucky Rivers, Streams, and Lakes because of the prersence of mercury.
http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/advisories/fish.htm
Coach, Did you notice any difference between the to two? Nowhere do you or "windpub" mention Organic Mercury. Exactly what is Organic Mercury....well Organic Mercury comes from Antiseptics, Bactericidals, Embalming Agents, The Farming Industry, Fungicides, Germicials Agents, Insecticidal Products, Laundry Products, Diaper Products, Paper Manifacturing, Pathology Products, Histology Products, Seed Preservation and Wood Preservatives. Sorry but coal or carbon is not found in Organic Mercury, Coal is however found in Inorganic Mercury which was not part of this advisory.
Mercury is a naturally occuring metal which has several forms, but manmade mercury emissions comes from Industral Boilers, Burning Hazardous Waste, and Chlorine Production and one-third comes from coal fired power plants, which is in the process of reducing those emissions. Were you aware that on March 15, 2005, the EPA issued the first-ever Federal Rule to permanently cap and reduce Mercury emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants by 70%.

You mentioned that 17,000 pollutions violations were issued, are you suggesting that these are all mining related? I checked out several sites and found information about violations, but none said what consitutes a violation? Were these violations made by industry, or were they made by private land owners or business?

I'm glad you brought up Selenium, Did you realize that Water Plants that supply drinking water are allowed to release 10 times the amount selenium into the drinking water (50ppb), than Mining Companies are allowed to discharge into the Streams (5ppb), now tell me, does that make sense.

I looked, but couldn't find where you found the information on the impaired streams, maybe you could give me the site, regardless Silt/Sediment which can come from stream bank collaspe and overland sediment loads that are usually associated with incompatible land use that remove riparian vegation for land development, logging, mining, farming, poor construction practices, stream dredging to name a few causes. One interesting fact is that Mining is the only one of the causes that uses any type of sediment contol, and this problem is not isolated to Appalachia it is also happening in non coal producing states.

Calling "Windpub and Kentucky watershed" and some of their refrences (such as water keepers which is opearted by Cindy Rank another coal critic who is also on many boards for anti-mining groups) a legit and trustworthy site...please the misleading and false information on the mercury alone is enough to discredit any information they give.

First off me using windpub is no worse than you useing kycoal.org, or coaleducation.org, both of those are very slanted sites.

Now you ramble on with a response to my post on coal being a major source of mercury released into the environment. I dont really feel like typing a long response, it's late, and im depressed about the tenn game, so since you love to read info check this site out, http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev2...lmain.html , it pretty much answer all your questions, and proves what I was trying to say. The site I mentioned also looks at the effect the cap emmissions on mercury by the epa will have.

your figures for the allowed selenium release are WAY off. According to the EPA thier standard for the level of allowed selenium release is 0.05 ppm, not 5 ppm or 50 ppm. your numbers are 100x and 1000x larger than the actual number.

The information I gave on impaired streams was on the site I listed in my last post.

If anyone really wants to know the impact that MTR is having on the environment, go to this site
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pdf/mt...cument.pdf , its a copy of the impact statement given by the EPA. This is the only major scale study done on MTR. A lot of the information I have given has come from this study. it does have some inconclusive data, but it's the best study out there. One warning, this is a rather large file, it's 25 mb, but it;s worth it for people wanting the info.