[Coach_Owens87]

One quick correction to my last post. The site I posted about emmissions of mercury from coal fired power plants is a study based on coal vs nuclear. The article was written before the epa mandate on mercury emmissions was enforced. But the article does look at the effect that capping emmissions would have, and it also looks into the dangers of coal combustion, and the materials that it releases, which include radioactive uranium, thorium, and elements like mercury, and toxins such as arsenic.

[Old School]

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.

I did make a typo, in my statement it should have read Parts Per Billion (PPB) instead of Parts Per Million (PPM), according to several annual water quaility reports the Maximum Contaminant Level of Selenium for water treatment plants is 50 (PPB) while the allowable selenium discharge limit into streams is 5 (PPB). Regardless, Water Treatment facilities are still allowed to discharge 10 times the amount of selenium into our drinking water than coal companies are allowed to discharge into our streams.

As far as the impaired streams info. the references were listed, but I could not find the site in which kywatershed took them from, and you just never know how they report the facts, and have tendencies to omit information they don't want you to know.

Actually, I don't recall kycoal.org and coaleducation.org is sponsored in part by the Kentucky Office of Energy Policy and the Kentucky Coal Assoication, which has a lot of historical facts about coal mining, including production, and employment records, also information on coal severance taxes, and coals effects on the economy. This sites also gives information on the different types of mining, overall it's a interesting site if you are interested in mining.

[DevilsWin]

Old School, you have an opinion and a website to match everything you argue except mining's effect on Well Water. I think you're avoiding this subject because it's indefensible.

[Old School]

Old School, you have an opinion and a website to match everything you argue except mining's effect on Well Water. I think you're avoiding this subject because it's indefensible.

DW, I'm not avoiding the subject, but as I've told you several times, I have seen very few complaints about well water from our surface mining operations, now I don't know what types of problems other companies have had if any, so I cannot and will not speak for them. I will say this before we started mining in this area, we drilled a water well for our offices and it was full of iron and sulfur, and you couldn't use the water for anything. As we tested the drinking water in the area we found that most land owners had this same type of water, maybe that's why there not complaining I don't know.

When we receive a complaint we contact the DEP and OEB offices, to conduct an investigation into the problem. You on the other hand seem to know or seem to think you know alot about water wells and the effect from mining why don't you share you information with us.

[DevilsWin]

DW, I'm not avoiding the subject, but as I've told you several times, I have seen very few complaints about well water from our surface mining operations, now I don't know what types of problems other companies have had if any, so I cannot and will not speak for them. I will say this before we started mining in this area, we drilled a water well for our offices and it was full of iron and sulfur, and you couldn't use the water for anything. As we tested the drinking water in the area we found that most land owners had this same type of water, maybe that's why there not complaining I don't know.

When we receive a complaint we contact the DEP and OEB offices, to conduct an investigation into the problem. You on the other hand seem to know or seem to think you know alot about water wells and the effect from mining why don't you share you information with us.

I don't know anything about it other than I know it has an effect and people have been complaining about it for years. You have a website for everything else.

[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.

On Feb. 26, 1972 the Buffalo Creek Impoundment gave way and I believe over 100 people died in that disaster. Largely due to this disaster new laws were enacted in 1977 to keep this from happening again, which it has, then on Oct. 11, 2001 another disaster happened when the Martin County Impoundment breeched into an abandoned underground mine, since then more laws have been enacted to help ensure that this does not happen again. As I've said before mining is like every other industry, it's not perfect, but improves each and every year.

Coach, here's a report by The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on the Martin Sounty Slurry Spill which has some interesting conclusions, here's a few of them

• Private wells in the area do contain naturally occuring heavy metals, such as arsenic, iron, manganese, barium, and cadmiun, but not at levels that would be wxpected to cause any adverse health effects in residents who drink water from those wells.
  
• No adverse health effects areexpected to occur as a result of residents ingesting vegetables grown in residential soil potentially contaminated by the slurry spill.
  
• Black water events may continue to occur, but the concentrations of metals currently found during these events are not expected to cause adverse health effects.

After reviewing this report, I could not find anything about most of the toxic chemicals remaining.

Some Impoundments may not be active, but I assure you they are inspected by MSHA, the State and the companies that are responsible for those impoundments. I couldn't imagine that MSHA or the State would not inspect each and every impoundment especially with the way the mining industry is under a microscope as it is today.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MartinC...080706.pdf

What kind of statement is this "just because people don't complain doesn't mean there isn't a problem". Come on Coach????

One last thing, Would you care to share your defination of reclaimation with us? I mean since replacing the highwalls and following the approved drainage and post mining land use plans are not acceptable to you.

[Old School]

I don't know anything about it other than I know it has an effect and people have been complaining about it for years. You have a website for everything else.

I'm sorry to disappoint DW, guess I'm slipping in my old age.

[Coach_Owens87]

On Feb. 26, 1972 the Buffalo Creek Impoundment gave way and I believe over 100 people died in that disaster. Largely due to this disaster new laws were enacted in 1977 to keep this from happening again, which it has, then on Oct. 11, 2001 another disaster happened when the Martin County Impoundment breeched into an abandoned underground mine, since then more laws have been enacted to help ensure that this does not happen again. As I've said before mining is like every other industry, it's not perfect, but improves each and every year.

Coach, here's a report by The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on the Martin Sounty Slurry Spill which has some interesting conclusions, here's a few of them

• Private wells in the area do contain naturally occuring heavy metals, such as arsenic, iron, manganese, barium, and cadmiun, but not at levels that would be wxpected to cause any adverse health effects in residents who drink water from those wells.
  
• No adverse health effects areexpected to occur as a result of residents ingesting vegetables grown in residential soil potentially contaminated by the slurry spill.
  
• Black water events may continue to occur, but the concentrations of metals currently found during these events are not expected to cause adverse health effects.

After reviewing this report, I could not find anything about most of the toxic chemicals remaining.

Some Impoundments may not be active, but I assure you they are inspected by MSHA, the State and the companies that are responsible for those impoundments. I couldn't imagine that MSHA or the State would not inspect each and every impoundment especially with the way the mining industry is under a microscope as it is today.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MartinC...080706.pdf

What kind of statement is this "just because people don't complain doesn't mean there isn't a problem". Come on Coach????

One last thing, Would you care to share your defination of reclaimation with us? I mean since replacing the highwalls and following the approved drainage and post mining land use plans are not acceptable to you.

So the report doesnt mention the chemicals left after the "cleanup", to me it's all a cover up.

According to a tesitomony from a engineer with massey energy. the site only had 15 feet of dirt and rock between the slurry pond and the underground mine (MSHA recommends 150). So they knew about the undergound mine site, but still built the impoundment. If they lied about what cuased the incident, and then only let a few investigations into the incident occur, why should I believe the reports. Martin County coal had a 100 million gallon spill in 1994 and knew another spill was inevitable, but the MSHA allowed them to continue thier work with the impoundment, that just dont seem right. After the spill they fined Martin county coal and it's owner Massey energy for $110,000, and the mine operator appealed the fines, doesnt sound like he was to concerned about the environmental devastation he caused. They're are an esitmated 200 impoundments built over existing mines, how am I to trust that these wont break when the MSHA done nothing to prevent the 2001 spill.

So just becuase someting is supposedly monitored by the MSHA doesnt mean things are going well. I have very little faith in trusting the MSHA.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_200..._spill.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_Sludge_Spill

http://www.msha.gov/MEDIA/PRESS/2002/NR020425.HTM

My comment that you criticized is just my opinion. It's really just a simple way of thinking, just becuase people dont speak about a problem doesnt mean it dont exist. A lot of people wouldnt know where to start with a complaint, or they wouldnt want to cause trouble, which is very common. And just becuase they file a complaint doesnt assure that the problem will be fixed, so a lot of people just stay quiet.

You ask what my idea of "reclamation" would be to actually reclaim a site, not just control erosion and plant grass. The current plans for reclamation arent accepatable, and they arent to most people with an envioronmental point of view. The whole system needs an overhaul, the fines, permits, and post mining reclamation laws are a joke. The corps of egineers hands out mining permits like candy.
I believe that if a site isnt going to be used for deveolopmental purposes, which 95% arent, they should be required to be reforested with a suitable mixture of tree and plant species that where on the site before mining occured. It's estimated that you could find over 100 species of trees withing 1 acre of appalachian forest, so the current reclaimation process of planting non native grass is a joke. I believe an outside agency besides the MSHA or the office of the interior should also oversee reclamation. Which brings me to the topic of this post, i dont think the mining industry needs more flexibility in the way they can mine. The definition of "fill material" has been changed to not include pollutants.

[Redneck]

Strip Mining Prevents Forest Fires...

[TidesHoss32]

Strip Mining Prevents Forest Fires...

:Clap: Funniest thing Ive ever read on here, lol..and anybody with a sense of humor will think its funny too, lol...

[Redneck]

:Clap: Funniest thing Ive ever read on here, lol..and anybody with a sense of humor will think its funny too, lol...

I thought you might like that

[Coach_Owens87]

On Valentines Day theres is a protest walk in Frankfort to oppose the new ruling and MTR. Everyone should come. We're expecting over 1000 people to show up.