275. Professor Hendryx vs. Big Coal

What happens when a public-health researcher deep in coal country argues that mountaintop mining endangers the entire community? Hint: it doesn't go very well.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds, because switching your home and auto insurance is better than

• 0:43Stephen J. Dubner?

  cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So, switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example?

• 1:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely-not-Yolo type. PNC Bank: Brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC.

• 1:54Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey, this is Stephen Dubner. We'll get to the new episode of Freakonomics Radio in just a second, but first, I want to catch you up on my other podcast, Tell Me Something I Don't Know. A lot of you have already subscribed, and if you haven't, now is a good time to do it because our new season starts on February 19. We will be putting out 30 episodes this year, so if you subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts, you will not miss a one. Also, come see us live. In March, we will be in Washington DC, Boston, and New York. In April, we'll be in Chicago. Even better, sign up to be a contestant when we're in your town. For tickets and our contestant sign up, just go to tmsidk.com. That's tellmesomethingidontknow.com.

• 3:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  Big thanks to our producing partners, WAMU in DC, WBUR in Boston, and WBEZ in Chicago. And remember, new episodes of Tell Me Something I Don't Know will start coming your way on Sunday, February 19. Thanks for listening.

• 3:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  You wouldn't think it's a good time to make a bet on coal. As recently as the early 2000s, more than half the electricity in the United States came from burning coal. Now, it's only a third. One big reason is competition from cheap natural gas, but also coal, due to its environmental costs, has become heavily regulated over the past couple decades. And yet, coal is suddenly having a bit of a renaissance. A recovery in the price of coal has a number of mining firms looking to go public. The election of President Trump also helped. He called for a revival of the industry, and he criticized President Obama's war on coal. Indeed, just a couple of weeks into office, Trump reversed a coal mining regulation that Obama pushed through in his final days.

• 4:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  Today, on Freakonomics Radio, we go down a coal wormhole, and we discover a surprising fact: legislation meant to cut down on certain health hazards from coal may have increased other health hazards from coal. Also, what it feels like for an academic who studies this issue to testify before a pro-coal congressional hearing.

• 4:44Speaker 01

  You should be embarrassed to be here with a study like this.

• 4:57Speaker 02

  From WNYC Studios, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 5:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  I'd like you to meet Michael Hendricks.

• 5:13Speaker 03

  I'm a professor in the Department of Applied Health Science in the School of Public Health at Indiana University.

• 5:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  And applied health science means that your PhD and so on are in what?

• 5:24Speaker 03

  My PhD is originally in psychology. I've had a long route to where I am now. I was trained originally in research methods and research design, but for much of my career, I applied that to other kinds of health services problems. It was only fairly recently that I started to get interested in environmental issues and in the health problems that the people in the mining communities were experiencing.

• 5:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  Fairly recently, being around 2006, when Hendricks landed a job at West Virginia University, in the heart of coal country. He'd come from Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, wheat country. His research there was focused on mental health services.

• 6:05Speaker 03

  When I first decided to take the job, I didn't really have any plans to pursue interests or research interests related to coal. It was something that came about after I moved there.

• 6:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hendricks immediately found that West Virginia was different from Washington State in many ways: culturally, politically, and, of course, geologically.

• 6:24Speaker 04

  My name is Crystal Good. And I am a poet, an advocate, and entrepreneur.

• 6:30Speaker 05

  My name is Tammy. I'm 50, and I am from Summersville, West Virginia.

• 6:35Speaker 04

  Coal is a part of the fabric of West Virginia. It doesn't matter if you're directly in the mines. There's an ancillary business that we all benefit from or are connected to.

• 6:45Speaker 05

  This is a rich state, okay? And there's things out there in the mountains and everything that could really make money and jobs for people.

• 6:54Speaker 04

  Whether that's, you know, my mom unloading a coal truck at DuPont, or whether that's my basketball team being sponsored by Friends of Coal, or, you know, however, everybody's in some way connected to the industry.

• 7:06Stephen J. Dubner?

  That connection extended to Hendrix's new university.

• 7:10Speaker 03

  West Virginia University would have their annual Coal Bowl football game, the game between West Virginia and Marshall every year, just as one example. And they had a research center for coal and energy on the WVU campus. Politicians were always quick to support and defend the coal industry if they wanted to get reelected. A very pro-coal environment there.

• 7:36Stephen J. Dubner?

  And it sounds like you were at least a bit of an environmentalist when you came to West Virginia.

• 7:41Speaker 03

  Well, I love the outdoors. I learned how to fly fish and hiking and backpacking and such. Yeah, that's true.

• 7:47Stephen J. Dubner?

  Which is not to align you with any political movement, because we know there are naturalists and environmentalists, you know, across all political spectrums. But I am curious what your views were on coal, per se, coming into WVU.

• 8:01Speaker 03

  You know, I really knew almost nothing about it. I was one of those people that didn't know how the lights were turned on or what the energy sources were. I was educating myself at about that time. I happened to come across a book. It was written by a journalist, Jeff Goodell, called Big Coal.

• 8:21Speaker 03

  And he was doing stories about the important and kind of quiet role that coal played in in American life. And he was the one who was describing some of the stories of people that lived in these mining communities. And that's what got me kind of the first knowledge I had about this as a potential issue.

• 8:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  And then that led you to think, hey, I should take a look at public health implications of coal mining? Is it was it as direct a line as that?

• 8:45Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's as simple as that. It seemed like a logical next step.

• 8:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  Now, we should back up here and say that coal mining has changed a great deal in the past few decades. As we noted earlier, the industry has been in serious decline with production falling substantially and with employment, especially in a place like West Virginia. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which groups together mining and logging jobs, shows that the sector has fallen roughly 40% in West Virginia in just the last five years. Again, there's several reasons for this decline, especially the natural gas juggernaut. But it's also related to something that happened decades earlier in Washington DC.

• 9:24Speaker 06

  Thank you all very much. Thank you.

• 9:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  In 1989, at the White House, President George H. W. Bush made a major announcement.

• 9:32Speaker 06

  First, I'd like to lay on the table my proposals to curb acid rain and cut urban smog and clean up air toxics. And second, I want to call upon all of you to join me in enacting into law a new Clean Air Act this year.

• 9:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  The original Clean Air Act dated from 1963, and it had been amended several times. Bush's new amendments, which took hold in 1990, directly affected the coal industry and coal-fired power plants. Sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of burning coal, lowered air quality generally and contributed to what's known as acid rain. The new amendments capped sulfur dioxide emissions and established the first large-scale cap and trade program. Michael Hendricks again.

• 10:19Speaker 03

  The Clean Air Act, it has been successful at reducing acid rain pretty significantly and at improving air quality from power plants. There's no question about that.

• 10:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  But there was an unintended consequence of the new Clean Air Act.

• 10:32Speaker 03

  Economically, it became more attractive to try to mine coal that before maybe wasn't attractive to mine.

• 10:39Stephen J. Dubner?

  This type of coal had lower levels of sulfur, and it was especially plentiful in the mountains of central Appalachia. To get it, miners turned to a process known as mountain top coal removal. Rather than burrowing deep beneath the ground for seams of coal, mountain top removal is a technique that involves literally blowing up mountains. The health hazards of underground mining, both the media and long term, are substantial and well-established. But what about the health hazards of mountain top removal?

• 11:19Speaker 03

  People that work in surface mining, even though there's some evidence that they they may suffer some respiratory issues over time as well, the evidence is that that's less dangerous than underground mining.

• 11:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  Statistics from the West Virginia Office of Miners, Health, Safety and Training show that surface mining is indeed much less dangerous than underground mining, at least for the miners. But what about everyone else, the people living near the mountains that were being blown up? For Michael Hendricks, a public health researcher, that seemed a natural question to ask when he arrived in West Virginia. So at the time, mountain top removal mining was viewed as how in terms of environmental impact and, let's say, public health impact?

• 12:08Speaker 03

  I think there was always concern about its environmental impacts. I mean, you're using explosives to literally blow hundreds of feet off the mountain tops around where people live. There's large-scale deforestation of existing forests in these areas. There's permanent valley fills that permanently buried several thousand miles of streams in this region. You would hear- Stories from residents about the health concerns that they had, but nobody seemed to be investigating the public health impacts of this form of mining until we started this line about 10 years ago.

• 12:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hendricks began by reading the literature on the effects of open mining sites, and he was surprised to find there wasn't much.

• 12:55Speaker 03

  And so I thought, well, one way or the other, this is an area where I can make a contribution.

• 13:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hendricks began with mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control. It was specific enough that he could identify causes of death at the county level and for specific population groups.

• 13:11Speaker 03

  So we would merge those data with other data. So we used as a key source information from the Department of Energy on the amount of coal that was mined in different counties. And we could merge these together along with other kinds of demographic and behavioral risks to try to understand whether people who lived in areas with heavier mining had higher mortality rates.

• 13:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  To find an answer, there was a fair amount of statistical maneuvering to be done.

• 13:40Speaker 03

  The people in these communities, as a general statement, tend to have lower levels of income. They tend to sometimes engage in less healthy behaviors. Smoking rates are higher. So we had to try to account for those somehow. But there are very well-established statistical approaches to be able to do that. So as we looked at it more and more, the evidence became, in our view, stronger that there really was an independent association of being in mining communities that was related to a variety of poorer health outcomes. And it was an effect that was most pronounced in areas where surface mining takes place, especially mountain top removal mining.

• 14:22Speaker 03

  And the health effects were present for men and for women and for some children's outcomes, which made us think that it's more of a community-wide issue and not just an occupational exposure issue.

• 14:34Stephen J. Dubner?

  And talk me through for a moment the mechanics by which you believe mountain top removal and perhaps other coal mining actually increases mortality and the specific, I guess, ways in which it has an ill effect on health of, as you described it, men, women, children, and I guess in utero, children as well.

• 14:57Speaker 03

  Sure. When we first started doing these studies, we did not have direct measures of environmental conditions. We only had these correlational studies that showed poorer health outcomes in these communities in ways that were not explained by other measures. So that was a limitation of the earlier studies. And more recently, we have been going out and collecting environmental data from communities where mining occurs, as well as control communities where it does not. We found evidence for a variety of environmental problems in these communities. For example? For example, levels of silica. Crystalline silica, which we think are coming from removing the rock and soil to reach the coal, which is done through the use of heavy machinery

• 15:40Speaker 03

  and through explosives, raises dust levels in these communities. And silica levels in particular are known to be a toxicant to lung tissue. They're known to be a contributing factor to lung cancer, and that's one of the most consistent health problems that we've seen in these communities. We've also seen evidence for elevations in some organic compounds in air samples, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are coming in part from, again, from the coal itself and from the rock and soil around the coal, we think, as well as potentially from some of the diesel products that are used in the machinery and in the explosives. So we think the air is a transport route for the health problems that exist. We've

• 16:23Speaker 03

  also measured the particle size in these communities, and we found somewhat to our own surprise that the most pronounced difference, when you compare mining communities to similar rural communities in West Virginia that don't have mining, the primary difference is in very small particles that are called ultra-fines, that can penetrate deeply into lung tissue that are known to be a particular health hazard, and those were the particle sizes that were the most pronounced. We've done some limited water quality testing, and we find some evidence as well for some coal-related contaminants in some groundwater samples. Higher levels of conductivity in water. We don't know exactly what's causing that, but

• 17:07Speaker 03

  there's evidence for some water impairments, too, that are related to the chemicals that are used in the coal extraction and processing activities.

• 17:18Stephen J. Dubner?

  In a nutshell, a whole heap of bad news. Michael Hendricks and his colleagues would go on to publish more than 30 peer-reviewed studies that, to Hendricks at least, reached a clear conclusion.

• 17:30Speaker 03

  Were convinced that surface mining in central Appalachia, especially mountain top removal mining, is an independent, significant risk to public health.

• 17:39Stephen J. Dubner?

  The paradox, of course, was that the problem stemmed in part from the success of the Clean Air Act.

• 17:46Speaker 03

  The principal unintended consequence of the Clean Air Act was to encourage the development of mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia. And there is strong evidence that this form of mining is harmful. It's harmful not only to public health, but it's harmful environmentally. And the people who live in these communities have had to suffer so that others can enjoy cleaner air.

• 18:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, Professor Hendricks goes to Washington, which doesn't go quite as planned.

• 18:16Speaker 03

  Well, to tell you the truth, I was pretty naive.

• 18:32Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics.

• 19:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So, switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

• 19:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life, like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did, since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank: brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC.

• 20:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  I'm Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio. The public health researcher Michael Hendricks had discovered an unfortunate chain reaction. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 did clean up the air substantially, but they also incentivized a boom in mountaintop coal mining, which, his research showed, led to widespread public health hazards, not just for the people involved in mining, but for anyone living nearby. Fact is, almost any regulation or piece of legislation will have some unintended consequences. Environmental regulations seem particularly susceptible. About a decade ago, the United Nations began offering a generous bounty to manufacturers for destroying their stockpiles of a pollutant

• 21:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  called hydrofluorocarbon-23 that's a byproduct in the manufacture of a common refrigerant. The UN was hoping the manufacturers would be grateful enough to collect their money from the stockpiles and then switch to making a different refrigerant. Instead, factories in China and India doubled down, making even more of that refrigerant in order to create even more of the byproduct and get more of the money the UN was handing out. Or consider the Endangered Species Act. It is meant, of course, to protect species under threat. But there's a good possibility, as one environmental economist puts it, that the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering rather than protecting species.

• 22:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Why? Because a species is often declared endangered months or even years before its critical habitats are officially designated. This allows time for public hearings, and it also allows time for developers and foresters to rush in and pave those critical habitats before it's illegal to do so. So perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that a law meant to clean up the air from coal pollution has led to a different kind of coal pollution. That said, what should be done about it? Based on his research, Michael Hendricks went on record saying the appropriate policy would be a ban on mountaintop coal removal.

• 22:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  Some people we spoke with in West Virginia supported this idea.

• 22:46Speaker 07

  My name is Casey Litz, and I'm the singer of The Company Stores.

• 22:59Speaker 07

  Living in West Virginia, this is an issue that is brought up all the time. You know, it pollutes our waters, it's killing our mountains. We have a lot of other ways that we can, you know, create electricity. It should absolutely be banned.

• 23:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  But that view is hardly universal.

• 23:17Speaker 08

  Brennan Zerby. I'm 26. On the one hand, as like an everyday citizen living here, I can say that I at least dislike mining because it has a negative impact on my own life. But on the other hand, I can't speak to the need that some people have to work, the need for miners to make a living. And I can't, you know, in total equanimity, say that it should be totally banned.

• 23:44Speaker 03

  Well, to tell you the truth, I was pretty naive.

• 23:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  Michael Hendricks again.

• 23:49Speaker 03

  I was coming from this position of being a rational, objective person. And in my naivete, just moving to West Virginia, not yet really understanding the nature of coal in the state or the political pressures that it could play, I thought people would listen to me and make appropriate responses to the information. And I was quickly...

• 24:12Speaker 03

  Relieved of that idea. When the first results started coming out and then the first efforts from the industry and the politicians were more or less to ignore it, pretend they had never read it, not want to talk about it. I thought people would listen to these results and maybe the politicians would even listen and maybe something could be done and that was obviously not the case.

• 24:34Stephen J. Dubner?

  In recent years, we've learned how different industries, tobacco and sugar, for instance, essentially co-opted academic researchers to produce results favorable to their industries. But here was Michael Hendricks, a newcomer to coal country, putting out academic research that made the coal industry look bad and which complicated his relationship with his university.

• 24:56Speaker 03

  And I know that even though West Virginia University, to their credit, never pressured me to stop directly, I think that some of the upper-level administrators probably received some pressure to try to make me stop, but that was never an issue for me. I was always allowed to do the work that I felt I wanted to do.

• 25:16Stephen J. Dubner?

  Which didn't mean it wasn't tricky.

• 25:18Speaker 03

  It would be much easier for me to simply not talk about it and do something else because I have felt under considerable pressure to be very careful about what I would say to journalists and be very cautious about what we would write in the papers.

• 25:36Stephen J. Dubner?

  When you say you feel the pressure, what do you mean by that? You felt it how and from whom?

• 25:40Speaker 03

  It was self-imposed maybe more than anything, but I knew that my department chair and upper-level administrators at the university were nervous about this work. They wanted me to be really careful. Whenever I would have an interview with a journalist, I would have someone from the media office, if it was an in-person interview, by my side to listen to what was being said. My chair would caution me on a regular basis to be careful, be careful. And I would always try to do that because I knew that it was, after I'd gotten over my naivete, I knew that it was a really charged issue and that I was threatening a vested interest. And so I felt that. I felt the stress from it.

• 26:25Stephen J. Dubner?

  One tool the industry groups use to challenge academic work they find unflattering is a Freedom of Information Act, or a FOIA request. In the academic community, Michael Hendricks came to be cited as a prime example of how FOIA can facilitate harassment.

• 26:42Speaker 03

  We were subject to two very large FOIA requests. And the attorneys for the industry wanted essentially every scrap of paper that existed, every email that went back and forth, every draft of a manuscript, computer codes for the analyses, everything. And the attorneys for West Virginia University, to their credit, fought it as a way to protect academic freedom. And the case was ultimately heard at the West Virginia Supreme Court and decided in favor of the university. That it was a request from the industry that was designed, basically, to intimidate, to freeze academic freedom, and to require me, essentially,

• 27:26Speaker 03

  just to waste a lot of time chasing down documents that they really didn't need to see.

• 27:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  And then there was the time Hendricks was called to testify before Congress about his research. Under consideration was a proposal concerning mining permits and water quality protection.

• 27:41Speaker 09

  The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order.

• 27:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  Can you talk about that experience?

• 27:48Speaker 03

  Yes. I was--

• 27:51Stephen J. Dubner?

  Would you rather not?

• 27:53Speaker 03

  It's all right. It wasn't the most rewarding experience, ultimately, but I was one of four witnesses who was asked to testify before a committee for Congress. Committee, of course, controlled by the Republican majority. The other three speakers were supportive of the coal industry.

• 28:13Speaker 10

  I'm Hal Quinn, the president and CEO of the National Mining Association. Coal industry strongly supports H.R. 1644.

• 28:21Speaker 03

  So I was the lone voice there and I felt like the quality of the discussion was pretty infantile.

• 28:28Speaker 01

  So I would have to say to you, sir, I've seen 5th grade science projects that were more scientific than this.

• 28:35Speaker 03

  You know, I came here not to be insulted.

• 28:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm sorry, sir, but I have the time. The time is mine. And I'm sorry, but I didn't ask you that question.

• 28:42Speaker 03

  It can be pretty stressful sometimes.

• 28:45Speaker 01

  You should be embarrassed to be here with a study like this.

• 28:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  Did you know pretty much what you were being set up to do?

• 28:51Speaker 03

  No, again, I'm just naive, I guess. I thought there would be a dignified discussion and I would have a chance to present my views and others would present theirs and didn't realize that it would turn into this little, uh, insulting little exchange.

• 29:07Speaker 01

  You want us to set policy and damage jobs, take away job opportunities from people based on nonsense science here?

• 29:16Speaker 03

  Is that a question?

• 29:18Speaker 01

  And I'm not asking you a question, sir. I'm making a statement.

• 29:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  I know that Representative John Fleming of Louisiana basically kinda treated you as if you're defending your dissertation on how to conduct statistical analysis of public health records.

• 29:34Speaker 01

  You control for those. How do you control for that?

• 29:36Speaker 03

  It's a common statistical analysis to control for other risk factors.

• 29:40Speaker 01

  So you use statistical analysis to control for the difference?

• 29:43Speaker 03

  Of course.

• 29:44Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 29:45Speaker 03

  Yeah, and he clearly knows nothing about analysis himself. He was just had some predetermined question or two that one of his aides wrote for him, probably, that he flung out at me. We've published like 30 papers on the health problems related to this form of mining and he chose one of them, one of our health surveys, that was a published paper, maybe not one of our strongest efforts, but a published paper that documented the health problems in mining communities and chose to take a couple of potshots at that one paper as though that was gonna make... Some grander statement about the weight of the evidence as a whole, but he knows nothing about research. He doesn't even seem to understand basic control issues of how you measure covariates. You know, he knows nothing.

• 30:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  I understand he objected to your reliance on self-reported data, said your sample size was too small. Let's pretend for a moment that he's on the other line. How would you just explain how your research actually stands on its own?

• 30:45Speaker 03

  Well, the sample size for that study was several hundred people. It wasn't too small. If it had been too small, we maybe had not, would not have been able to find the differences that we had seen. The fact is, we did find big differences in health status across a variety of dimensions, and the sample size was certainly adequate enough to detect those. Self-report is, is one valid, well-recognized form for collecting health data. There's plenty of evidence that people are, in fact, able to report their own health status accurately. I'm certainly not the only one who does analyses or writes papers based on self-reported health data.

• 31:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  Let's say, however, I put you in the prosecution chair for a moment and ask you to pick apart the overall thrust of your own argument here, having to do with the relationship between mountaintop removal mining and, and health of the community. Talk about what you feel are the potential flaws, weaknesses, or unanswerable, let's say, questions in your thesis.

• 31:48Speaker 03

  So, we haven't been able to make that direct connection within a single study between the health conditions that people have and the environmental conditions that those same people are exposed to. And that's a limitation. There's no question about it. We're trying to do some work now to overcome that. But if you look at the pattern as a whole, and you see 30 papers, more than that now, and they document that the health problems are present throughout these communities. They become stronger as the levels of mining go up. They become stronger as mountain top removal specifically occurs. They become stronger as people live closer to the sites. They are not due to other conventional confounds like smoking,

• 32:33Speaker 03

  obesity, education, age, insurance, et cetera. And independently, we've been able to assess that the water quality is in fact impaired, that the air quality is in fact impaired in ways that are consistent with the health problems that we're seeing in these communities. Even though we don't have the smoking gun, you know, that explains this relationship. At this point in time, with the weight of the evidence, to try to make a statement that we really don't know, we really can't be sure, has come to the point, in my view, that it's immoral. And we have something in environmental science called the precautionary principle, that if you know there are health problems in communities and you know that the environmental conditions are impaired, even if you don't understand all the causal mechanisms,

• 33:17Speaker 03

  you have to take appropriate steps to reduce harm. And that's what we should be doing.

• 33:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  The congressman who grilled Hendrix in Washington, Louisiana Representative John Fleming, recently left Congress. We reached out for a response to Hendrix's characterization of him as someone who, quote, "clearly knows nothing" about this type of research. Fleming objected. He told us that in addition to serving as a congressman, quote, "I am also a board-certified family physician who has studied medical literature for many years. As a trained physician, I can easily identify a well-designed or poorly-designed study when I see one." Furthermore, Fleming argued that Hendrix was in league with what he called "tree-hugging environmentalists." In short, he said, "Dr. Hendrix attempted to push a personal environmental agenda in the guise of a public health study that was planned to see, as a physician,

• 34:08Stephen J. Dubner?

  the conclusions about his, quote, 'study,' end quote, were drawn by me, not my staff." In any case, Hendricks' testimony and his research have not accomplished what he hoped for.

• 34:20Speaker 03

  Well, I wish I could say it had had more impacts. Mountain top removal is still taking place.

• 34:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hendricks says his research did gain some traction during the Obama presidency. The EPA tightened permitting guidelines for mountain top removal. West Virginia politicians acknowledged the potential for public health problems. And Hendricks says his message may have helped persuade some big name investment banks to divest from mountain top mining. But under a Trump administration that has vowed to be pro coal, momentum is already shifting. A late Obama era Interior Department ruling intended to protect waterways from coal debris has already been repealed. Hendricks called this "a very bad idea," in my view. Still, he's hoping that research like his will convince

• 35:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  policymakers to take a more comprehensive view of environmental legislation generally.

• 35:16Speaker 03

  Try to pay attention, not just when it comes to mountain top removal, but to any energy policy that we develop. Pay attention to the full production cycle, to where it comes from, to how it's produced, to how it's extracted, to how it's used, to how the wastes are disposed of, and not just the consumption portion. We don't do a very good job of that, and we should do that regardless of the energy source that we're using.

• 35:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  But what do you do if your bread is buttered by, you know, the industry? And maybe you see the potential downside of your activity, and maybe you don't. But people really dig their heels in and find a way to justify or confirm their position based on, you know, how they put food on their family's table, or how they pay back their shareholders and so on. That's always going to be the case. There's always going to be some industry or institution that even if the evidence is not in their favor, they'll make a strong argument and often win because they have a lot of leverage. So is there any, anything you've learned from your interactions on this issue that you could see would be a

• 36:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  useful mechanism to kind of breaking that logjam to where we could perhaps align incentives more productively for the greater good?

• 36:35Speaker 03

  Well, you're absolutely right that people's self-interest trumps many other considerations. And

• 36:42Speaker 03

  Finding ways to make that work in our favor rather than trying to struggle against it is probably a smart approach. Better incentives to promote clean energy development, for example, would be one thing that I would think would be a good idea, but how do you do that when you have to face the same entrenched political interests that tend to oppose those kinds of changes? We could talk about it in a rational way, but it's still going to require, I hate to say this, but I think it may require a crisis before we will make real change.

• 37:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  But whenever there's any change, there are always winners and there are losers. So in this case, what if the potential loser were somehow given a winning ticket? What if you could go to the coal industry and let's say, and then say, "We are going to subsidize your clean energy development to the tune of X, which is we're giving everyone plus 10%." It's going to be really hard for you to lose money for the next five years. Would something like that work?

• 37:42Speaker 03

  I don't want to, this is going to sound like I'm trying to claim your idea, but that was something I'd actually been thinking about a while back, is that rather than having the West Virginia Coal Association, we should have the West Virginia Energy Association, and there should be incentives for them to develop a more sustainable, long-term approach to the energy needs of West Virginia and of the country. So those sorts of incentives, I think, would be really smart to do, but I don't know if we'll be able to do them.

• 38:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  Was your idea for the West Virginia Energy Association met with open arms by the West Virginia Coal?

• 38:18Speaker 03

  Well, it was one I discussed more with colleagues and friends privately.

• 38:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  Ah, see, you too need to get out of your silo, though.

• 38:25Speaker 03

  I do, you're right. You're right. I'm sure they would have welcomed the idea with open arms.

• 38:34Stephen J. Dubner?

  Why are you no longer at West Virginia University?

• 38:38Speaker 03

  Oh, that's a pretty boring story, too. My wife is a professor. She is an epidemiologist, and she was at West Virginia University, too. And she got a great job offer here at Indiana that was an important career advancement for her. So we moved here to support her career.

• 38:55Stephen J. Dubner?

  So your move from West Virginia wasn't due to any kind of pressure or indirect or direct against your research?

• 39:02Speaker 03

  No. I'm sure that's a quick question that comes to people's minds. I've been asked about it a number of times, but it's just not the case. It's just a personal decision.

• 39:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, for those of us who appreciate academic research and freedom, whether from the individual level up to the provost chancellor level, that's very, very nice to hear that you felt that the university really had your back, even though you were producing research that could have made things uncomfortable for them.

• 39:29Speaker 03

  I'm sure it did make things uncomfortable for them in some other ways. And I'm sure there were a few of the administrators who were happy to see me go. But they did allow me to pursue my work, so I appreciate that.

• 39:47Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up next time on Freakonomics Radio, another story about another industry, but unlike coal, this one has been booming. Suddenly, visual effects budgets went from, let's say, 5% of the budget up into the 50s and 60s. It's great news if you run a visual effects company in Hollywood, right? Guess again.

• 40:07Speaker 11

  We had just received this Academy Award, and I worked for a company that, at that time, was going through a bankruptcy.

• 40:16Stephen J. Dubner?

  In a world where Hollywood movies are visually extravagant, why has the visual effects industry in Hollywood vanished? And this has everything to do with tax incentives. Come on, who's fooling who? That's next time on Freakonomics Radio.

• 40:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC Studios and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Greg Rosalsky. Our staff also includes Shelley Lewis, Christopher Wirth, Stephanie Tam, Merritt Jacob, Eliza Lambert, Alison Hockenberry, Emma Morgenstern, Harry Huggins, and Brian Gutierrez. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You should also check out our archive at Freakonomics.com, where you can stream or download every episode we've ever made, or read the transcripts and look up the underlying research. You can also find us on Twitter, Facebook, or via email at [email protected]. Thanks for listening.

• 41:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by EverPure. Is the value of AI not living up to the promise? The problem is probably your data, not your AI models. When it's scattered across different systems, getting your data AI-ready is a challenge. You keep your AI waiting, and everything slows down. EverPure unifies your data, so you can see it, understand it, and control it all from one simple place, and get it AI-ready fast. Unlock the true value of your AI at everpuredata.com.

• 42:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible, and when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.

• 42:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility. It's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.

• 43:09Speaker 09

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.