Data Mining: Newmont's Dubious Science

In response to Mr. Clean, my article in the September/October edition of Mother Jones, Newmont published a rebuttal on its website. The rebuttal is littered with inaccuracies, and in no way refutes the facts or substance of my article. But Newmont’s response was not surprising: as I pointed out in detail in the article, the company has used misinformation to convince the media and the courts that it is innocent of polluting Buyat Bay and sickening villagers, when the facts clearly suggest the opposite. Newmont appears to have ignored the sidebar to the story in which much of the scientific data is summarized. The sidebar is available at: http://www.motherjones.com/new s/feature/2007/09/data-mining- newmonts-dubious-science.html. Here’s a response to Newmont’s rebuttal, which can be found on their website at http://buyatbayfacts.com. Newmont: Much of the scientific data examined by David Case was either ignored or suggested it was tainted. Mother Jones: On the contrary, my conclusions are based exclusively on science. Newmont provided me with hundreds of pages of studies and data that I examined in detail. A considerable amount of the data provided by Newmont actually supported the case that Newmont polluted Buyat Bay. After confronting Newmont with the facts, I spent dozens of hours on the phone with their scientists. Their arguments—which were at times deliberately misleading—never disproved the basic facts of the case: -- that high levels of mercury and arsenic have been found in Buyat Bay and in the villagers that live nearby; -- and that the villagers have suffered from serious health problems that can be explained by these toxins. Newmont: Scientific experts were not mentioned or quoted in the article. Instead, the story relied upon information from outside sources with well-known anti-mining biases who have neither been to Buyat Bay nor examined the data. Mother Jones: This is incorrect. Dozens of scientists were consulted in researching the article, and many were quoted as well. Newmont: Case's article cannot be considered a balanced look at the Buyat Bay case since it omits Newmont's complete acquittal of any and all pollution charges. Mother Jones: This allegation raises questions about whether Newmont actually read the article, which states in the very first section: “…the provincial court acquitted Ness of all charges. ‘I was amazed at how thoroughly the judges sided with us,’ Ness says. ‘”It was a slam dunk.’" Newmont: The author makes light of respected, independent health studies or ignores them altogether in an effort to suggest that any health problems found in Buyat Bay residents should be linked to Newmont's mining operations. Mother Jones: On the contrary, I examined in detail the data provided by Newmont, as well as by independent sources who had visited the site. Far from exonerating the company, the data provide strong evidence that the villagers have been exposed to dangerous pollutants at excessive levels (as defined by the US government). Incidentally, some of the most damning evidence comes from a study conducted by the Minamata Institute under the auspices of the World Health Organization—the so-called “WHO study” that Newmont links to repeatedly in its rebuttal. As mentioned in the sidebar, this study actually shows that “70 percent of villagers reported headaches and 8 percent had neurological disorders, both of which can be linked to mercury exposure.” Newmont: The author suggests he discovered Buyat Bay Village and implies it was a community Mr. Ness did not want him to see. As such he leaves the impression there were medical issues in another nearby village being hidden by Ness and the company. Buyat Village is the closest established community to the coastal community. Because of its position, it has been the most closely studied of all the surrounding communities. Mother Jones: The first part of this is correct: in an exhaustive tour of the area, Ness failed to discuss Buyat Village, and we drove past the road leading to it numerous times without ever entering the village, even though it is only a few minutes drive away. If indeed it was the “most closely studied” community, then it’s even more surprising that Ness chose to take me to nearby Buyat Beach, from which nearly all of the residents have fled due to health problems they say began after Newmont started dumping waste in front of their houses, where they fish. When I visited Buyat Village on my own, many residents complained of illnesses, and showed me tumors they had developed. Additionally, data from local doctors that Newmont provided me showed that after mining, the villagers had a substantial level of skin disease—lumps, tumors and rashes. Skin disease can be caused by arsenic, one of the contaminants found in the bay. These days, Newmont contends that these skin diseases are “typical” and attributes them to poor sanitation. The company’s environmental impact assessment contradicts this, however, noting (on page 4-193) that skin problems were not found in Buyat prior to mining. Newmont: WHO found mercury levels to be normal and lower than those found in many commercial fisheries. WHO's study found that mercury levels in the bay's fish do not indicate contamination from any source. Mother Jones: In fact, as we stated in our sidebar, at the mercury level that WHO found in Buyat fish, villagers could barely consume an ounce before exceeding the EPA's standard. That said, the mercury levels in Buyat fish are probably even worse than WHO reported, given that they only studied the muscle, not the skin and organs that villagers routinely eat. Nemwont: Instead of citing the many competent and independent scientists who studied the Buyat Bay environment and the health of its community, the author sought and quoted sources with known anti-mining positions from the United States who have no first-hand knowledge of Buyat Bay. The activists quoted include Glen Miller of Great Basin Mine Watch as well as Jim Kuipers and David Chambers of the Center for Science and Public Participation. All three have established views opposing gold mining. There is no indication that any of the three have been to or studied Buyat Bay. Mother Jones: In fact, Miller is a professor at University of Nevada, and a recognized expert in mercury from mining. Kuipers runs his own consulting firm. Along with Chambers, they are valuable sources due to their inside knowledge of the industry. Hardly “anti-mining activists,” they are concerned citizens who readily disagreed with environmentalists, and spent hours painstakingly explaining the science of mining. Kuipers and Chambers left lucrative careers with companies after becoming disillusioned with the needless destruction that some (but not all) companies perpetrate. They were not primary sources for the article; instead, they assisted with the interpretation of data supplied by Newmont and others. Note that Newmont didn’t refute their quotes or any facts they provided. Newmont: In another example of flawed sourcing, the article ends with a quote from Sandra Ainsworth, identified as a "former company employee who says she was fired after she blew the whistle on pollution at a Nevada mine." The courts ruled Ms. Ainsworth was not fired for whistle blowing. Her subsequent whistleblower lawsuit against Newmont was dismissed as being without merit by the United States District Court for the district of Nevada. Mother Jones: As I wrote, Ainsworth describes herself as a whistleblower, and provided a lengthy list of environmental sins being committed at the Newmont mine where she worked in Nevada. These were corroborated by another colleague who was fired along with her. The quote she provided was not material to the case against Newmont; rather, it was to put Ness in context. Newmont: Untold context to the story is that Newmont engaged with David Case, on multiple occasions, for more than a year while he wrote his article for Rolling Stone magazine. After Rolling Stone rejected Case’s article he offered it to Mother Jones who published it. Mother Jones: Alas, there is some truth to this. Rolling Stone did initially assign this story, and chose not to publish it. This was not due to any factual inaccuracies, however. It’s not at all uncommon for magazines to withdraw from agreements to publish a story, often for economic reasons, or because they decide that a story won’t have popular appeal, which was the case with this detailed investigation. Newmont: Newmont gave Case access to scientific data compiled by the company, data from outside independent laboratories, and access to technical and scientific experts with impeccable credentials who studied Buyat Bay. It is unfortunate that David Case chose to ignore most of the scientific data and independent experts that could have enlightened him on the true condition of Buyat Bay. Mother Jones: Newmont, and Rick Ness, should be commended for its openness. In the many investigations that I’ve done over the years, few corporations have been as forthcoming with studies, staff time and access to its experts. Far from ignoring this opportunity, I engaged Newmont for more than a year, and examined every detail. Over that time, I got to know and like Ness, as a person. His predicament, it seemed, was that just as his phenomenal mining career was cresting at the summit, he’d been dealt a bad hand and made the mistake of not folding. Neither Newmont’s cooperation nor sympathy for Ness change the facts of the story, however: Buyat Bay is polluted with Newmont’s mining waste, dangerous levels of which are showing up in villagers’ bodies. Most importantly, nearly four years after this controversy first grabbed headlines in Indonesia, the company’s denials only prevent the villagers from getting the help they need.