Abstract Since erupting in 2006, the “Lapindo” mudflow (or “Lusi,” as it is known by scientists) has released a constant flow of mud that has devastated communities and environments in East Java's Sidoarjo regency. The mudflow also has spawned countless formal and informal scientific reports that dispute what initiated the eruption: drilling for gas or a distant earthquake. A 2018 special issue in Marine and Petroleum Geology by the “Lusi Lab” is devoted entirely to the mudflow, which includes an article by Miller and Mazzini (2018) that presents one perspective of the current status of the trigger debate. This discussion article draws attention to a series of inaccuracies and misrepresentations within Miller and Mazzini’s (2018) article. These concerns include (1) the promotion of erroneous drilling and geological data, (2) the inaccurate and unprofessional characterization of scientists who posit opposing interpretations of drilling and geological data, (3) the use of deceptive rhetoric, (4) the dissemination of misleading and unsubstantiated claims about unnamed stakeholders, and (5) the lack of knowledge of – and sensitivity toward – social contexts. After providing an overview of these issues, this article focuses on items (3), (4) and (5), which tend to be overlooked in ongoing geological discussions on the disaster, but have a significant impact on the production, circulation, and reception of geoscience in both professional and non-professional arenas. This commentary on Miller and Mazzini (2018) does not challenge the credibility or integrity of the authors or any scientist associated with the Lusi Lab, but rather argues for a version of geoscience that stays above ground by being conscientious to the social dynamics that impact, and are impacted by, scientific inquiry. Without the appropriate care and scholarly caution, even the most neutral scientist's work can be perceived as compromised to both scholarly and non-scholarly audiences.

中文翻译：

---

对米勒和马志尼（2018 年）的“鲁西十多年：事实、巧合以及过去和未来研究的回顾”的评论：将触发性辩论置于地面之上

摘要 自 2006 年喷发以来，“Lapindo”泥流（或科学家所称的“Lusi”）不断释放泥浆，破坏了东爪哇 Sidoarjo 县的社区和环境。泥石流还产生了无数正式和非正式的科学报告，这些报告对引发喷发的原因提出异议：钻探天然气还是远处的地震。“Lusi Lab”在 2018 年的海洋和石油地质学特刊中完全致力于泥流，其中包括 Miller 和 Mazzini（2018 年）的一篇文章，从一个角度介绍了触发辩论的当前状态。这篇讨论文章提请注意 Miller 和 Mazzini (2018) 文章中的一系列不准确和误传。这些担忧包括（1）推广错误的钻井和地质数据，(2) 对钻探和地质数据持相反解释的科学家的不准确和不专业的描述，(3) 使用欺骗性言论，(4) 散布关于未具名利益相关者的误导性和未经证实的说法，以及 (5) 缺乏对社会环境的了解和敏感性。在对这些问题进行概述后，本文重点讨论第 (3)、(4) 和 (5) 项，它们在正在进行的关于灾害的地质讨论中往往被忽视，但对生产、流通和生产有重大影响。在专业和非专业领域接受地球科学。这篇关于 Miller 和 Mazzini (2018) 的评论并不挑战作者或与 Lusi 实验室相关的任何科学家的可信度或完整性，而是主张一种地球科学版本，它通过认真对待影响科学探究并受其影响的社会动态而留在地面之上。如果没有适当的关注和学术上的谨慎，即使是最中立的科学家的工作也会被学术和非学术观众视为妥协。