YASNY Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The miners left notes for their family members saying that they didn't suffer and they just were going to fall asleep and they'd see their loved ones on the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) The miners left notes for their family members saying that they didn't suffer and they just were going to fall asleep and they'd see their loved ones on the other side. Damn. RIP and may God look over the families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 (edited) Link Labor Department officials said Wednesday that West Virginia's Sago Coal Mine has had an above-average number of potentially fatal safety violations in recent years. But they denied that budget cuts and staff reductions under President Bush have hindered the ability of the department's Mine Safety and Health Administration to ensure coal mine safety. Records show the work force of MSHA has declined by about 10 percent since 2001. The White House announced that MSHA would conduct an investigation of the mine accident. MSHA records indicate the mine was cited for 180 safety violations last year and 91 of them were designated "significant and substantial" by inspectors. The term means the condition could contribute to an immediate safety or health hazard. Jack Spadaro, former director of the MSHA National Mine Safety Academy, said inspectors told him privately that Labor Department opposition to vigorous safety regulation has hindered their work. "Two weeks before this explosion, I was told by an inspector, 'Jack, there's going to be another disaster because we can't do our jobs,' " he said in an interview. Edited January 5, 2006 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 It took to post #103 to become Bush's fault. Not too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) It took to post #103 to become Bush's fault. Not too bad. Yet, there was enough staffing for them to find 91 significant and substantial safety violations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I love how linking to a news article now constitutes blaming Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) I love how linking to a news article now constitutes blaming Bush. If it walks like a duck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 It doesn't walk at all. It's an inanimate object. Nor does it quack or smell or do anything other than lie there in cyberspace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 The GOP has insulated themselves from any and all criticism. It is either the result of a biased media, activist judges, or the usual whining of "it is always Bush's fault" and should be ignored. Bush has been the perfect President, just ask any Republican. Now after I got that off my chest, this really can't be Bush's fault. As YAS pointed out they were cited for numerous violations. Perhaps the follow up might have been better, but the miners who continued to go into the mine, and the new mine owners who must have known of the issues and continued to send men in while, hopefully, trying to remedy the violations, are to blame. I also would like to know if the number of active mines increased, decreased, or stayed the same while the budget was reduced 10%. Perhaps if the number of mines decreased 20% during that period we actually may have greater expenses per mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) I also would like to know if the number of active mines increased, decreased, or stayed the same while the budget was reduced 10%. Perhaps if the number of mines decreased 20% during that period we actually may have greater expenses per mine. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 r/ 2004 r/ 2005 e/ Number of Mines (EIA) 1,726 1,591 1,453 1,478 1,427 1,316 1,379 1,400 Underground Mines (includes refuse) 827 749 707 719 682 602 586 625 Surface Mines (includes refuse) 899 842 746 759 745 714 771 775 According to the EIA - Energy information administration, the number of mines has increased in the past year. There were significant decreases in the number of active coal mines in the late 1990s, a trend which seems to have reversed in 2003-2005. Based on these numbers, there has been either virtually no change or a slight decrease in the man hours worked at the MSHA every year since 2001. However, it is worth noting that there does appear to have been a decrease in the total number of injuries in mines since 2004, although the number of fatal accidents has remained relatively constant between 25-42. Number of Mine Injuries 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 r/ 2004 r/ 2005 e/ Fatal 26 34 38 42 27 30 28 N/A All Injuries 7,934 6,621 6,429 6,299 6,039 5,168 5,129 N/A Main source here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.