The West Virginia coal miner deaths rightly have set off a flurry of investigations. A key question: What good are mine safety regulations without enforcement?
According to USA Today, 206 coal-mining accidents have killed 234 miners since 1999. The Mine Safety and Health Administration responded by fining the companies $9.1 million. But only about 28 percent of that money has been collected. Some fines have been reduced on appeal, and some have gone uncollected because the companies went bankrupt.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
13 Comments
According to documents submitted with the West Virginia police, the Phelps wackos are planning on protesting at the memorial service for the 12 deceased miners on Sunday.
According to wacko spokes-thing:
“He did not issue you a blessing,” Phelps-Roper said she has told West Virginiacallers. “He issued you a curse.”She said West Virginia residents are part of a nation that has been “turnedover” to homosexuals and has incurred the judgment of God.”They sat idly by,” she said. “That’s the least of their crimes.”
Sick, sick, sick.
Forgive me for the un-Christian comment, but maybe they should give Fred and his buddies a “tour” of the mine. Freakin losers!
Without knowing the size or the profitability of the WVa coal mining industry, $9MM over 7 years with 234 deaths seems pretty measly. I’m sure at the rate of $9MM/234=$38.5K/death it’s cheaper to pay the fines and let the miners die than it is to correct the problems. Even if there are civil suits directed against the mines, they could extend out for years, costing families hundred of thousands out-of-pocket..and they would need to prove “negligence”.
Until the fines hurt the companies significantly on a per person death (like maybe $9MM per miner!!) there will be little impetus for the mines to correct their safety violations.
And the answer is……..?
Nuclear Power Plants.
Oh, but wait,
Government regulations have that all screwed up too.
I can’t wait to see the Robert C. Byrd Wago Mine Memorial get put up.
The Phelps thing is despicable, butnot surprising.
Also not surprising but tragic is the death of those 12 miners and the death of another miner today. The answer is simple: bush de-regulation of just about every industry. When you put folks vested in the profit of any edeavor or industry in charge of safety regs (as bush has done) you inherently will get less attention to bothersome safety concerns for simple working folk that drag down on the profit margin for the stockholders and CEO. It’s akin not just to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, but more to putting a bank robber in carge of security.
And look up above! A conservative poster predictably whines about the regs on the NUCLEAR industry!
Typical, predictable, and very very dangerous.
2005 was a record low for coal miner deaths. The previous record low was 2002.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with Bush or his appointees.
esod just volunteered to store nuclear waste in his backyard.
Thanks, esod.
The answer is nuclear fusion, solar power, ethanol from bio-mass, wind power and hydrogen.
Haven’t heard much about that since conservatives gutted the programs and incentives about 30 years ago.
Bush on Gore: “He wants to give you a tax break but only if you put a solar panal on your roof!” Boos . . . hisses . . . derogatory laughter.
Hmmm, who’s laughing now that gas stands at 2.25 a gallon?
I will agree with esod that Fission nuclear should also be a part of the picture. We can and should convert weapons material into fuel material. Of course, solar, wind, efficiency, conservation will also make major parts of any realistic mix.
Ben, Galahad,Whatever source you get your energy from, it will have an attendant cost to the environment- no such thing as a free lunch! The problem is that while the resources, whatever they may be, are finite, our use and need for energy continues to increase at a fantastic rate! We need to find ways to use the energy we have more and more efficiently.
I agree Jed. You will note that I included efficiency and conservation. However, right now nuclear comes closest of the ‘conventional’ sources to zero environmental cost. The reason: I would recycle my fuel, taking warheads and back-blending with Depleted Uranium. The material already exists and has to be dealt with. I just make use of it in the meantime.