View Single Post
Old 01-05-2006, 01:50 PM   #9
scaeagles
I LIKE!
 
scaeagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,819
scaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of cool
I did some looking around, and all I found was one cut in the 2003 budget - from 124 million to 117 million in the MSHA budget. In the same report, however, it said that violation citations went from 126000-132000. Those numbers seem pretty high....132000 mining violations in a year? Yikes.

I have no argument with you that the mine in question had a poor safety record. So, I would blame the mine operators.

I brought up other industry to point out that, in fact, mining has not historically (since the 1968-69 beginning of MSHA) been a hazardous occupation. If something has not been shown to be hazardous, to me it makes a bit of sense to me to cut the oversight budget. However I can understand disagreement with that.
scaeagles is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote