West Virginia mining accident and reporting - Page 3

scaeagles · 01-05-2006, 01:02 PM

And you are one who would choose to place blame for any and everything on a President you don't like. You will instantaneously jump on the bandwagon of anything that would place blame for anything on the Bush administration. Calling me a reactionary apologist is simply ridiculous when you consider that yes, in fact, I am critical of his policies when I think it is warranted. Do I have to list them again?

The way I see it, mining isn't even one of the most hazardous jobs out there. Let's look at the most recent Department of Labor stats, shall we?

Fatalities per 100,000 workers -

Timber cutters - 117.8
Fishers - 71.1
Pilots/navigators - 69.8
Structural metal workers - 58.2
Driver/Sales workers - 37.9
Roofers - 37
Electrical power installers - 32.5
Farm Occupations - 28
Construction Laborers - 27.7
Truck Drivers - 25.0

Obviously, Bush has not done enough to enforce traffic safety. Two of the most hazardous jobs simply involve getting into a vehicle and driving.

He has obviously let OSHA slip in handling construction safety. Construction jobs, structural metal workers, roofers, and I would assume some of the electrical deaths are in construction, and the record there is disgusting.

Timber workers - well, we all know Bush wants to cut down all forests, so those deaths just fit right in with his agenda.

I am also "freaking amazed" with you. Well, no, I take that back. I expect it from you, so I am not amazed.

BarTopDancer · 01-05-2006, 01:27 PM

Boys! Why don't you two just jump each other and get it over with?

Thank you. That is all.

scaeagles · 01-05-2006, 01:32 PM

Actually, I think GD is next on his list. Please refer to the "fellas, don't kiss this guy" thread. I'm kind of sweet on MBC and Scrooge, anyway.

Gemini Cricket · 01-05-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Boys! Why don't you two just jump each other and get it over with?

I know, right? It was all very 'Romancing the Stone' there for a second. iSm goes, 'You're a mondo dismo.' And scaeagles is all, 'What... what am I? I'm a what?'

innerSpaceman · 01-05-2006, 01:44 PM

Changing the subject is not a good argument. We're not talking about other industries - or traffic fatalities for that matter.

And what good is providing current injury statistics without also providing comparitive injury statistics of a period prior to the Bush Administration?

That, too - however - would be comparing apples to oranges. I am not alleging that Bush's policies have significantly changed the trend in mining injury rates since UMSHA came into being (in the late 60's, I think). I simply don't know if this recent accident (which I believe are the only mining deaths during the last 5 years) have affected the statistics one way or the other.

What I have heard evidence of is lax enforcement of health and safety regulations, and the abysmal safety record of Sago Mine. You can discuss other things if you care to, but that is not a refutation of my allegations concerning UMSHA policies under Bush.

I will freely admit that the dollar amount of fines that UMSHA issued under Clinton, and Daddy Bush, and Reagan, and Ford and Carter were absurdly low. But the fines are hardly the only enforcement tool that UMSHA has at its disposal.

We do not even know yet whether the Sago Mine explosion was due to negligence. But at a facility with such a horrible record of safety violations (or do you care to argue those facts?), one has to make certain assumptions ... and one might also reasonably question why such a facility was allowed to continue to operate.

Like it or not, health and safety in the mining industry is under the purview of the federal government. The buck stops with Bush, especially when policies have changed since he came into office.

scaeagles · 01-05-2006, 01:50 PM

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.

Not Afraid · 01-05-2006, 02:05 PM

I just LOVE watching you men argue. It just gets me all hot and bothered!

innerSpaceman · 01-05-2006, 02:17 PM

Hoo hah, just wait till I start arguing with Ghoulish Delight then!

Not Afraid · 01-05-2006, 02:24 PM

No, see, GD doesn't do anything for me. He's a great guy and all, but I don't want to do him.

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-05-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Actually, I think GD is next on his list. Please refer to the "fellas, don't kiss this guy" thread. I'm kind of sweet on MBC and Scrooge, anyway.

Well, if you want GD, you have my permission and blessing. I can't vouch for the appliance quality though. You'll probably have to negotiate.

01-05-2006, 01:02 PM	#21
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	And you are one who would choose to place blame for any and everything on a President you don't like. You will instantaneously jump on the bandwagon of anything that would place blame for anything on the Bush administration. Calling me a reactionary apologist is simply ridiculous when you consider that yes, in fact, I am critical of his policies when I think it is warranted. Do I have to list them again? The way I see it, mining isn't even one of the most hazardous jobs out there. Let's look at the most recent Department of Labor stats, shall we? Fatalities per 100,000 workers - Timber cutters - 117.8 Fishers - 71.1 Pilots/navigators - 69.8 Structural metal workers - 58.2 Driver/Sales workers - 37.9 Roofers - 37 Electrical power installers - 32.5 Farm Occupations - 28 Construction Laborers - 27.7 Truck Drivers - 25.0 Obviously, Bush has not done enough to enforce traffic safety. Two of the most hazardous jobs simply involve getting into a vehicle and driving. He has obviously let OSHA slip in handling construction safety. Construction jobs, structural metal workers, roofers, and I would assume some of the electrical deaths are in construction, and the record there is disgusting. Timber workers - well, we all know Bush wants to cut down all forests, so those deaths just fit right in with his agenda. I am also "freaking amazed" with you. Well, no, I take that back. I expect it from you, so I am not amazed.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 01:27 PM	#22
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	Boys! Why don't you two just jump each other and get it over with? Thank you. That is all. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 01:32 PM	#23
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Actually, I think GD is next on his list. Please refer to the "fellas, don't kiss this guy" thread. I'm kind of sweet on MBC and Scrooge, anyway.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 01:44 PM	#25
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Changing the subject is not a good argument. We're not talking about other industries - or traffic fatalities for that matter. And what good is providing current injury statistics without also providing comparitive injury statistics of a period prior to the Bush Administration? That, too - however - would be comparing apples to oranges. I am not alleging that Bush's policies have significantly changed the trend in mining injury rates since UMSHA came into being (in the late 60's, I think). I simply don't know if this recent accident (which I believe are the only mining deaths during the last 5 years) have affected the statistics one way or the other. What I have heard evidence of is lax enforcement of health and safety regulations, and the abysmal safety record of Sago Mine. You can discuss other things if you care to, but that is not a refutation of my allegations concerning UMSHA policies under Bush. I will freely admit that the dollar amount of fines that UMSHA issued under Clinton, and Daddy Bush, and Reagan, and Ford and Carter were absurdly low. But the fines are hardly the only enforcement tool that UMSHA has at its disposal. We do not even know yet whether the Sago Mine explosion was due to negligence. But at a facility with such a horrible record of safety violations (or do you care to argue those facts?), one has to make certain assumptions ... and one might also reasonably question why such a facility was allowed to continue to operate. Like it or not, health and safety in the mining industry is under the purview of the federal government. The buck stops with Bush, especially when policies have changed since he came into office.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 01:50 PM	#26
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 02:05 PM	#27
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	I just LOVE watching you men argue. It just gets me all hot and bothered!
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 02:17 PM	#28
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Hoo hah, just wait till I start arguing with Ghoulish Delight then!
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 02:24 PM	#29
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	No, see, GD doesn't do anything for me. He's a great guy and all, but I don't want to do him.
	Submit to Quotes