Comments on: Screw Miners We Need Coal

Screw Miners We Need Coal

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:48:04 -0800

Bush has put the production of coal above the safety of coal miners. As is sadly demonstrated in the two recent mining disasters. They even went so far as to remove Clinton era safety regulations and then had the audacity to claim that resource production and "other priorities" took precedence. These budget cuts come at a time when coal prices have gone up 30% and led to huge profits for the coal industry. Sound like any other resource industry you know. /*hint OIL! hint*/ Once again the government has favored the big corporation over the little guy to disastrous results. Is the death of miners and the death of soldiers worth our reliance on fossil fuels?

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:56:26 -0800

Is the death of miners and the death of soldiers worth our reliance on fossil fuels? Is this a rhetorical question? Or are you spewing opinions on the front page?

By: photoslob

photoslob — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:59:34 -0800

OK, we all get it. Bush sucks. I agree. But for the love of Pete, can we go back to "Best-of-the-web" please?

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:59:52 -0800

its simply a question.

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:01:02 -0800

Please no more editorial on the front page.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:01:42 -0800

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:02:17 -0800

its simply a question. Ok, well then just to keep things interesting I'll answer yes. Absolutely. Our reliance on fossil fuels is worth the death of soldiers and miners. And babies. And poor people. *another vote for getting back to best of the web*

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:04:27 -0800

stilgar, relax. The point you're missing is that by framing a political post in such blatantly furious and opinionated terms, you've soured the thread from the start. This could have been an ok news-related post. Are you really unable to imagine making it without fuming all over us?

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:04:43 -0800

Is the death of miners and the death of soldiers worth our reliance on fossil fuels? Damn the miners, my european vaction is coming up and I'm not sailing!

By: davelog

davelog — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:05:28 -0800

*another vote for ~~getting back to best of the web~~ turning a blind eye to the issues* Fixed that for ya.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:06:22 -0800

photoslob, i think the "best of the web" may be its ability to inform us that we are being fucked over by our leaders. why don't you go back to watching TV and ignoring the problems of the world, i am sure that will fix everything. But you linked to a TV station's news site. And I already knew about what you posted because I had already seen it. On TV.

By: jefgodesky

jefgodesky — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:07:19 -0800

Is the death of miners and the death of soldiers worth our reliance on fossil fuels? If anything's worth people's lives, yes, I'd say that it would be the lifeblood of your entire society. What would you rather them die for, something as ephemeral and malleable as "freedom"?

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:07:43 -0800

well come on, its pretty bad don't you think that we cut the budget for mine safety because of a war for oil, or a tax cut for the rich? i am the only one this pisses off? i don't mind if the post gets deleted but you have to admit that its a pretty shitty way to run a country.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:07:51 -0800

Bush doesn't care about black-lung people.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:08:03 -0800

davelog not wanting an editorialized front page at metafilter has nothing to do with my attention to the issues.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:09:17 -0800

So, trolling is the new interesting. Nice going glenwood, criticize someone and then pull a stunt. Stilgar, Although you may not have presented the issue in an optimal fashion, and lord knows your critics above have done as bad or worse (or even nothing at all!), this topic is important. Personally I have the utmost sympathy with both soliders and miners who each face extreme circumstances and dangers that most Americans have no clue about in their relative comfort and safety. I say good on you for posting and ignore the derailing and off topic noise above.

By: wakko

wakko — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:09:38 -0800

i, too, would rather remain ignorant. anything my country's leaders do in the name of corporate profit is fine by me! please more posts of dogs in bee costumes.

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:10:13 -0800

If you really believe that something is "best of the web," for any reason (including informing us of fuckage), then please use the front page to describe those best-of-the-web aspects for us in a non-editorial fashion. Commentary goes inside. It's a style thing.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:12:26 -0800

rxrfx i will take that into account next time i post. thank you for the style tip.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:12:56 -0800

stilgar-- You wrote that "They even went so far as to remove Clinton era safety regulations," and the linked article states that "the agency pulled Clinton-era initiatives examining safety equipment and mine rescue operations off its regulatory agenda." Are you sure that those statements are equivalent?

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:13:36 -0800

That settles it. I'm walking to work this morning instead of driving my coal-powered car.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:14:46 -0800

Bush doesn't care about black-lung people. posted by rocket88 I like it! The MSHA gutting is the same as all the other Dubya problems. The CEO President is looking out for his base, the "haves and have mores" and the corporations they own while pissing on the common people. The corporate friendly CEO, imagine that! 1) Steal election 2) Appoint corporate cronies 3) Profit!

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:16:38 -0800

kwansar i would say they are pretty much the same thing, if you take a regulation off the agenda it means you are no longer enforcing it, hence you are removing it. also jekporkins, coal powers many many many power plants in this country so chances are you use coal all the time.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:16:56 -0800

but i do support you walking to work.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:18:47 -0800

well come on, its pretty bad don't you think What are you looking for? Confirmation from us of your already-strongly-held opinions? Or intelligent discussion? If the latter (and it should be), then try posting political threads with just a bit of emotional restraint. rxrfrx: It's a style thing. It's more than a style thing. Emotional tirades masquerading as front-page posts have done more to kill honest political discussion here than anything else. Oh, and yes, stilgar, that this is a horrible situation is more than evident from your links.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:22:40 -0800

Stilgar, You're a tool. You have no idea how I spend my days. Now you do: THE ECOLOGY PRESIDENT? Furthermore, do you just assume no one on Mefi reads a newspaper, listens to NPR and checks the political blogs? Metafilter has become a 24x7x365 noise machine for anti-Bush rhetoric and it's played out.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:23:10 -0800

Sorry for coming off trollesque. I agree that the issue is worth discussing and will cease derailing operations immediately. According to a cursory glance at the US Labor website (and I'm no statistician) here are coal mine fatal-injury stats for the past 10 years: 1993 - 36 deaths 1994 - 35 1995 - 38 1996 - 37 1998 - 25 1999 - 25 2000 - 28 2001 - 36 2002 - 20 2003 - 22 2004 - 23 Can anyone pair this up with a timeline of policy that in any way draws a line between Bush program cuts and Coalmine-related deaths? I'm as angry as the next guy at this Administration for any number of grievances over the past 6 years. But are we being quick on the draw here? Genuinely curious.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:24:26 -0800

medireport i will truly take yours and rxrfrx's advice into consideration next time i post. i am serious about have serious discussion, i am also fairly new to metafilter and still learning, thanks for the tips.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:27:09 -0800

glendwood i would say that any regulation take a couple of years to take effect so if you figure that stricter safety regulations were imposed during Clinton, factor in the lag you can see the low point, and then the rise as they were taken away...this is of coerce my quick look at the numbers i would need to look around more for proof.

By: lemonfridge

lemonfridge — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:29:20 -0800

I support skipping to work

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:32:26 -0800

Smells like moronic propaganda.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:34:44 -0800

i would say that any regulation take a couple of years to take effect so if you figure that stricter safety regulations were imposed during Clinton, factor in the lag you can see the low point, and then the rise as they were taken away... 11 years of death totals, with no other related information (as to how, why, etc.) tells us nothing. In my opinion, all those numbers are pretty close over that small stretch... and basically says that coal mining is dangerous.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:35:05 -0800

The piece I heard on NPR yesterday made a point of saying mining deaths in 2005 were 22.

By: craven_morhead

craven_morhead — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:35:14 -0800

I double the support of skipping to work. And I think the format of news/information outside, discussion inside has workd pretty damn well in the past. Most mefites are smart enough to form their own opinions (note: most), so kindly avoid shoving them down our throats on the first page.

By: antifuse

antifuse — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:36:08 -0800

Does anybody have any numbers for miner-related deaths worldwide? How does the US fare compared to the rest of the world? I'm not trying to take sides either way, I'm just curious. Now, for taking sides: yes, I think it's totally worth losing a few lives every year in order to keep electricity around. But I'm selfish that way, I likes my interweb.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:39:23 -0800

Isn't everyone who's complaining about this post supposed to do so on MetaTalk?

By: fochsenhirt

fochsenhirt — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:41:53 -0800

Except that stricter safety regulations weren't imposed under the Clinton administration. Clinton's MSHA initiated an inquiry into mine safety equipment, which could have resulted in regulations. Bush's MSHA decided not to maintain those inquiries. The Clinton-era inquiry may never have resulted in regulations at all, or may have resulted in regulations that didn't help the recent mine disaster victims. You just never know. What we do know is that saying that Bush "went so far as to remove Clinton era safety regulations" is false. Also, the "resource" referred to in your link is time, not coal.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:42:42 -0800

How does the US fare compared to the rest of the world? I'm not trying to take sides either way, I'm just curious. We're about on par with China. In so many ways.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:45:57 -0800

11 years of death totals, with no other related information (as to how, why, etc.) tells us nothing. In my opinion, all those numbers are pretty close over that small stretch... and basically says that coal mining is dangerous. That's kind of what I thought, looking at those numbers. And saying that Bush removed regulations, when in fact he cancelled inquiries, is a pretty big jump. Again, we have plenty of valid reasons to be pissed off at Bush. It seems to me that we dilute those issues when we try to blame EVERYTHING on him. I may be wrong in this particular case - if so someone please show me.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:46:34 -0800

Is the death of miners and the death of soldiers worth our reliance on fossil fuels? Oh, wait! I've got a good counter question: Seeing as how we continue to wallow in fossil fuel dependence, is the life of miners worth the minor environmental benefits (and higher risks) acquired by low footprint shaft mining as opposed to drift and strip?

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:49:29 -0800

Yes.

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:49:33 -0800

It is probably best to save the editorializing for your comments to other people's posts. You convince a lot more people when you give them facts and let them draw their own conclusions than when you primarily serve up your own opinion. Not only will such a FPP more closely adhere to the guidelines and informal etiquette of MeFi, but it will lead to better discussion and be more likely to lead people to your way of thinking.

By: fochsenhirt

fochsenhirt — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:50:24 -0800

We're about on par with China. In so many ways. In 2004, China produced 1.9 billion tons of coal, killing more than 6,000 miners in the process. In the same year, the US produced 1 billion tons, with 28 deaths from mining. You do the math.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:53:57 -0800

stilgar: imho you were on a good track, but emotional posts with suggestive rethorical question are easily targeted and could be misleading a-la "do you hate america ?" bullshit ...try for instance " miners died in mine accidents while extracting the coal we use in our power plants. The numbers have decreased, but to almost every parent, relative and spouses one death is just one too many. "

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:54:18 -0800

We're about on par with China. In so many ways. Hmm.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:58:27 -0800

We're about on par with China. In so many ways. That was a joke right? In July, 2002 in coal mining alone, China had over 125 mine accidents resulting in 350 deaths. For all of 2002, during the Bush era, there were 10 fatalities in accidents at all US mines, that's all mines all types, 6 of those fatalities at coal mines. Last year the US had 4 fatalities from coal mining accidents. China had an estimated 6000 deaths in coal mining accidents in 2004. In 2003, there were another approximate estimated deaths in Chinese coal mine accidents. In 2003 the US had one.

By: tweak

tweak — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:59:34 -0800

We're about on par with China. In so many ways. posted by nofundy at 11:42 AM EST on January 24 [!] This statement is wrong in so many ways that it barely warrants a response.

By: antifuse

antifuse — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:01:11 -0800

In 2004, China produced 1.9 billion tons of coal, killing more than 6,000 miners in the process. In the same year, the US produced 1 billion tons, with 28 deaths from mining. You do the math. This is more what I was expecting than Mr "I'm going to pretend like the US == teh fascist state" up there... Any sources for the Chinese death toll numbers?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:01:12 -0800

Oops, sorry read the wrong column on the chart - in 2004 there were 4 coal mine fatalities, there were 14 for all mines (sand seems to be the bad one in the US).

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:02:29 -0800

Note to MeFi conservatives: this is what LiberalFilter would actually look like, and we don't like it any more than you do. And when the hell has coal mining ever been safe?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:02:33 -0800

Ooops, not reading my own writing, seems I was fine the first time.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:03:13 -0800

Geez, tongue in cheek, OK? The "in so many ways" part was meant to reveal such. Maybe a sarcasm flag next time? Ther real statistic to look at regarding MSHA and the Bush administration are the number of violations and the fines paid relative to each fine. Surely it is well known that Bush staffed MSHA management with coal company executives who promptly announced intentions to "work with" coal companies, instead of enforcing laws as aggressively as done under Clinton administration. Right? We do know that, don't we? Does that need proven again to anyone here?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:04:13 -0800

US sources China sources

By: tweak

tweak — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:04:52 -0800

Oh so now you're backpedaling nofundy because you have clearly been demonstrated to be an idiot. Nice, sarcasm, sure, which explains your unqualified support for every poorly constructed, flamebait Bushfilter post. Weak. Stop using weasel words you nob.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:05:57 -0800

By: tweak

tweak — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:06:24 -0800

nofundy: why are you afraid to admit that this post sucks?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:07:04 -0800

Kisses to tweak! And what's a nob?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:08:10 -0800

Who cares about the FPP? I like discussing the issue. Afraid? Heh.

By: tweak

tweak — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:10:31 -0800

I ain't skeered, just bored. A nob is a twit, a dork, a wanker, if you will. Interpretations vary.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:19:33 -0800

Usually spelled "knob," if I am not mistaken.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:24:34 -0800

It might also be suerful to point out that fewer miners actually work underground to produce the same amount of coal in the US today and also as relative to China. That accounts for part of the differences in fatalities. It might, we also have safety measures like air shafts and hard hats too. We used to have even less men underground and even more production, but environmental lobbies have virtually shut down the strip mining industry in the US.

By: Eyebeams

Eyebeams — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:25:47 -0800

Most dangerous jobs in the U.S. (deaths per 100,000 workers, 2002): Timber cutters 117.8 Fishers 71.1 Pilots and navigators 69.8 Structural metal workers 58.2 Drivers-sales workers 37.9 Roofers 37 Electrical power installers 32.5 Farm occupations 28 Construction laborers 27.7 Truck drivers 25

By: Rothko

Rothko — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:28:14 -0800

Isn't everyone who's complaining about this post supposed to do so on MetaTalk? Depends where on the political spectrum you sit.

By: stilgar

stilgar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:29:20 -0800

I think my posts do a good job of getting people to talk about the issues, and i have already stated i will hold to accepted mefi etiquette from now on. so the problem is, why do we let coal executives run the safety regulations for coal mines, and why do we make them pay tiny little fines for things that get people killed, and i am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed in a coal mine you wouldn't think that 22 deaths in a year is "low" and "worth it". Lets be honest we only care about things that affect us personally, and its very hard to look outside our daily bubble and really worry about things other than whats for dinner or how you will get the kids to school on time. i apologies for the editorializing and i will knock it off for future posts, but this and other things bush has done expose a pattern of bad governance, and i for one am sick of it.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:30:15 -0800

Speaking of NPR and miners, the other day I heard a story they did about putting safety features in mines. Install a text messaging system that could be used to direct miners to an escape route would have been about $750 per miner for the Sago mine. So their lives are pretty cheap.

By: tweak

tweak — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:32:50 -0800

Depends where on the political spectrum you sit. No, everybody bitches in MeTa and everybody bitches in-thread. Back on topic: 34 states are planning on building new coal mines (saw it on CBS Evening Report). One wonders if this would be necessary if Americans used more nuclear power, but of course, that won't happen.

By: Gator

Gator — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:33:27 -0800

stilgar, another MeFiEtiquette tip would be to stop trying to moderate your threads so much. They should stand on their own merits (or lack of same) and you shouldn't need to keep popping in to try and redirect the conversation back to where you think it should be.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:37:41 -0800

No, everybody bitches in MeTa and everybody bitches in-thread. Maybe, but there are repeat offenders who make a habit out of it.

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:47:18 -0800

Seconding Gator's comment

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:50:55 -0800

I beleive the phrase for thread mods is: "Get your own mother f@#&ing blog." I'm just quoting here, as long as it isn't distracting...

By: glenwood

glenwood — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:54:07 -0800

i am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed in a coal mine you wouldn't think that 22 deaths in a year is "low" and "worth it". Probably not. I don't think anyone here is questioning that. What we are questioning is whether or not the changes Bush has enacted relating to this are actually having a negative effect on the outcome of mining safety. And the fact that I question that has nothing to do with my political leanings, and everything to do with my trying to be a reasoned human being who makes use of facts rather than jumping onto every potentially spurious knee jerk proclamation of Bush's latest fuckup. (Not saying anyone here has necessarily done that.)

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:04:51 -0800

I call false dichotomy. Lives of Miners vs. Fossil fuels? People die in every industry, and yes, it is tragic but I don't think you can eliminate deaths, and even if we were able to reduce it to 5 deaths per year via regulation we can't solve all the problems. Do you want to be the one to tell those 5 miners, "Sorry, but we're sacrificing you for the good of society, we saved as many as we wanted, now get back in the hole!". No deaths are "acceptable" but they are a fact of life!

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:15:16 -0800

Coal is a very inefficient and very ecologically damaging source of fuel. Inefficient as in the burn efficiency ratings of fossil power plants is under 40% (this doesn't include the energy costs of extraction, cleaning and shipping) and ecologically damaging as in water pollution at the extraction and cleaning sites, land use for the refuse of the cleaning process, air pollution at the power plant and the remaining ash refuse again polluting water and taking up valuable land. None of this takes into account the damage to persons doing the extraction process and completely misses the environmental damage of strip mining. Coal is useful for the carbon (replacing oil for the petrochemical/plastics industries) but not for use as fuel and I would go further and not recommend it for conversion to petrol type fuels.

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:17:42 -0800

My problem is that the links hardly provide for a substantive debate on this subject. You don't have to be two-sided to draw out the best of the web. But at least one side should be conveyed in a seminal way. I don't want to look at scraps of articles when I come to MeFi. I want to look at something that pulls it together. Maybe the Bush administration changes are responsible for the deaths in WV. If you stop funding for termite spraying, you don't expect the house to collapse in a year and maybe we are seeing the results of changes over the past few years only now. Or perhaps not. Not enough here to direct me to a meaningful conclusion.

By: juiceCake

juiceCake — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:28:35 -0800

The actual numbers show that the current "rules" are not yet a factor in deaths. Could improvements be made? Sure. Furthermore, do you just assume no one on Mefi reads a newspaper, listens to NPR and checks the political blogs? Metafilter has become a 24x7x365 noise machine for anti-Bush rhetoric and it's played out. posted by photoslob at 11:22 AM EST on January 24 [!] The papers I glance through aren't that informative. I've no idea what NPR is, and I don't check the political blogs. Do you just assume that everyone on Mefi does so? And this sort of thing, including this post, belongs on MetaTalk. I guess neither you or I read the rules... We lose.

By: lastobelus

lastobelus — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:36:47 -0800

even I, a frothulent bush hater, think this equation is absurd. And I can't help suspecting that virtually all the outraged parties will have exceeded the speed limit or used a cell phone while driving at least once in their lives. If not, simply the social choice to focus transportation on cars instead of buses costs quantities of lives far far in excess of coal miner deaths.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:42:36 -0800

Coal is a very inefficient and very ecologically damaging source of fuel. After you've burned the oil (better fuel) and Gas (used to be flared off as waste, mostly CO2 and water as combustion product) you are left with coal, then wood, then babies for their fat. Coal is old,stored sunbshine. It (any hunk of non-burning coal) has stayed in that stored state longer than any human lifespan. It is hard to store the energy from the sun for that period of time, so as a sunlight storage medium - THAT is why it is valuable. Coal is useful for the carbon I can get all the Carbon I want. All I have to do is 'liquify' air, then separate the C from the O2. Yea, it takes energy. But, with such leadership at the ship of state all across the planet, why would there be any kind of problem with having access to cheap energy? 24x7x365 noise machine for anti-Bush rhetoric You say this like there is a problem with critiquing the US governmental leadership.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:08:56 -0800

"24x7x365 noise machine for anti-Bush rhetoric" Metafilter: ‘Cause there’s a gun to your head to read the links. Coal (apparently) provides 56.9% of electricity generation in the United States. I don’t know about the “screw miners” part...but I don’t think there is any question we need coal. Whether that state of affairs should continue is debatable, but presently, yes, coal needed. What did one chunk of coal say to the other chunk of coal wearing an earring and eye patch? - What do you think you are, a pyrrhite? Ah ha ha ha haaaaa!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:09:39 -0800

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:22:05 -0800

“i am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed in a coal mine you wouldn't think that 22 deaths in a year is "low" and "worth it".” I am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed by lightning you wouldn’t think 90 deaths in a year is ‘low” and “worth it.” I am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed in a plane crash you wouldn’t think 120 deaths in a year is ‘low” and “worth it.” I am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed by the flu you wouldn’t think 20,000 deaths in a year is ‘low” and “worth it.” I am sure that if one of you had a father that was killed in a car accident you wouldn’t think 42,000 deaths in a year is ‘low” and “worth it.” Just some perspective. That said, it’s tragic and coal miners should have as much safety as possible. But there are clearly economic limits and factors in all things. Also - I think we should get the hell off coal asap. But a radical shift in our energy systems is going to take some time and work.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:58:24 -0800

The mining deaths data needs to be normalized for the number of miners. If you do that and plot them over time, either coal alone or all mining, the death rates pretty much decline at an even, but lower rate over both the Clinton and Bush administrations, after declining sharply from 1970 to 1975. If fuckery is done, though, it takes a while for it to take effect, though. But so far, no real evidence.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:08:34 -0800

What if you weren't particularly fond of your father Smedly? -Oedipus Yeah, so there's other fuels out there and other sources of carbon, but you tell me, where the heck are you going to get cinders if we don't mine coal?

By: matkline

matkline — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:51:50 -0800

STFU. 12 people died. Get over it. That is all.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:00:26 -0800

*blinds self* Yeeeaaargh!!!!

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:12:26 -0800

stilgar, I hate Stephen Harper. Can you please link him to some unnecessary deaths as well, please?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:56:37 -0800

Stephen Harper used to work for a seal clubbing corporation as a summer job in college. I don't know if it's true, but I submit it as rumor that you can feel free to propagate.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:08:52 -0800

Oh come on people, all day and nobody said it??? "George Bush hates coal miners!" it's even got the same meter. Slackers.

By: glenwood

glenwood — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:30:21 -0800

Heywood, I think rocket88 already won with "George Bush doesn't care about black lung people".

By: antifuse

antifuse — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:42:36 -0800

Yeah, and rocket88's was way wittier :)

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:42:40 -0800

Oh come on people, all day and nobody said it??? "George Bush hates coal miners!" it's even got the same meter. Slackers. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:08 PM PST on January 24 [!] Because of a lack of evidence? At least the 'Bush hates poor' or 'Bush hates blacks' you can find datapoints to back up the claim. Go and get some data points (true OR false) to back up the coal hate'n and you'll get someone to say what you want.