Posted on 01/04/2006 8:43:05 AM PST by beyond the sea
Mining is inherently unsafe. If America wants heavy industry, dead coal miners are part of the price. The only safe coal mine is the one that was never dug.
But anyway, we can play the indignation game about any human activity. Consider: every time you get behind the wheel of your car to get a gallon of milk, you gamble your life. How many lives are a gallon of milk worth? Yet every day, mothers and fathers needlessly sacrifice themselves between the Scylla of the dairy industry and the Charybdis of 7-11...et cetera.
I thought it was a great comparison! The media like to hound Bush for his lies and using their logic, they are all a bunch of liars too since they published bad info.
As for their anger, my understanding is they are angry because they were given bad info and some articles are now trying to "blame" the news outlets, media, etc. Ridiculous.
"That said, why was this mine still open? Because the product (coal) was so badly needed that it had to be recovered at any cost?"
Actually, I had only made part of my point. Coal is a valuable contribution to the energy picture of the US, but by no means the only one. The objection is not to using coal, but using means to recover that coal that are inherently MORE unsafe than other means. Physical removal of the coal from underground seams would appear to be a most inefficient way to extract its energy content. But it does keep a lot of people hired, in areas of the country where life is not held in high regard.
Mining the energy, by gasifying the coal in place, and NOT sending men down into the pit, would seem to have several advantages. The coal, converted into methane by something called the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, would be put through further reformation, or used to augment our supplies of natural gas.
As to comparative safety, generation of electricity by nuclear fission-powered power plants has a vastly superior safety record. But that is a separate discussion.
Market forces determine what is efficient and what is not. Why would a mine owner wish to maximize employment and not profit? The fact that most coal is dug out by men underground tells me that you're wrong.
As for the value of life, an average of 93 miners died per year throughout the 1990's (coal plus non-coal). Considering the vast scale of the operations, and the crucial role they play in the American economy, I'd say those were lives well spent. At any rate, mining constitutes a negligible public health threat compared to many other industries. More office workers died on the job on 9/11/2001 than the entire mining industry has claimed in the last two decades.
As to comparative safety, generation of electricity by nuclear fission-powered power plants has a vastly superior safety record. But that is a separate discussion.
Oh, don't get me started. Fission is best for electricity, for many reasons. It can't replace coal for many industrial purposes, though.
That would be the people who tune in to witness the tragedy... Why else spend countless hours on Scott Peterson and Natalie Hollaway...
Why did you write that earlier in post # 58? Plain and simple...... do you have an answer?
***
The media is supposed to verify sources BEFORE going with a story (FOR THREE LONG HOURS). They have NO REASON to be angry or miffed.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm just waiting for some forged documents.
That's right. But I must admit I was up all Tuesday night watching the real sad drama of this story.
What are you some kind of psychopath? I don't know what your problem is. I don't know what you are trying to say either. Get a life. Print news doesn't have three hours to wait... if they hear from a reliable source information that they have no reason to disbelieve, they go with the story. It's not the first time a paper has been premature. You are the type of nut that probably blames the weatherman for predicting nice weather but it ends up raining and your hair gets wet. Grow up and don't post me again.
You wrote:
"I don't think the media is responsible for the deaths of these men" in post # 58.
I merely ask you once again, what did you mean by that, and who suggested that the media was responsible for the men's deaths?
Just answer it if you can, and forget the name calling. If you cannot answer it, then it was needless and foolish to say it in the first place.
Simple!
1. The subject WAS NOT PRINT NEWS, the subject was Geraldo and TV NEWS.
2. There was no "reliable source", as has been proven.
Okay, I'll give it my best shot. I read an article someone posted on FR that talked about the anger of the families in WV. I merely pointed out that the false reports had no bearing on the outcome and as someone else pointed out, "it's not right to kill the messenger." I was referring to this when I said the media was not responsible for their deaths.
As for you feeling so strongly about my making a statement without an earlier statement that you feel must exist in order for me to make mine, I am not sure I get this. Using your way of thought, here's an imagined conversation between you (BTS) and me (PP). " Hi, BTS, how are you today?" "Hi PP! I'm not doing so great!" " Gee, BTS, it's a really nice day out!" "PP - Did I say it was a bad day out? Who suggested it was a bad day?"
Okay, now have a nice day and let's not get carried away here. This is silliness.
P.S. I have a good book for you - The Trivium. Study it or learn about it.
Oh Brother! They can blame people for putting forth bad info but they want to crucify these people for this. They need to spend their energy on working on improvements in mine safety, or better or longer oxygen tanks or something positive.
It reminds me of the lady in the purple headscarf that said Katrina was not the reason they lost all they had but that it was the "isms." Racism, Capitalism, etc. Arrrrgh.
You two had some of the better comments on here about this sad situation.
"I don't think the media is responsible for the deaths of these men" in post # 58.
I ask you once again, what did you mean by that, and who suggested that the media was responsible for the men's deaths?
Just answer the question if you can. Got it???
Who suggested to your fertile mind that "the media is responsible for the deaths of these men"??????
You wrote it............... answer the question!
Time to take your next dose of haldol.
Here's how they'll be covering this from now on. (The MSM is completely predictable). They will be talking with this mining "expert" and that, who will all point the finger at the Bush Administration's lack of oversight being the cause of the accident. They will gin this up and then interview a carefully selected Bush-hater among the victims' families who will launch into a tirade about the corporate greed and corruption endemic in the Bush Whitehouse, etc. You know this is how they will spin this. The MSM will never own up to its frequent gaffs, but is all too quick to dump on anyone who is not either liberal themselves or who is considered a victim by the liberal press.
Not just ineptness. Reporters are some of the laziest people on the planet. They prefer to download a news feed from somewhere and change the wording around a little bit while sitting in front of their laptops at some tavern. I also have a hunch that they are academically challenged, as well. They became reporters because you can get a degree in that subject and take a lot of those nitwit literature and women's studies courses.
"I don't think the media is responsible for the deaths of these men," in post # 58.
I ask you once again, what did you mean by that, and who suggested that the media was responsible for the men's deaths?
Just answer the question if you can. Got it?
Who suggested to your less-than-fertile mind that "the media is responsible for the deaths of these men"?????? You wrote it............... answer the question, coward.
Yep
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.