Posted on 01/11/2006 8:10:01 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Size:
Here’s a headline you aren’t likely to see: “Sago mine tragedy defies improved mine safety trend under the Bush administration.”
Yet, the facts support it.
Mining fatalities have dropped every year President Bush has been in the White House, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Since 2001, mining deaths averaged 63 a year, which is 30% lower than during the Clinton administration. The fatality rate has dropped as well -- it was 31% lower in 2004 than it was in the last year of the Clinton administration.
In fact, it was during the Clinton years that the long-term decline in mining deaths stalled out, only to return to its historic downward trend after he left for private life.
But rather than explore these trends, most stories painted an entirely different picture. For example, a Jan. 8 Washington Post story (“Sago Puts Spotlight on Safety Strategy: U.S. Mine Agency Issues Citations, but Penalties are Light”) focused instead on the fact that under Bush “large fines are rare, and the most serious sanctions -- such as mine closure -- are almost never used,” and provided ample quotes from critics who said this lax enforcement hurt safety. Bush, it helpfully reminded readers, “came into office with a promise to forge cooperative ties between regulators and the mining industry.”
A Jan. 5 the New York Times editorial echoed this sentiment, complaining that “the Bush administration’s cramming of important posts in the Department of Interior with biased operatives from the coal, oil and gas industry is not reassuring about general safety in the mines.”
And USA Today’s Jan. 9 editorial (“Latest coal tragedy reveals lax safety enforcement”) complained that “federal regulators and judges have failed to use the tools they have to rein in those who don’t comply with the law and force needed change.” High dollar fines, it said, have dropped 12% under Bush as compared with Clinton.
If the drop in actual mine fatalities in the past five years is mentioned at all in these stories, it is largely dismissed. The Post devotes just one paragraph in a 1,400 word story to it.
These and other reports appear to assume that regulatory activity translates directly into increased safety. That may seem like a reasonable assumption. More inspections should uncover more problems. Bigger fines should encourage compliance. But the problem is it isn’t necessarily so. Fines that are poorly administered, unfair, untargeted, random, or too excessive can and do backfire. They can encourage litigation against rules and discourage employers from asking regulators about ways to improve practices. If too onerous and intrusive, they can force conscientious businesses to close, perhaps leaving the field to those firms willing to trim corners and take bigger chances with worker safety.
At the very least, considering the drop in both deaths and death rates during the Bush years, when it comes to safety in the mines, the connection between tougher regulation and safety isn’t entirely clear. Bush and Clinton have pursued different approaches to mine safety. And Bush’s results appear to be superior.
It’s an intriguing story to explore. But you wouldn’t know that by reading the papers.
Where can I get a copy of that Black Gold Font? I have some documents that would probably look pretty good using it.;>}
It's in the directory Bill Gates doesn't make available to the public....
Interesting graph, but what does it reflect? I could argue that the number of people employed in mines has gone down in the last thirty years - ergo less fatalities due to fewer people exposed to risk. Perhaps fatalities per man-hour in the mine would provide a better measure of safety.
About 100 years ago there were about 2000 mining deaths every year.
Excellent post thanks.
Maybe fatalities per million tons of coal mined would be better.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html
I notice that the trend in moving towards increased mining in the west. Are western mines newer, with safer technology?
It depends on what you're trying to measure. I would assume that productivity in mines (as in every other field) has risen significantly over the last thirty years, so a decrease in the fatality-per-ton-mined ratio could be attributed to increase in the ton-mined-per-worker ratio. A fatality-per-man-hour ratio answers the question, "how safe is it for the man in the mine?"
Source: http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa453.pdf
Interesting graph. I wonder why the mining population increased from 1970 to 1980?
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.