.,.a,L.«e y->W r% I Ik I I W I
inings M ■ ■ I I ■ ■ ■ I I reevaluate misconceptions
X V y I I 1N I V V 1 N ; n^
Andrew Baker
Why Did They Have to Die?
A look at the Sago Mine incident and who should claim some blame
Columnist
A recent tragedy has spurred a nation to think about how it
gets one of its most important resources.
Coal.
The dictionary calls it ‘a natural, dark brown to black
graphite-like material used as a fuel, formed from fossilized
plants and consisting of amorphous carbon with various organ
ic and some inorganic compounds.’
Wow, that sounds like some big terminology, but also
sounds important. It’s probably a safe bet that most coal min
ers don’t know coal by that definition. They would know it by
the dictionary’s number two defimtion: ‘a glowing or charred
piece of solid fuel’
That’s right, solid fiiel.
The nation now knows that is exactly what coal is. And 13
West Vuginia coal miners, 12 dead and one lucky one who is
in critical condition, knew coal only as an uneasy solid fuel that
can make the area around them unstable and could blow up in
their face at any time.
But do they care?
Most coal miners understand the dangers of coal mining,
but know that they have to put food on the table somehow. That
is just the way it is in most places where coal is mined; it’s not
just a job, it’s a way of life. Oh, and by the way, coal miners
make an average salary of $50,000 a year and are some of the
highest paid industrial woricers in America, according to the
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy.
The Sago Mine has been one of the least safe mines in the
country. In 2005, it accumulated 16 unwarranted violations,
which are the worst of the violations that a coal mine can
receive. The mine had a total of 208 violations last year,
according to the Department of Labor, ranging from highly
combustible materials inside the mine to roofs collapsing, 13
of which caused the mine to temporarily shutdown all or some
of the sections inside.
This is not a reflection of the entire coal mining industry as
a whole. It is one really bad apple in a group that is trying to
turn one of the most dangerous work environments into a safer
environment for their employees.
Over the past 40 to 50 years, there have been vast improve
ments in the coal miners’ safety. The productivity today has
tripled that of 1970, at the same time having 45 percent less
work related injuries and 82 percent less fatalities. Since 1960,
according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, fatal
injuries have declined even more by 92 percent.
To keep the mines from having the explosive methane gas
lingering in the air, coal mines have put in place huge ventila
tion fans on the surface of the underground mines, constantly
supplying the miners with fi«sh air.
Even with all the improvements to the coal mines and with
all the Sago Mine violations, sometimes there is just nothing
anyone can do to stop tragedies like what happened last week.
The current reports on the incident have the explosion in Sago
being caused by a stronger than normal lightning strike hitting
a pole that went down into the mine and by chance hit a pock
et of methane gas.
There is no doubt that there will be violations of coal min
ing laws. It is going to be dangerous no matter what happens,
or how safe regulations try to make it.
In this situation, it seems like the mine is the sole reason to
blame for the incident, no matter what. That just isn’t true.
What about the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the
section of the Department of Labor that is supposed to keep
these things from happening? Yes, they did issue 208 citations
to the Sago Mme in the year before the explosion, but it looks
as if that wasn’t enough to save the lives of 12, possibly 13 coal
miners that worked there.
Most think that this failure leads to the top of the corporate
chain, which ends at owner Wilbur Ross, who spends his days
in his lavish office building in New York City, not going under
ground to mine coal in Sago.
The blame can’t fall on him though. Well, not all of it at
least. He is somewhat culpable.
The majority of the blame falls on the government. The
MSHA was put in place in 1978 for a reason: to keep miners
safe. Coal mining is a profession where people could easily
lose their lives the moment there is a lapse in safety, which is
the reason they should have been more demanding of the Sago
Mine. Twelve people might have been saved if they had.
Handing out 208 citations for violations and fining the com
pany only $24,155 the entire year (seems awfully low for such
a huge money making industry and being owned by a compa
ny worth billions) was not the answer. Knowing that now does
n’t help those who perished, but hopefiilly the governmental
agency in charge will leam a hard lesson from their most recent
failure. Really, it should be the most recent 12 failures.
The Charleston Gazette puts it best by writing, “These
agencies were created for a reason. When they don’t woric
right, people die. That problem must be fixed.”
Contact Andrew Baker at pendulum@elon.edu or 278-7247.
Relationship Controversy
Jennifer Toadvine and Hannah Sterwartson
Columnists
How do you define a lover? Where is the line drawn
between morality and sexual activity?
Since morality is so commonly associated with absti
nence, what exactly is abstinence? It’s obviously a life free
of sexual intercourse, but does oral sex cross the line as
well? Making out? Feeling up? Or perhaps the most taboo,
masturbation?
With our society becoming more and more acceptable of
active sex lives, there are still so many questions about inti
macy. How can a person express their feelings of love
while still being moral?.
Throughout my whole education, I was told,“Don’t have
sex, don’t have sex.” But I never understood; a lover and a
best friend are different. How can I show my love and still
be morally acceptable? I am constantly told what I can’t do,
but never am I told what I can do to express my inner feel
ings.
Let’s look at the culprit. Sex comes in stages. You first
realize that another person can make you feel a way you
never have before.
This feeling leads to that first awkward make-out ses
sion where you have no clue what to do and you re just
praying that the other person thinks that you re doing a
good job.
Then you move on to exploring each others bodies a lit
tle more intimately. Hands go up shirts and down pants. Oh
goodness, here comes sex.
It’s all part of growing up. And if growing up is morally
wrong then crucify me. The problem is people are irrespon
sible about their sex lives, and are giving sex a bad name.
If the question of “should I do this?” arises at that inti
mate moment, the answer is NO.
Sex should be accepted when both partners are comfort
able with the situation and know what it fully entails. If
anything— be it making out, feeling up or having sex— is
an act of love between two people who truly care about
each other, how can it not be moral?
It is merely human nature to be a sexual being. Humans
are mammals. Mammals are sexual. Sex is natural. On a
much deeper level than just physical, animal love, sex,
when shared between two people who have a deep love for
each other, can be a beautifully moral and rewarding thing.
Contact Jennifer Toadvine and Hannah Sterwartson at pen-
dulum@elon.edu or 278-7247.