Reader comments
Panel requests fed mine data
6 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Afternoon edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- West Valley City leaders to join call...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- Missing plane found in Morgan County,...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
72 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







-- Ellen Smith
Mine Safety and Health News
(1) The reg you quoted does use word MAY twice.
(May-#1) It states "from time to time" but does NOT say what the time span is.
(May-#2) It states "may be released" but does NOT give a time-table in which to do so.
(2) The reg you quoted does NOT say UPON REQUEST in respect to availability to the public. Meaning it does NOT say WHEN the info has to be turned over. As with ANY govt investigation, while an investigation is ON GOING the govt can hold back information to maintain the integrity of said investigation.
(3) MSHA has NOT stated that they will NEVER release said information...only that they will not do so at this time in order to MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY of the investigation.
(4) I also see the state's CURRENT SUDDEN INTEREST in mine safety nothing OTHER THAN POLITICS prostituting the deaths of the miners. If the state was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned about mine safety then why did they wait UNTIL NOW when most of the other states HAVE NOT WAITED UNTIL NOW.
(5) I've been a union supporter during my life BUT in THIS CASE the union DISGUSTS ME for also participating in the prostituting the deaths of the miners.
Note the "shall"?
In some crazy parts of the world -- yes, even right here in the USA -- people believe that more public access to "public" records and info generated by public officials with our tax money is a good thing. I know that idea makes some in Utah kind of nervous. Ya just never know what an "open door" might let in or out.
And just how the heck is releasing mining data going to "compromise the investigation"?
--Because the investigators are going to be criticized if they overlook something obvious?
--Because they are going to be held accountable?
--Because they are not going to be able to make claims that contradict the evidence no matter how convenient that can be?
Hey, call me crazy, but I think accountability is good, not bad.
btw, the entity requesting the information is not a union. It is a state commission with respectable professional people who are concerned about SAFETY.
And I did NOT say the union was requesting the info. In reference to the union I was only stating my over all opinion of the union actions throughout (& continuing basis) this situation. Just like those who prostitute other disasters for their own agendas/personal benefit like 9/11, Katrina, military casualties & so on. Bully-pulpits to get what they couldn't get before. Using the dead to further their own agendas.