The mine owner, Murray, commented shortly before the 2nd cave-in that the "mountain is moving." It seems amazing to me (and granted we're all backseat quarterbacks) that anyone would think that temporary shoring could stand against the movement of a gigantic mountain. Man vs. Nature? In this case, I think we'll lose.
A poll once taken of soldiers in World War II revealed that the soldiers hadn't risked their lives for their country -- they did it to save their fellow soldiers. Miners, like warriors in battle, will go to extreme risk to save their buddies. I'm not surprised they took risk to try to save them.
Like Cindi, I think that strip mining COULD be done, like well-managed logging, in an ecologically-sensitive manner.
I, so far, don't trust nuclear power (because of the disposal problem of nuclear "waste"). I still hope that we can, as some countries have started doing, researching and building wave and current-powered electrical power stations. In Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for example, the current is VERY strong in this narrow part of the Sound and it seems ridiculous that we haven't harnessed that obvious energy source. The turbines would turn as through 2 high tides and 2 low tides per day. If you can derive power from turbines at Hoover Dam, you can get power from strong underwater currents. The Golden Gate in San Francisco is another area with strong unused currents. I believe Spain actually has a working current power plant. Currents producing currents, lol.
Fussion power, while promising, isn't there yet, apparently. I imagine that there HAVE to be people working on it.
In the meantime, I still wish for safer mining methods. One easy fix would be to outlaw reverse mining where, at the end of a mine's life, coal support pillars are taken out in order to get the last of the coal out of the mine. Cave-in's are expected. Some say that the Minnesota mine was in the process of doing this kind of mining before the first collapse.
Teri Anne
