As many of you have, I've been following the events regarding the Utah mine disaster. At the start, the owner of the mine tried to deflect accountability for it by asserting that it was caused by an earthquake, although seismic monitors did not verify this. Now I hear how the media - specifically CNN, which I watch most - is using terminology associated with natural geologic activity, e.g., earthquakes and volcanoes.
Today I heard the phrase "seismic event". Now, what do you think of when you hear the word "seismic"? Well, I think of an earthquake or a volcano... I also heard the word "eruption". Now, what do you think of when you hear THAT word? Well, I think of a volcano again. So a reasonable "conclusion" is that a natural geologic process is involved here somewhere.
When this situation is finally resolved, either by finding the trapped miners or admitting that they cannot be found, there will be law suits for damages. If you were a potential juror, would you have reasonable doubt about the cause of the collapse after hearing such terms?
But are these reasonable doubts if no seismic monitors recorded such? Were not mining procedures - specifically "retreat mining" - to blame? How could they not be?
P.S. On a side note, yesterday I saw a video clip where the reporter said that water was "dripping" off the roof. Well, I've seen drips before and this wasn't dripping: it was pouring from the roof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment