Wampum

The New York Times has a long article about the cozy relationship between the current administration and the coal industry.

One issue is the regulation of the quantity of coal dust permitted in the air inside the mines. Breathing coal dust over an extended period of time can cause black lung resulting in sickness or premature death for coal miners. The Times reports:

In 1997, as a top executive of a Utah mining company, David Lauriski proposed a measure that could allow some operators to let coal-dust levels rise substantially in mines. The plan went nowhere in the government.

Last year, it found enthusiastic backing from one government official - Mr. Lauriski himself. Now head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, he revived the proposal despite objections by union officials and health experts that it could put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease.

The reintroduction of the coal dust measure came after the federal agency had abandoned a series of Clinton-era safety proposals favored by coal miners while embracing others favored by mine owners.

It is tempting to view Mr. Lauriski’s position as simply favoring the cheap production of coal even at the expense of the health of the miners. Mr. Lauriski, however, argues that he actually is concerned for the health of the miners and that allowing more coal dust is good for miner health. The Times reports:

Mr. Lauriski said the coal dust measure would improve miners' health by encouraging the use of equipment to limit how much dust miners breathe.

Against my better judgment, let's try to take that agument seriously. The argument seems to run something like this:

Coal dust is dangerous to miner’s health. If we reduce the amount of coal dust, we will reduce the risk and that will encourage miners to be careless with the use of respirators. That carelessness could cause harm to their health. If we increase the amount of coal dust, the risk of illness or death will be so great and so serious that miners will use additional equipment to protect themselves.

Therefore, by increasing the risk of harm, we are actually promoting the health of the miners.

The issue of coal dust is not the first time Republicans have made that type of argument. The FDA refused to allow the over the counter sale of Plan B, the morning after pill. Some of the opponents of such sales argued that the existence of a readily available morning after pill would make it more likely that some women (particularly young women) would engage in certain behavior that the opponents of Plan B thought was inappropriate (sexual relations outside of marriage). We should, the argument went, keep the consequences of such behavior high so as to discourage it. For the good of the young women, of course.

A similar argument would be that careless driving causes a lot of car wrecks and people get injured in those wrecks. Safety devices such as seat belts and air bags reduce the frequency and severity of injuries in car wrecks. Therefore, if we really care about the health of drivers, we should not require seat belts and airbags in cars. We should, in fact, ban them so that drivers will be more careful.

Hmm…, I think I was right in not taking the argument seriously.