By American standards, driving 120 Km north in order to go 50 Km east seems a little crazy. However with the short supply of good roads coupled with the mountains (I guess there is probably a relationship between these two factors), that is just how it is in Central America and specifcally Honduras.
Essentially our plan was to only visit Copan to see the ruins, however it is on the western border, and in order to get to Nicaragua, there really is no direct or easy route. So we took the long road, which got a little longer than we anticipated. This was also the trip where we made the transition from ¨traveler¨ style buses to local buses, because in Honduras there is an option besides using Chicken Buses.
We thought our trip from Copan to San Pedro Sula in N. Honduras would be a quick ride as it was only 125 Km. In fact this last traveler bus was pretty posh with lay back seats and airplane-style service. They checked and recorded our passports and even took our photos before boarding the bus. For a trip of about 80 miles, I was sure we would make it in 2 hours on our executive style bus. Oops, I forgot about the mountains. Three and a half hours we rolled into a bus mall in San Pedro Sula where we made our first mistake.
We searched for a bus to go south toward Lake Jogua (on the road to the capitol city of Tegucigulpa) before going to an ATM to get some cash. OK, so maybe we forgot. At any rate we found out where the bus was loading to go south and a nice gentleman whisked us on the mini-bus (like the type of bus which shuttles you from an airport to the parking lot) which soon took off. The temperature is above 95 and this bus is from about 1970 which means the air has not worked since 1973. We were never so happy as to start moving so the hot air could blow in our faces.
We were starved as we only had a little travel food like crackers and cookies, but the good news is that you will never starve on a bus in Honduras or Nicaragua. From the time passengers started loading on the bus and until we arrived at our destination, there was a steady stream of entrepreneurs with food or drink in hand. They hop on the bus at one stop, sell their wares and get off at the next stop. During our 2 hour ride, I am sure that no less than 30 venders got on the bus, selling everything from small bags of ice cold water, soda, cookies, coconut milk or cut fruit in small bags, plums, tomatoes, home-made cookies, sandwiches, chiclets, candy suckers, donuts, fried pork rind, coconut nests (i.e. cookies) and probably some items I don't yet know the name of.
Since this was a public bus, we weren't quite sure of where to stop near Lake Jogua, however several very kind Hondurans were eager to help us and it seemed that they were looking out for us. One woman struggled to tell us where to get off as there was a hotel right at the stop. Decision made. We got off at the stop right next to Chalet de Laguna, which is on the very pretty Lake Jogua. This hotel, however is part of what looks like a resort and convention center – not exactly the type of place we have been bedding down. This was a resort only with no town within about 5 Km and for sure no taxi service.
The woman at the reception desk showed us a beautiful room for $80. Very nice, but we asked for something less expensive. She then showed us a cabin for $40. We agreed to take it and when we went to pay, we remembered that we hadn't gone to an ATM. When we asked her for the location of the nearest one, her expression was priceless. This wasn't ATM country. In fact the nearest one was probably 80 Km away in San Pedro Sula. Oh, yes, the VISA card, which we haven't used to date but it worked for the night.
The next morning we stood at the side of the road in front of the Chalet and got on a public bus to Tegucigulpa and on south. This one was an old tour bus with tired seat coverings and much more, but it got us there. The stream of vendors continued, even though the bus made a mid-trip food stop.
Once in the capital city, we quickly found a bus that would take us to the Nicaraguan Border however there was a little time to transfer which meant no time for an ATM but the buses are cheap. Our goal was to get to Choluteca which is about 45 minutes from the border. There we would need to get another bus. However about 15 minutes into the ride with another old tour bus packed with passengers, we stopped at a gas station and the driver disappeared. About 30 minutes later he reappeared with grease up to his elbows. There was no explanation but we needed to wait for the next bus which meant we had to stay in Choluteca, Honduras and we missed the opportunity to cross the border. Oh, and there was an ATM in Choluteca!


Located mid-way between Boston and Providence, Wrentham's three lakes, substantial conservation land and open space, and small town New England charm create a comforting sense of peace and quiet. Motorized water craft are allowed on Lake Pearl for Wrentham residents, while fishing is available on all three lakes in town. Other recreational activities include swimming, kayaking and paddle boarding at Sweat Beach, the Big Apple, Joe's Rock, the Wrentham dog park, the Wrentham Premium Outlets and so much more!
Wrentham Public Schools provide elementary education for Grades K-6. Once students enter the seventh grade, Wrentham is part of the King Phillip Regional School District which serves the towns of Wrentham, Norfolk and Plainville. The King Phillip Regional Middle School is in Norfolk, MA while the King Phillip Regional High School is located in Wrentham, just outside of the town center. Wrentham is also a member of the Tri-County Regional Vocational Technical High School located in Franklin, MA.


text:
Below are readers' questions about 'Jurisdiction', which we have chosen to answer. More detailed information on 'Jurisdiction' can be found on our main website, Family Law in Israel.
What is the difference between jurisdiction and legal systems in terms of international family law and global disputes?
Jurisdiction is basically the venue for the legal proceedings i.e. at the broadest level, the country in which the dispute will be heard, and legal system means the law (of a particular state/country) which is to be applied in deciding it.
Which court deals with pleas to relocate children abroad?
The family court, except in vary rare circumstances where a religious court can claim jurisdiciton.
How can a court in Israel gain jurisdiction to deal with a particular case if the family law dispute has a distinctly global or international flavour, rather than a pure, Israeli one?
Where the dispute is global or international i.e. involves parties with different nationalities,who live or have lived in different countries,and have children and property in various places, the question arises as to which country is the venue for the proceedings,and which country's legal system applies.
As regards venue, a particular court in Israel will need jurisdiction at three levels to have legal authority to hear a case and rule on it. Firstly, it will need jurisdiction at the international level i.e. Israel rather than another country has legal authority to hear the case. Secondly, it will need substantive or subject matter jurisdiction i.e. be the appropriate court within Israel to deal with the particular issue. Finally, it will need local jurisdiction i.e. be the correct court, geographically, of its type to deal with the matter within Israel.
What is meant when it is said a court has or has not got jurisdiction over a matter?
Basically, when a court has jurisdiction over a matter, it means that it has the legal authority and power to hear the proceedings,and give a decision. When a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter, it means that it lacks the legal authority and power to hear the proceedings and to give a decision.
My "ex" partner and I are Israeli citizens who relocated to Europe permanently, several years ago, and recently separated abroad. In order to put pressure on me, he filed for an order in Israel to stop me from continuing with legal proceedings I filed against him overseas for child custody, support and finance, claiming that these issues should be heard in the Israeli courts. What action can I take in Israel against his application?
If an anti-suit injunction application has been filed, it can be countered with an application to throw out these proceedings, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, inappropriate forum and bad faith, or abuse of the legal process, together with an analysis of the particular supporting circumstances.
It is possible to succeed – and have the anti-suit injunction application thrown out from the start, as happened in January 2015 when Tel Aviv Family Court accepted the defendant's application to throw out the Plaintiff's application for an order to prevent her from continuing with child custody, support and financial proceedings she had filed against him in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.(File 52324-10-14). The Defendant/mother was represented by our law practice. The Tel Aviv Family court accepted her arguments and held that the appropriate forum for hearing the proceedings was in the States, where the parties were both living, separately, and not Israel, which they had left permanently in 2010, so that the proceedings were stopped at the outset.
Which court in Israel can handle with my divorce if my husband and I are Jewish but married in a civil ceremony abroad?
Only the rabbinical court.
What is 'forum shopping'?
'Forum shopping' is when parties to a global family law dispute, research the 'market' and try to get their dispute heard in a country with a favourable legal system. They may actively plan,or even manipulate,after appropriate research. Their aim is to cause the venue for the legal proceedings to be in one country, rather than another, and for one country's laws, rather than another to be applied, because it gives them a legal advantage.
Forum shopping is often employed in 'international divorce' where the legal systems related to marital property and child custody can vary considerably from country to country.
Where can I file for paternity against the man who fathered my child?
At the family court.
What is meant by 'appropriate forum'?
Where courts in two different countries can both claim jurisdiction to hear a particular international family law dispute,the preferred one is known as the 'appropriate forum'. An appropriate forum is the venue that it is more convenient in terms of hearing witnesses,including elderly people or those for whom travel is difficult, and gathering evidence,including professionals who may have to make ongoing reports for the court.
As technology improves,and the means of gathering testimony and examining witnesses become more diverse,and include video conferencing, many obstacles that previously existed have been overcome.
Where can I file for child custody? My husband and I are Jewish. Neither of us has filed for divorce yet.
At the family court or the rabbinical court.
I was advised to 'win' the jurisdictional race and rush to file for custody at the family court before my husband files me for divorce at the rabbinate. What is meant by all this?
In Israel, parallel jurisdiction exists over certain issues such as child custody. Where both parties are Jews, the question of custody can be heard by the family court, or the rabbinical court. Competition exists between the two courts as to which will be the venue for child custody proceedings. Whoever files first can win the 'jurisdicitonal race' over child custody and proceedings will be heard at that court, rather than the other.
If a divorce plea is filed at the rabbinical court, custody is bound to it, if a custody plea has not been opened beforehand at the family court. If a custody plea has been filed at the family court before the divorce file is opened at the rabbinical court, then the path is blocked to the rabbinical court gaining jurisdiction over custody.
Which court deals with bankruptcy?
The District Court.
Can two courts in Israel have jurisdiction over the same matter in family law?
Yes! Parallel jurisdiction exists regarding certain matters in Israeli family law. For example, the family (civil) court can have jurisdiction over child custody, but so can a recognised religious court, in certain circumstances.
I am Roman Catholic, so is my husband. I want to file for child custody - where can I do so?
You have a choice of either the family (civil) court or the Roman Catholic Church Court.
Subscribe to Jurisdiction

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


SYNOPSIS: Since the dawn of history people have used charms and spells to try to control their environment, and forms of divination to try to foresee the otherwise unpredictable chances of life. Many of these techniques were called 'superstitious' by educated elites. For centuries religious believers used 'superstition' as a term of abuse to denounce another religion that they thought inferior, or to criticize their fellow-believers for practising their faith 'wrongly'. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, scholars argued over what 'superstition' was, how to identify it, and how to persuade people to avoid it. Learned believers in demons and witchcraft, in their treatises and sermons, tried to make 'rational' sense of popular superstitions by blaming them on the deceptive tricks of seductive demons. Every major movement in Christian thought, from rival schools of medieval theology through to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, added new twists to the debates over superstition. Protestants saw Catholics as superstitious, and vice versa. Enlightened philosophers mocked traditional cults as superstitions. Eventually, the learned lost their worry about popular belief, and turned instead to chronicling and preserving 'superstitious' customs as folklore and ethnic heritage. Enchanted Europe offers the first comprehensive, integrated account of western Europe's long, complex dialogue with its own folklore and popular beliefs. Drawing on many little-known and rarely used texts, Euan Cameron constructs a compelling narrative of the rise, diversification, and decline of popular 'superstition' in the European mind.
Sounds like a good one..I'd read it for sure.
The cover alone makes me go "hmmmmm..." The book sounds interesting!
Beautiful cover and interesting review. I may have to add this to my holiday shopping list!
This sounds incredibly interesting; I love this kind of non-fiction books. Thanks for pointing it out!
I'm definitely interested in this book, as this is one of the subjects about history that intrigues me. The painting on the cover actually depicts an episode of sleep paralysis. Back in the day they used to think there were actually demons attacking you while you were sleeping. There's an article on Wikipedia that shows this same image. I suffered from this until very recently when I learned a way to stop it. It can be very scary.
That sounds impossible to do in the space of a single book.


Drs. Tony Seupaul and Josh Hughes (looking non-colicky to the left) recorded a podcast for the Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine reviewing a recent meta-analysis concerning the utility of tamsulosin for expulsion of kidney stones.
Short Story: Good for stones >4mm that you are sending home.
Click the link to listen to the podcast for yourself.


text:
Eddie Harris
born on 20/10/1934 in Chicago, IL, United States
died on 5/11/1996 in Los Angeles, CA, United States
Eddie Harris (October 20, 1934 – November 5, 1996) was an American jazz musician, best known for playing tenor saxophone and for introducing the electrically amplified saxophone. He was also fluent on the electric piano and organ. His best-known compositions are "Freedom Jazz Dance", recorded and popularized by Miles Davis in 1966, and "Listen Here."[1]
Harris was born and grew up in Chicago. His father was originally from Cuba, and his mother from New Orleans. Like other successful Chicago musicians, including Nat King Cole, Dinah Washington, Clifford Jordan, Johnny Griffin, Gene Ammons, Julian Priester, and Bo Diddley (among others), young Eddie Harris studied music under Walter Dyett at DuSable High School. He later studied music at Roosevelt University, by which time he was proficient on piano, vibraphone, and tenor saxophone. While in college, he performed professionally with Gene Ammons.
After college, Harris was drafted into the United States Army and while serving in Europe, he was accepted into the 7th Army Band, which also included Don Ellis, Leo Wright, and Cedar Walton.
Leaving military service, he worked in New York City before returning to Chicago where he signed a contract with Vee Jay Records. His first album for Vee Jay, Exodus to Jazz, included his own jazz arrangement of Ernest Gold's theme from the movie Exodus. A shortened version of this track, which featured his masterful playing in the upper register of the tenor saxophone, was heavily played on radio and became the first jazz record ever to be certified gold.[2]
The single climbed into the US Billboard Hot 100 and reached No. 16 in the U.S. R&B chart. Some jazz critics, however, regarded commercial success as a sign that a jazz artist had sold out and Harris soon stopped playing "Exodus" in concert.[3] He moved to Columbia Records in 1964 and then to Atlantic Records the following year where he re-established himself. In 1965, Atlantic released The In Sound, a bop album that won back many of his detractors.
Over the next few years, he began to perform on electric piano and the electric Varitone saxophone,[1] and to perform a mixture of jazz and funk that sold well in both the jazz and rhythm and blues markets. In 1967, his album, The Electrifying Eddie Harris reached second place on the R&B charts. The album's lead track, "Listen Here", was issued as a single, climbing to No. 11 R&B and No. 45 on the Hot 100. Harris released several different versions of his composition over the years, including both studio and live concert recordings. The first appeared on an early Atlantic album, Mean Greens, featuring him on electric piano. He was to re-work the track two years later, stretching it out to over seven minutes in length, for his iconic sax solo version. The whole track appeared on both sides of the Atlantic hit single, edited into two parts.
In 1969, he performed with pianist and vocalist Les McCann at the Montreux Jazz Festival. Although the musicians had been unable to rehearse, their session was so impressive that a recording of it was released by Atlantic as Swiss Movement. This became one of the best-selling jazz albums ever, also reaching second place on the R&B charts.[4]
Harris also came up with the idea of the reed trumpet, playing one for the first time at the Newport Jazz Festival of 1970 to mostly negative critical feedback. From 1970 to 1975, he experimented with new instruments of his own invention (the reed trumpet was a trumpet with a saxophone mouthpiece, the saxobone was a saxophone with a trombone mouthpiece, and the guitorgan was a combination of guitar and organ), with singing the blues, with jazz-rock (he recorded an album with Steve Winwood, Jeff Beck, Albert Lee, Ric Grech, Zoot Money, Ian Paice and other rockers). He also started singing comic R&B/blues songs, such as "That is Why You're Overweight" and "Eddie Who?".
In 1975, however, he alienated much of his audience with his album The Reason Why I'm Talking S--t, which consisted mainly of comedy.[5] Interest in subsequent albums declined and he left Atlantic after his final album for the label in 1977, after a stay of over 12 years. He then signed for RCA Records, but his two albums there in the late 1970s were his last for a major label.
He was a member of Horace Silver's Quintet in the early 1980s and continued to record regularly well into the 1990s, sometimes in Europe where he enjoyed a loyal following, but his experimentation ended and he mainly recorded hard bop. He had moved from Chicago to Los Angeles in the mid-1970s, and was responsible for much of the music on the hit television series, The Bill Cosby Show.
Harris died of congestive heart failure in Los Angeles in 1996, at the age of 62.[6]
1961: Exodus to Jazz (Vee-Jay)
1961: Mighty Like a Rose (Vee-Jay)
1961: Jazz for "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (Vee-Jay)
1962: A Study in Jazz (Vee-Jay)
1962: Eddie Harris Goes to the Movies (Vee-Jay)
1963: Bossa Nova (Vee-Jay)
1963: Half and Half (Vee-Jay)
1964: For Bird and Bags (Exodus) – also released as Sculpture (Buddah)
1964: Cool Sax, Warm Heart (Columbia)
1964: Here Comes the Judge (Columbia)
1965: Cool Sax from Hollywood to Broadway (Columbia)
1965: The In Sound ((Atlantic))
1966: Mean Greens (Atlantic)
1967: The Tender Storm (Atlantic)
1968: The Electrifying Eddie Harris (Atlantic)
1968: Plug Me In (Atlantic)
1968: Pourquoi L'Amérique – soundtrack (AZ)
1968: Silver Cycles (Atlantic)
1969: High Voltage (Atlantic)
1969: Swiss Movement (Atlantic) – with Les McCann
1969: Free Speech (Atlantic)
1970: Come on Down! (Atlantic)
1970: Live at Newport (Atlantic)
1970: Smokin' (Janus, 1970)
1971: Second Movement (Atlantic) with Les McCann
1971: Instant Death (Atlantic)
1972: Eddie Harris Sings the Blues (Atlantic)
1973: Excursions (Atlantic)
1974: E.H. in the U.K. (Atlantic)
1974: Is It In (Atlantic)
1974: I Need Some Money (Atlantic)
1975: Bad Luck Is All I Have (Atlantic)
1975: That Is Why You're Overweight (Atlantic)
1975: The Reason Why I'm Talking S--t 1976 (Atlantic)
1976: How Can You Live Like That? (Atlantic)
1978: I'm Tired of Driving (RCA)
1979: Playin' with Myself (RCA)
1981: Sounds Incredible (Angeleco)
1981: Steps Up (SteepleChase)
1982: The Real Electrifying Eddie Harris (Mutt & Jeff)
1983: Exploration (Chiaroscuro)
1986: Eddie Who? (Timeless)
1987: People Get Funny (Timeless)
1989: Live in Berlin (Timeless)
1990: Live at the Moonwalker Moonwalker (Suisa)
1991: A Tale of Two Cities Virgin Japan
1991: There Was a Time – Echo of Harlem (Enja)
1993: For You, For Me, For Evermore (SteepleChase)
1993: Yeah You Right (Lakeside)
1993: Listen Here (Enja)
1994: Freedom Jazz Dance (Musicmasters); w/ Jacky Terrasson, George Mraz and Billy Hart
1994: Vexatious Progressions (Flying Heart)
1994: The Battle of the Tenors with Wendell Harrison
1995: Dancing by a Rainbow (Enja)[7]
1996: All The Way-Live (recorded 1981) Milestone with Jimmy Smith
1997: The Last Concert; with WDR Big Band
2005: Exodus: The Best of the Vee-Jay Years Charly
With Buddy Montgomery
Ties of Love (Landmark, 1986)[8]
With Bernard Purdie
Bernard Purdie's Soul to Jazz (ACT, 1996)
With Cedar Walton
Beyond Mobius (RCA, 1976)[9]
With Ellis Marsalis, Jr.
Homecoming (Spindletop, 1985)[10]
With Horace Parlan
Glad I Found You (Steeplechase, 1986)
With Horace Silver
Spiritualizing the Senses (Silveto, 1983)
There's No Need to Struggle (Silveto, 1983)
With John Scofield
Hand Jive (Blue Note Records, 1994)
^ a b Feather, Leonard; Gitler, Ira (2007). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazz. Oxford University Press. p. 297. ISBN 978-01953-20008.
^ "Eddie Harris His Tenor Saxophone & Orchestra". Elusive Disc, Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2013.
^ Oliver, Myrna (November 8, 1996). "Eddie Harris; Tenor Saxophone Virtuoso". Los Angeles Times.
^ Unterberger, Richie. "Review of Swiss Movement". AllMusic. All Media Guide. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
^ Tesser, Neil (1999). "Eddie Harris 1936–1996". Chicago Reader. ISSN 1096-6919.
^ Watrous, Peter (November 9, 1996). "Eddie Harris, 62, Saxophonist And Adventurous Experimenter". The New York Times.
^ Ginell, Richard S., "Dancing by a Rainbow", AllMusic review.
^ Yanow, Scott, "Ties of Love", AllMusic review.
^ "Cedar Walton Catalog", JazzDisco.org.
^ Nastos, Michael G., "Homecoming", AllMusic review.
Eddie Harris at AllMusic
Eddie Harris Illustrated Discography
This article uses material from the article Eddie Harris from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia and it is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.


text:
SKY HORN (INCL. HAPPY FAMILY & MUSEUM OF LOVE REMIX)
Deep House Electronica Nu Disco Techno
USA IMPORT
A. Sky Horn
B. Sky Horn (Happy Family Remix)
C. Midnight Equatic
D. Midnight Equatic (Museum Of Love Remix)
The last of Public Release's single-digit records is the first from the British West Midlands' most famous DJ and producer, Mark E. This shouldn't come as a surprise. If anything, the fact it didn't happen earlier should; Mark appeared as a remixer on Jeffrey Brodsky's 2014 Public Release EP, which has earned him the status of esteemed member of the outfit's inner circle and prime candidate for an extended play of his own.
That little bit of context behind us, let's move on to the actual music that's been pressed to Sky Horn. The 12" kicks off with the titular track, an abrasive number built around a meaty, sawtoothed synth line that sits snugly atop a hypnotic beat. Happy Family's remix—Happy Family, for the uninitiated, is Eric Duncan and Justin Van Der Volgen—is a more psychedelic reimagining of the original cut that'll knock you into an exhilarating stupor. Speedy and demented, it's an explosive, tantalizing cap to the first record.
The second begins with "Midnight Equatic," a tense yet propulsive number that's somehow paranoid industrial, tropical disco, and prototypical synthwave all at once. The duo comprised of Dennis McNany and LCD Soundsystem's Pat Mahoney, Museum of Love, wrap the four-tracker with their remix of the song, which zeroes in on the electro component so elemental to the original and runs with it, taking it into Depeche Mode Violator territories—before making a sharp left turn and exploring the wild sounds of the early 90s UK rave scene. A final hoorah for the party that is this record.
Published: 28th April 2016


Russian fencer Inna Deriglazova has won the women's individual foil competition at the Rio Olympics, beating Italy's Elisa Di Francisca in the final 12 points to 11. She brought Russia its 4th gold medal and the second one in fencing.
Another Russian foil fencer, Aida Shanayeva, fell one step short of the bronze medal, losing to Ines Boubakri from Tunisia.
On her way to the triumph, Deriglazova defeated her teammate in the semi-final, claiming victory with a comfortable margin of 12 points (15:3).
The 26-year-old Deriglazova is a three-time world champion and a silver medalist at the London Olympics. Shanayeva won gold at a team competition at 2008 Beijing Olympics.
"I was fencing with an Olympic champion, who is a very strong and experienced athlete," Deriglazova said, commenting on her victory over the 33-year-old Die Francicsca, who won the individual gold medal at the 2012 London Olympics.
"I supposed that the fight would be very tough, I tried to put up a good fight against the Italian. Even trailing 0:3, I continued to believe in myself, and, eventually, I made it," she added.
Russia now has 14 medals overall, including 4 gold, 7 silver and 3 bronze.


20/11/1985 4 Team callout Team called to help evacuate a 17 year old soldier who started to suffer from hypothermia during an exercise on the icy fells above Cow Green Reservior.
28/08/1985 3 Team callout Team called to search for a missing male after he had become seperated from his walking group. Missing walker had booked himself into a Bed & Breakfast in Middleton, unaware for the ongoing search.
05/06/1985 2 Team callout A happy family picnic turned to tradgedy when a 12 year old boy drowned in a pool in Bowlees Beck in Upper Teesdale. Rescue team called to search for the missing boy. Body recovered at 8pm.
03/04/1985 1 Team callout Team called to assist a man who fell and broke his leg on the Pennine Way near High Force.


Bathtub Styles & Sizes China Children Style Small Size Bathtub Bt Y2591 China Adult. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Hotel Project Cast Iron Bathtub Shower Tray 18m Big Toto Style Big. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Bathroom Astounding Bathtub Styles Sizes Applied To Your House. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Japanese Style Soaking Tub Bathtubs Idea Tub Sizes Small Bathtub. Bathtub Styles & Sizes European Style Resin Freestanding Tub Custom Size Deep Soaker Tubs. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Japanese Style Soaking Tubs Catch On In Us Bathroom Decor. Bathtub Styles & Sizes In With The Bold. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Bc14 60 Bathtub Shower Cube Collection Wetstyle. Bathtub Styles & Sizes Bathtub Styles Bath Tubs Bathtub Drain Styles Dietmitanna. Bathtub Styles & Sizes 10 Most Beautiful And Stylish Bathtubs Designs.


text:
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES
Wood Dust Occupational Exposures
Prevalence Estimate
Level of Exposure
Methods and Data
Inhalation is the most important route of exposure, however dermal contact may also lead to skin-related health outcomes, such as dermatitis.[1,2]
CAREX Canada estimates that approximately 340,000 Canadians are exposed to wood dust in their workplaces. The largest industrial groups exposed include: construction; sawmill and wood preservation; and furniture, cabinet, and other wood product manufacturing.
The largest occupational group exposed to wood dust are carpenters. Other important occupations likely exposed are cabinetmakers, labourers in wood, pulp, and paper industries, furniture finishers, and chainsaw operators.
Potential for exposure to wood dust can also occur in window and door manufacturing, joinery shops, wooden boat manufacture, installation and refinishing of wood floors, pattern and model making, and logging.[3]
Wood dust exposures have decreased significantly over the past few decades. Furniture and cabinetry shops are generally thought to have the highest exposures, particularly during sanding and finishing work, when the finest particles are generated.[3,4] Higher exposures have been measured in plywood and particleboard mills, where wood is sawn and sanded, and near chippers, saws, and planers in sawmills and planer mills.[3]
A study in a British Columbia lumber mill also found high exposures during tasks such as sawdust clean-up, planing kiln-dried lumber, and driving mobile equipment in the yard.[5]
Results show that approximately 340,000 Canadians are occupationally exposed to wood dust; 93% of these workers are male. The largest industrial group exposed to wood dust is the construction industry, including regular building construction and trade contractors. Approximately 160,000 Canadian workers are exposed in this industry. A larger proportion of the working population in British Columbia are exposed to wood dust due to a large and diverse logging and wood production industry. While British Columbia has only 13% of the working population in Canada, nearly 20% of wood dust exposed workers are in British Columbia.
When examining exposure by occupation, the largest exposed group is carpenters (157,000 exposed). Other common occupations at risk of exposure to wood dust include cabinetmakers, labourers in the wood and pulp & paper industries, furniture finishers, and chain saw operators.
Workers exposed to wood dust by industry
Workers exposed to wood dust by region
Click the second tab to view total number of workers exposed.
* = < 50 workers
In total, approximately 340,000 Canadians are exposed to wood dust in their workplaces. The majority of workers exposed to wood dust are in the moderate exposure category. A significant number of wood-dust exposed workers are at risk for high exposure.
Level of Exposure by Industry
Identifying industries with either 1) workers exposed to high levels of wood dust or 2) a larger number of workers exposed to wood dust is important in guiding cancer prevention efforts to prioritize exposed groups and target resources most effectively.
The table below shows the number of workers exposed by industry group and level of exposure to wood dust. Data for those industries with at least 2,000 workers exposed is shown. These results highlight industries with the most number of workers, as well as industries with the highest levels of exposure. For example, in wood-based industries, such as wood product manufacture and furniture manufacture, the majority of exposed workers fall into the highest exposure category. However, in building construction, the largest industrial group, the majority of exposed workers are in the moderate exposure category. Depending on the goals of a prevention campaign, exposure reduction in the large industrial group might be a useful strategy, or reducing exposure to those at highest risk of exposure could be seen as a priority.
*Numbers may not add up due to rounding
Our Occupational Approach page outlines the general approach used to calculate prevalence and exposure level estimates for workplace exposures.
Data used in developing the occupational estimates for wood dust were collected from several sources:
The Canadian Workplace Exposure Database (CWED) contains over 9,600 measurements for wood dust exposure. These measurements were collected during the years 1981 to 2004 in Ontario and British Columbia workplaces.
Canadian and US scientific peer reviewed publications that addressed wood dust exposure in Canada and the United States.
Grey literature including technical reports from governments and international bodies.
Prevalence Estimate Method
CAREX defines exposure to wood dust as inhalation exposure above levels expected in the general environment (exceptions may be those who often pursue hobby carpentry at home).
To determine the number of workers potentially exposed to wood dust at work, CAREX occupational exposure experts used methods previously established in other peer-reviewed CAREX projects in Europe. A series of steps were taken to assign exposure proportions to occupations and industries at risk of exposure to wood dust.
Occupations and industries at risk of possible exposure to wood dust were identified using any combination of data sources described above.
The total number of workers in each identified occupation and industry intersection was obtained from Statistics Canada 2006 census data.
A percentage of workers exposed was assigned to that occupation and industry intersection. Percentages were determined by consultation with existing evidence in the data sources, previously established methods from the Europe CAREX estimates and the expert judgement of CAREX occupational hygienists.
The number of workers in the identified group is multiplied by the assigned percentage to calculate the prevalence estimate of workers exposed to wood dust.
Exposure Level Method
CAREX uses available workplace exposure measurements in the CWED to create exposure level categories by industry and occupation. For wood dust, these categories are:
Category 1: Low Exposure
A group of workers (people in the same job category and industry) is put in this exposure category for one of two reasons:
The are no valid measurements, but a hygienist identified this group as typically exposed during literature and other reviews;
There are valid exposure measurements in the CWED and a hygienist review determined that exposure is plausible; AND EITHER:
There are less than 10 samples available in the CWED, OR
There are ≥10 measurements available but they do not meet the criteria for Moderate Exposure.
Category 2: Moderate Exposure
A group of workers is put in this exposure category if:
There are at least 25 individual samples in the CWED, AND
20% or more samples have a value higher than 0.5 mg/m3 (which is ½ of the current occupational exposure limit for wood dust).
There are at least 10, but less than 25, individual samples in the CWED, AND
20% or more samples have a value higher than 2.5 mg/m3 (which is ½ of the historic occupational exposure limit for wood dust).
Category 3: High Exposure
A group of workers is put in this exposure category if both these criteria are met:
1. National Toxicology Program. 14th Report on Carcinogens for Wood Dust (2016) (PDF)
2. Work Safe Alberta. Work Place Health and Safety Bulletin: Health Effects from Exposure to Wood Dust (2004) (PDF)
4. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Health and Safety Report, Volume 2, Issue 10: Wood Dust More Harmful Than Once Believed (2004)
5. Teschke K, Demers PA, Davies HW, Kennedy SM, Marion SA and Leung V. "Determinants of Exposure to Inhalable Particulate, Wood Dust, Resin Acids, and Monoterpenes in a Lumber Mill Environment." Ann Occup Hyg 1999;43(4):247-255.


text:
Q: TransactionSynchronizationRegistry vs TransactionSynchronizationManager I have an application running no weblogic with ejb, with JTA provided by WLS. Now I am trying to adapt all application to work in tomcat without ejb, using spring instead. Also will use JPATransactionManager that spring provides, instead of JTA.
I used to use TransactionSynchronizationRegistry.getTransactionKey() in order to get tx object and use it for cache purposes. Now I am adapting spring and I have TransactionSynchronizationManager of spring, where I can't findv such an API.
My question is - do you know some analog of TransactionSynchronizationRegistry.getTransactionKey() in spring ?
Or where I could get some unique object with info about transaction?

A: Problem was solved by using some generated logical transaction ID. This transaction ID is stored by calling TransactionSynchronizationManager.bindResource(key, value) and retrieved by TransactionSynchronizationManager.getResource(key).
However it will not work properly in case if transaction interleaving.
Assume that you have flow with transaction interleaving when upstream transaction A is suspended whereas downstream transaction B is running.
In case if in two this transaction you try to store transaction ID with some key as mentioned above, you could have an issue that you mixing your resources.
In this case recommended use ResourceHolderSupport which is responsible to listen various states of transaction and bind or unbind resources.
In our case assume that tx1 is stores resource = "txID", "123456", and tx1 suspended because tx2 is starting to run, resource holder will unbind resource and when tx1 will be resumed - it will bind it again.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Parameterized queries in ArcGIS JavaScript API I am trying to build a where clause for an ArcGIS layer query in the ArcGIS JavaScript API. All the examples I can find (including in where documentation) encourage you to do things like this:
query.where = "NAME = '" + stateName + "'";

I find this surprising, because it seems like we are encouraged to write code that's susceptible to SQL injection bugs. This is especially important to me because my "stateName" is entirely not in my control. It's raw user input.
It looks like the library supports query parameterization via the parameterValues property, however I can find no examples on how to use it, or how to format my query so that it uses parameter values. Not even the documentation contains any examples.
So how do we create properly parameterized queries?
Side note: I recognize it's probably the server administrator's job to prevent bad queries from causing harm, however half the reason I'm asking this is also purely to avoid bugs and improperly parsed queries.

A: According to ESRI, the parameterValues property is only for using Query Layers. It's not for this context.
So the answer is, no, you can't use proper SQL parameterization when you're simply running a query on a layer.
The best way I have found to make your queries at least a little bit more bulletproof is to use code like this:
function sanitizeParameter(value) {
    // We need to escape single quotes to avoid messing up SQL syntax.
    // So all ' characters need to become ''
    return value.split("'").join("''")
}

query.where = "NAME = '" + sanitizeParameter(stateName) + "'";


text:
Het Estadio Metropolitano de Fútbol de Lara is een multifunctioneel stadion in Barquisimeto, een stad in Venezuela. Het stadion wordt vooral gebruikt voor voetbalwedstrijden, de voetbalclub Deportivo Lara maakt gebruik van dit stadion. In het stadion is plaats voor 40.312 toeschouwers.

Historie
Het stadion werd geopend in 2007. Daarna kon het stadion gebruikt worden voor de Copa América 2007. Op dit toernooi werden drie wedstrijden gespeeld in de groepsfase. Het Venezolaanse elftal speelde hier nog 2 vriendschappelijke wedstrijden.

Metropolitano de Lara

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


When people begin looking into project management training, they may quickly find that they have a general understanding of what they will be learning, yet struggle to conceptualize its real application to their career or their institution. If that's the case for you, it might be time to thank your lucky stars that you've never experienced catastrophic failure of a project that your team was working on.
Had you had that experience, you would probably not have too difficult a time imagining how the weak links in your team or its operations could have been identified earlier, before they led to the collapse of the project. That is the essential benefit of project management training. It provides the comprehensive structure and organization that prevents shortfalls and inefficiencies from slipping through the cracks, while also providing you with the tools to fix them.
If you have lacked those tools in the past and suffered the consequences, there's actually reason for you to be grateful as well. The experience may seem like a black mark on your career, but it presumably serves as a case study in the problems that can be addressed by project management training. In fact, the retelling of your own tale could be the thing that spurs colleagues and friends of yours to pursue the appropriate information technology training. And as you personally advance your project management training, your case studies will make it that much easier for you to envision how your newfound skills could be applied in a crisis situation.
It's a familiar principle in business, entrepreneurship, and self-help that there is really no such thing as failure. Rather, falling short of expectations only provides you with more clarity about how to get where you want to be. Other project managers will surely tell you that early failures can be beneficial if they function as learning experiences and prompt you to expand upon that learning with project management training, such that the same mistakes will never be repeated again.
Although four years old now, this article at Tech Republic is a useful example of the advantage that can be obtained by learning from the failure of an information technology project. The author, Andrew Makar, explains how project management training helped him to overcome the lack of structure in his earlier efforts, which had contributed to a lack of clarity about individual tasks and a relative inability to identify when something had gone wrong and to rectify the situation afterward.
Project management training helps a team leader to understand how to schedule tasks and properly delegate responsibilities, and it encourages the sort of communication that prevents anyone from pleading ignorance when they fall short of what the team expects of them. It also provides the entire team with the hierarchy and clarity of mission that should let them recognize problems as they emerge, and raise them to the team leader before they turn into catastrophic failure of the entire project.
If you've seen these problems firsthand or you can envision them clearly, then you are well on your way to understanding not just the general content of project management training but its practical applications. But if your professional experience has been more limited than that, look to someone who has failed and overcome it. They can help you understand that in absence of project management training, you may not be as organized or well-equipped as you think you are at the outset of a project.


text:
Coal Tattoo exclusive: Massey mine failed dust-control standards in 79 percent of samples
September 17, 2010 by Ken Ward Jr.
Not so long ago, Massey Energy General Counsel Shane Harvey had this to say when The Associated Press asked him about the rock-dusting at his company's Upper Big Branch Mine:
[The mine] appears to have been very well rock dusted, with rock dust still in place.
Well, not so much — at least according to data that the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration presented to families of the 29 miners who died in that April 5 explosion at Upper Big Branch. During a closed-door meeting last evening in Beckley, MSHA officials gave told the families of these results:
— 1,803 samples taken
— 78.92 percent out of compliance
Several sources who attended last evening's meeting described the rock-dusting data to me, and it seems likely that MSHA officials will confirm these results during a media briefing scheduled for later this morning.
Remember that "rock-dusting" — spreading crushed limestone on the surfaces of the underground mine tunnels — is a key ingredient in controlling any ignitions or explosions that occur during the mining process. MSHA rules require that dust collected from those surfaces have a certain percentage of incombustible materials (rock-dust) in order to prevent small ignitions from turning into big disasters.
Also at last night's meeting, family members were told that Massey Energy mine managers from Upper Big Branch are challenging the right of federal investigators to sit in on witness interviews being conducted under the authority of subpoenas issued by the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training. Readers may recall that the state office has general subpoena power, while MSHA can only compel witnesses to appear for interviews if federal officials call a public hearing.
Stay tuned for more following this morning's MSHA media briefing …
understand September 17, 2010
MSHA of all institutions should understand that the dust samples that were taken are compromised. One would think that the sample needed to be taken before dust, ash, and debris were spread througout the mine by the explosion.
SHAME on MSHA for releasing data that would be misunderstood by the general public. SHAME on CoalTattoo for releasing data without explaining the fact that these samples are tainted (by the explosion itself).
If they are not tainted – maybe someone from MSHA can explain their theory on why they are not.
The samples may have failed the requirements, but UNDERSTAND why they failed and then report the news.
Ken Ward Jr. September 17, 2010
Certainly, if MSHA ends up citing Massey based on these samples, that is exactly what the company will argue.
In fact, MSHA lost such a case following the Jim Walter disaster in Alabama in 2001 … you can read that ruling here:
http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/alj/se2003-160.html
(There is a follow-up Commission order here, http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/commission/se2003-160-08302006.html
This case may be somewhat different, given that the entire Jim Walters mine was flooded after the explosion, and that may be a different factual situation.
The argument MSHA will make is that the explosion burned up some of the combustible comment of the dust samples, meaning that the samples would actually over-estimate the incombustible content and thus the compliance rate.
Ellen September 17, 2010
According to MSHA's Kevin Sticklin, part of the combustible content of rock dust samples is actually "used up" when an explosion occurrs. So, the samples are not necessarily representative of the conditions — but this would be in the operator's favor since some of the combustible content blew up when the explosion occurred, and therefore cannot be measured.
joe September 17, 2010
Coal Tatto = Massey Haters
Get the fact straight before you slander peoples names!
Phil Smith September 17, 2010
I've read this post several times and have yet to see where anyone or any entity has been slandered. Ken did his job and reported what MSHA has said. As Ken and other journalists have told me on more than one occasion when I have complained about something they wrote, the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean they're not going to report it. Those who want "news" reported in a way that they can comfortably agree with all the time need to stick with Fox News.
As I predicted, here's Massey's response, just issued by their PR firm:
This is not the first time MSHA has attempted to use unproven or faulty coal dust claims in their investigation efforts. In the 2005 legal proceeding MSHA v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., federal investigators had their coal dust theories rejected when they used contaminated, two-month-old post-accident dust samples and falsely asserted they were representative of non-compliant coal dust levels immediately preceding a mine explosion. In the UBB investigation, MSHA's is using the same dust specialist from the Jim Walter Resources, Inc. case, Clete Stephan, and employing the same dust collection techniques that were rejected by an administrative law judge in that proceeding. Unfortunately, MSHA has failed to learn the lessons from its prior investigative mistakes.
MSHA's narrow-minded focus on compromised coal dust evidence is doing a disservice to those UBB families entitled to concrete answers unequivocally supported by accurate scientific findings and the facts. Sadly, MSHA appears to be more interested in proving itself right, even if the evidence suggests the agency's presumptions are wrong.
Readers … in case folks aren't clicking through the links, I wanted to post the portion of the ALJ decision from the Jim Walter case above. I normally don't like comments this long that simply quote a court ruling or something … but this is pretty important and folks should read it.
B. The Citation and Orders Relating to the Incombustible Content of Mine Dust
Citation No. 7328081 charges a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.403 in that, of 123 dust samples collected during the accident investigation throughout 3 East, 4 East, the No. 4 Section, the No. 6 Section, and the connecting entries of Shaft 5-9, 121 of the samples did not meet the regulatory requirements for incombustible content of the combined coal dust, rock dust, and other dust. The citation also specifically notes that none of 31 band samples taken in an area of the No. 4 Section inby the previously flooded area ("inby the toe of the water") met the requirements of the regulation.40 The citation contains an S&S finding. It also asserts that the 13 miners were fatally injured as a result of the violation, that the violation was due to JWR's unwarrantable failure to comply with section 75.403, and that the company's negligence was high. Gov't Ex. 1.
Section 75.403 states in part:
Where rock dust is required to be applied, it shall be distributed upon the top, floor and sides of all underground areas of the coal mine and maintained in such quantities that the incombustible content of the combined coal dust, rock dust, and other dust shall be not less than 65 per centum, but the incombustible content in the return aircourses shall be no less than 80 per centum.
30 C.F.R. § 75.403.
Order No. 7328088 charges a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.360(b)(3) in that an adequate preshift examination was not conducted in the No. 4 Section for the afternoon shift of September 22, because inadequate rock dust was not identified by the examiner.41 The order contains an S&S finding. It also asserts that the 13 miners were fatally injured as a result of the violation, that the violation was due to JWR's unwarrantable failure to comply with section 75.403, and that the company's negligence was high. Gov't Ex. 5.
Section 75.360(b)(3) in part requires preshift examinations in:
Working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, if anyone is scheduled to work on the section or in the area during the oncoming shift. The scope of the examination shall include the working places.
30 C.F.R. § 75.360(b)(3).
Order No. 7328104 charges a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.362(a)(1) in that an adequate on- shift examination was not conducted for the afternoon shift of September 22, because inadequate rock dust was not identified by the examiner on the No. 4 Section where two mechanics were assigned to work.42 The order contains an S&S finding. It also asserts that the 13 miners were fatally injured as a result of the violation, that the violation was due to JWR's unwarrantable failure to comply with section 75.403, and that the company's negligence was high. Gov't Ex. 6.
Section 75.362(a)(1) states in part:
At least once during each shift or more often if necessary for safety, a certified person designated by the operator shall conduct an on-shift examination of each section where anyone is assigned to work during the shift and any area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed during the shift. The certified person shall check for hazardous conditions.
30 C.F.R. § 75.362(a)(1).
Order No. 7328105 charges of violation of section 75.360(b)(3) in that an adequate preshift examination was not conducted for the day shift on September 23, because: (1) the examiner did not inspect the areas where miners were scheduled to perform maintenance and to roof bolt on the No. 4 Section but rather limited the examination to electrical installations; and, (2) the examiner did not identify obvious and widespread inadequate rock dust.43 The order contains an S&S finding. It also asserts that the 13 miners were fatally injured as a result of the violation, that the violation was due to JWR's unwarrantable failure to comply with section 75.360(b)(3), and that the company's negligence was high. Gov't Ex. 7.
Order No. 7328106 charges a violation of section 75.360(b)(3) in that an adequate preshift examination was not conducted for the afternoon shift of September 23, because the examiner did not identify obvious and widespread inadequate rock dust.44 The order contains an S&S finding. It also asserts that the 13 miners were fatally injured as a result of the violation, that the violation was due to JWR's unwarrantable failure to comply with section 75.360(b)(3), and that the company's negligence was high. Gov't Ex. 8.
1. Citation No. 7328081
Section 75.403 requires rock dust to be distributed on the top, floor, and sides of all underground areas of a coal mine and maintained in such quantities that the incombustible content of the combined coal dust, rock dust, and other dust is not less than 65%, and the incombustible content in the return aircourses is not less than 80%. The regulation, which restates section 305(d)(2) of the Mine Act (30 U.S.C. § 865(d)(2)), first was set forth as section 304(d)(2) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (the "Coal Act"). 30 U.S.C. § 864(d)(2) (1976).
Because the Coal Act established numerical minimal levels for the incombustible content of the combined dust, it was an axiom of coal mine safety law that a violation of section 304(d)(2) and/or its implementing regulation could be established only by numerical results from valid dust samples results that proved the required minimum level of incombustible content had not been reached. In one of its earliest decisions, the Commission's predecessor, the Interior Board of Mine Operations Appeals, found that:
Since Congress specifically delineated percentages . . . [a violation of section 304(d)(2)] must be supported by more than the mere visual observation of an inspector. Unless samples support an alleged violation . . . it cannot be sustained.
Hall Coal Co., Inc., 1 IBMA 175, 178 (Aug. 22, 1972); see also Newsome Brothers, Inc., 1 IBMA 190, 192-93 (Sept. 29, 1972) (invalidating alleged violation based "solely upon the visual observation of the inspector").
The Commission's judges long have followed the same principle in Mine Act cases. See, e.g., Consolidation Coal Co., 22 FMSHRC 455, 466 (Mar. 2000) (ALJ), rev'd on other grounds, 23 FMSHRC 588 (June 2001). The Secretary also has recognized the principle. Reiterating that observation alone is insufficient to support a violation, she has instructed her inspectors to "[c]ollect samples to substantiate the violation when citing inadequate rock dust." Coal General Inspection Procedures Handbook, 4-12 (Apr. 1, 1969).45
In most instances when the agency collects and analyzes dust samples, its purpose is to determine the incombustible content of the dust as of the moment the samples are collected. After analysis of the samples, if a sufficient percentage of the samples indicates the dust content does not meet required minimum levels, a citation charging a violation of section 75.403 is issued. The alleged violation relates back to the time of sampling.
The citation at issue presents a very different scenario. The agency is not alleging the sample results indicate a violation as of the time the samples were collected. Rather, it is alleging the results indicate a violation that existed almost 2 months before the samples were taken, that is to say, immediately before the roof fell on September 23.46 In other words, the Secretary is asserting that the sample results represent pre-existing conditions. There is nothing wrong with such an assertion, provided the Secretary can prove that conditions relating to the mine dust did not change between the time of the alleged violation and the samples' collection; or, alternatively, provided the Secretary can prove that although conditions changed, the sample results nonetheless are sufficiently representative of results that would have been obtained had the samples been collected at the time of the alleged violation.
In the context of this case, for the sample results to be sufficiently representative, the samples must reflect the particular characteristics they would have had if they had been taken immediately prior to the roof fall. They need not consist of identical amounts of combined moisture, coal dust, rock dust, and other dust that then existed. If that were required, the changing conditions to which all miners are subject would ensure that post-event samples rarely perhaps never could establish a violation. But to carry her burden of proof, the Secretary must be able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that no intervening events fundamentally changed the samples' contents and, thus, that the samples are sufficiently like those that would have been collected at the time the violation allegedly occurred.
The Secretary argues that she has established the reliability of the dust samples and that JWR has failed to show how "changed conditions in the mine would have altered the percentage of incombustible content in the relevant areas overall." S. Br. at 79. She asserts that, "In the absence of evidence demonstrating . . . changes in the mine site would render the dust samples meaningfully dissimilar to the conditions before the explosion, the samples establish a violation" of the cited standard. Id. at 80.
Not surprisingly, JWR counters that the Secretary has failed to furnish the proof necessary to show that the company did not maintain the mine in compliance with section 75.403. JWR Br. II-1. JWR maintains the Secretary has failed to meet her burden because the post-explosion samples have no probative value. Rather than reflect conditions existing immediately prior to the roof fall, they are "samples of a mine environment so radically and materially different from pre- explosion conditions that are legally at issue … [they] lack any legal relevance." Id. at II-14. The company also sets forth a systematic and concerted evaluation of what it claims are manifold inadequacies in the testimony of the Secretary's expert witness on the dust issue, Clete Stephan. Id. at II-38-54.
a. Changed Conditions
The testimony is replete with descriptions of the rock dusting and coal dust reduction program that was in effect at the No. 5 Mine and of its use on the No. 4 and No. 6 Sections. See Tr. 4 at 322-23; Tr. 5 at 210-13, 234-35, 312-13; Tr. 6 at 399; Tr. 12 at 188-92; Tr. 13 at 15, 60; Tr. 15 at 982. While the adequacy of the rock dust applications is at issue, there is really no dispute that most parts of the areas were in fact rock dusted.
In addition to this testimony, the general visual appearance of the areas indicated the presence of varying amounts of rock dust. The descriptions of the areas ranged from "white" (Tr. 3 at 495, 512 miner Joe Phillips describing the roof and ribs of the No. 6 Section on September 21 and 23; Tr. 13 at 27-30 foreman Mike Buchanan describing entries in the No. 4 Section on September 22) to "dark grey" and "black" (Tr. 3 at 339-40 miner Eddie Maxwell describing areas on the No. 4 Section on September 21).
However, following the explosions a visually dramatic change in these conditions was noted by every witness who saw the sampled areas. Whatever had been their look and condition prior to the explosions, everything in the affected areas the ribs, the floor, the roof, and the equipment was covered with a coating of soot and/or coal dust. Fresh coal littered the floors and was exposed on many ribs. No rock dust was visible. The result was that the affected areas, and especially the No. 4 Section, were blacker than night, and without digging into the floor or taking away surface dust from the roof and ribs, rock dust could not be seen.
The testimony describing this change was compelling. Dale Byram, JWR's manager for safety and training who went underground approximately 3 hours after the second explosion, stated that, as the rescue team he was leading proceeded inby, he began to see light grey dust on the track. The closer the team came to the No. 4 Section, the darker in color the mine surfaces became and debris from the explosion became noticeable. Tr. 12 at 395, 397. For example, at the 3 East turnout he saw a significant amount of debris, including a large pod duster that had been blown from one side of the track to the other. Id. at 398-99. As the crew arrived at what would have been the entrance to the No. 6 Section, the debris on the track forced the crew to abandon the manbus and proceed on foot. Id. at 399. Everything from 3 East inby was "solid black." Id.
Approximately 42 days later, after the mine had been flooded and the water had been removed, Byram was able to view all of the No. 4 Section. The changed conditions were even more dramatic than they had been immediately following the explosions. In addition to the "consistent blackness everywhere" and "total destruction" (Tr. 12 at 422), Byram could see that coal had been scoured from the pillars and that metal doors were wrapped around steel pipes "much like you see in a tornado." Id. at 423. A ram car was mangled. Stoppings were blown out. Everything was covered with a sooty layer of black. The only evidence of rock dust was seen when the black layer was broken through and scraped away. Id. at 424.
Terry Eulenstein, a company roof bolter, who participated in the collection of dust samples, also described the No. 4 Section as "black" and a place of "total destruction." Tr. 11 at 277. Eulenstein's testimony was echoed and supplemented by union safety committeeman Ricky Parker, who took part in the post-accident investigation. Parker noted that the roof, ribs, and floor were so black that light from his and others' cap lamps was simply swallowed up and absorbed by the darkness. Fresh coal was everywhere in the area, including coal from sloughed ribs. Tr. 6 at 334-35, 351.47 Parker thought that conditions before and after the explosions were as different as night and day. Id. at 349.
Another union safety committeeman, Eric Barnes, who had been on the No. 4 Section on September 21 and who revisited it on November 1, also thought the section was "totally different." Tr. 2 at 520. Like many others, Barnes noted that equipment was destroyed, ribs were blown away, and particles of coal of all sizes littered the section. Id. at 520-22. Roof bolter David Terry, who was on the No. 4 Section and in the affected areas before and after the explosions, agreed as to the totality of the change, and he stated that hardly "a grain" of rockdust was visible anywhere. Tr. 5 at 78. In fact, conditions on the No. 4 Section were so different, John Puckett, the day shift foreman who was last on the section on September 23, stated if the mine had looked on September 23 as it did following the explosions and flooding, his crew "would have probably called . . . [MSHA] and the [union] safety committee before we got to the section, if I had even tried to make them go." Tr. 4 at 252.
Trent Thrasher, who was the deputy mine manager at the time of the explosions, and who went underground during the course of the investigation, saw that the ribs had sloughed and rolled out into the entries and that coal was scattered everywhere from the intake shaft to the faces. Tr. 12 at 187-88. Gary Toxey, then a member of the union, who was part of the team collecting dust samples, described the rib sloughage on the No. 4 Section, both in the area that had been flooded and in the area inby the toe of the water as "astronomical." Tr. 12 at 683, 705.48 Some of the equipment on the section was buried in 18 to 24 inches of rubble. Tr. 12 at 353-54.
MSHA Inspector Donald Greer, who was underground before and after the explosions, stated that the mine looked like nothing he had seen before. He noted the absence of observable rock dust and the fact that in some places, the ribs had been blown away near their tops so that the entry cross sections were trapezoidal rather than rectangular. Tr. 12 at 599-600.
Given the overwhelming testimony of these eyewitnesses, I find that the conditions in which the samples were collected following the explosions were fundamentally different from those that existed immediately prior to the roof fall. However, this finding does not doom the alleged violation, providing the Secretary can show by a preponderance of the evidence that despite the changed conditions the sample results are sufficiently representative of what they would have been had the samples been collected immediately prior to the roof fall.
b. The Representative Nature of the Samples
After a thorough review of the record, I conclude that the Secretary has not made such a showing. In fact, she has not even come close. Rather, the record establishes beyond doubt that forces unleashed by the explosions, water that was pumped into and out of the mine, and the sloughing of the Blue Creek Seam changed the content of the dust that was sampled so that the collected mix of rock dust, coal dust, and other dust was different after the explosions than it was immediately before the roof fell. The record also confirms that the Secretary failed to show, as was her burden, that despite these changes the results were fundamentally the same as they would have been if the samples had been collected prior to the roof fall. Indeed, as will be discussed, the testimony and exhibits offered by the Secretary fail to provide a basis for answering with a requisite degree of certainty many critical questions regarding the effect of the events on the samples, and the resulting inconclusive nature of the Secretary's case defeats her efforts to prove the violation.
To understand what happened to the rock and coal dust included in the samples, it is necessary to review what is known about the effects of the events that occurred during and following the explosions. First, it is indisputable that existing rock dust on the No. 4 Section and elsewhere in the sampled areas was moved by the explosions' forces and by the flow of water when the mine was flooded. In addition, it is indisputable that draining the water from the mine also moved and removed rock dust from the formerly flooded and sampled areas.
Second, it is indisputable that forces from the explosions, the flooding of the mine after the explosions, and the sloughing of the coal ribs after the explosions moved existing coal dust and added new coal dust to the sampled areas. It is equally indisputable that draining the water moved and removed coal dust from the formerly flooded and sampled areas.
Clete Stephan was the Secretary's primary witness regarding the samples. Stephan was instrumental in the agency's decision to cite JWR for the violation of section 75.403 based on the post-accident samples. See Tr. 7 at 223-24. With regard to rock dust, Stephan agreed that the shaking of the ribs that accompanied the explosions would have redistributed "some" rock dust located on the surface of the ribs. Tr. 10 at 293-95. Further, he agreed that during the first explosion, rock dust on the section was lifted and moved, but he maintained that because the forces generated by the first explosion were "small," "very little" of the rock dust was moved off of the No. 4 Section. Tr. 11 at 158-59, 161-62. He also believed that although forces of the second explosion lifted more rock dust, "the dust lifted in the vicinity of the face [was] left within about two hundred feet of where it was initially picked up." Id. at 162.
However, Stephan's opinions are suspect. Given the totality of the testimony, it is equally plausible that forces from the explosions put much rock dust in the sampled areas into suspension and that this dust traveled out of the sampled areas, in some instances far out of them. I note that miners outby the No. 4 Section following the first explosion invariably commented about dust that soon appeared around them. Benny Franklin, the longwall production supervisor, testified that the dust in the air was so thick he had to find a second phone from which to call out of the mine. As Franklin remembered, visibility was extremely restricted, and it was hazardous to stand in the dust at the first phone. Tr. 3 at 55. In fact, the dust was so thick in the air that those working on the longwall thought miners inby were rockdusting and that the rock dust was traveling outby over them. See, e.g., Tr. 3 at 39, 50. Other miners who were outby the No. 4 Section following the first explosion agreed that, as they got closer to the section, the dust in the air increased. See, e.g., Tr. 2 at 290-91, 311.
Nor was transportation of the rock dust limited to underground areas. Rock dust was blown completely out of the mine. Section foreman Mike Buchanan described the surface area around the top of the 5-9 Shaft on the day after the explosions as having "rockdust all over the ground where it blew out." Tr. 13 at 42-43. Chuck Stewart confirmed this and added that some thought it looked as though it had snowed. Tr. 15 at 966-67. According to Buchanan, the rock dust was 1/8- to 1/4-inch deep around the top of the shaft, and 1/8-inch deep to a minimal amount up to 1,000 feet away from the shaft. Tr. 13 at 43-44. There is no testimony disputing Buchanan's and Stewart's descriptions of the rock dust, and Martin Hertzberg, an expert witness who appeared on behalf of the company, persuasively testified that the rock dust around the 5-9 Shaft was evidence of how the explosions' forces could transport dust great distances. Tr. 15 at 863.
I conclude that the eyewitness testimony of those both underground and above as to the presence of rock dust that appeared soon after the explosions undermined Stephan's opinion that "very little" dust was moved off the No. 4 Section by the explosions. The rock dust came from somewhere. The record confirms that rock dust in the sampled areas was picked up by the explosions' forces, yet one searches the record in vain for scientifically reliable evidence establishing how much rock dust was picked up and the distance it was moved. Indeed, Stephan admitted that MSHA did not calculate the explosions' forces (Tr. 11 at 100), a calculation that would seem to have been critical to any scientific determination of the distance that dust rock and/or coal dust was transported. The fact that it is impossible to determine the amount of rock dust that was put into suspension and the extent that it was moved is one of the unresolved issues that undermines the Secretary's case.
The same is true of coal dust. Trent Thrasher believed forces from the explosion blew coal dust out of the areas sampled. See Tr. 3 at 39, 50.49 Stephan agreed that as a mine's atmosphere expands during an explosion, dust (including coal dust) is picked up off the mine floor, knocked off the surfaces of the mine's roof and ribs, and put into suspension. Tr. 11 at 95. Once coal dust is placed in suspension it was moved by the atmosphere. Martin Hertzberg logically explained, "the distance that the dust gets thrown . . . depends on how big the explosion is." Tr. 15 at 438. "[C]oal dust . . . can get transported hundreds of feet to thousands of feet, depending upon the dimensions of the explosion." Id. at 439; see also JWR Exs. 253, 254 (pictorial and video depiction of coal dust propelled by explosion).
Stephan did not disagree that dust was in fact raised by the first explosion and that the amount of dust suspended and transported outby by the first explosion depended on the magnitude of the forces created by the explosion. He also did not disagree that MSHA made no calculations regarding these forces. Tr. 11 at 81-84. He testified that to some extent dust located inby the end of the track before each explosion was propelled outby by each explosion. Id. at 87. He agreed during his deposition that the liberation of coal and coal dust from the ribs "would contaminate the area with respect to conditions that existed before the roof fall." Tr. 10 at 219. He added that, to some extent perhaps to a great extent dust samples "that included . . . dust that's liberated from the ribs by the first explosion . . . would not be representative of pre-roof fall conditions." Id. He further agreed that there was no way to know after the explosion how much the liberated dust affected the samples. Id. at 219-20.
In addition, Stephan acknowledged that the second explosion transported dust a far greater distance than the first explosion (Tr. 11 at 8, 78), and that the dust would have been transported outby in all four entries of the No. 4 Section. Id. at 78. He testified that some dust transported in the second explosion also had been transported in the first explosion, and because the forces from the second explosion were greater, dust not moved by the first explosion was in fact moved by the second. Id. at 81-82. Stephan acknowledged that MSHA made no calculations as to how much dust was transported by either of the explosions. Id. at 83. However, he was of the opinion that some dust inby the end of the track on the No. 4 Section was pushed or propelled outby the end of the track after the second explosion. Id. at 87. The fact that it is impossible to determine from the record the amount of coal dust that was put into suspension and the distance it was moved is yet another unresolved issue that undermines the Secretary's case.
In addition to being unable to determine how much rock and coal dust was put into suspension by the explosions and how far it was moved, the government was unable to establish to a reasonable degree of certainty how the dust settled after the explosions. Stephan even conceded the dust could have been in compliance before the first explosion and settled in such a way that it was explosive. Tr. 11 at 7-8.
To this must be added the fact that the explosive forces in and of themselves resulted in the liberation of coal dust that was not present before the roof fall. Witnesses for both the company and the Secretary agreed that equipment and other objects were hurled by the explosions' forces into the ribs and that the impacts fractured the ribs and freed coal dust. See, e.g., Tr. 8 at 262-65 (Jim Langley); Tr. 10 at 214-17 (Stephan); Tr. 14 at 603 (Jack Tisdale);50 see also Tr. 11 at 260-61. As MSHA Inspector Jim Langley aptly noted, the friable nature of the Blue Creek Seam virtually ensured coal dust would be liberated. Tr. 8 at 262, 268.
In addition, the nature of the Blue Creek Seam meant that coal dust was continually added to the sampled areas between the last explosion and the dates the samples were collected. Almost every witness who traveled underground commented upon the presence of post-explosion sloughage in the sampled areas. See, e.g., Tr. 15 at 913-20 (testimony of Chuck Stewart regarding No. 4 Section); Tr. 12 at 683, 705 (testimony of Gary Toxey regarding No. 4 Section); Tr. 9 at 57-58 (testimony of Kenneth Murray regarding No. 4 Section); Tr. 8 at 271-72 (Langley); Tr. 12 at 524-26 (Mabe). True, there was disagreement as to the amount of sloughage. As has been previously noted, Toxey's description of the sloughage as "astronomical" (Tr. 12 at 683) was at odds with Kenneth Murray's description of the No. 4 Section as exhibiting a "bit" of sloughage. Tr. 9 at 57-58. However, under either scenario, it is clear that post-explosion sloughage was present in the affected area.
It is also clear that the post-explosion sloughage produced "sampleable" coal dust. Murray, the MSHA field office supervisor who co-authored the part of the MSHA accident report dealing with dust, thought that most of the dust produced by the sloughage was too large to pass through a 20 mesh sieve and, therefore, was too large to be included as part of the samples. Tr. 9 at 59. Stephan echoed Murray's opinion and stated that sloughage occurring after the second explosion would not have affected samples because coal usually sloughs in blocks or clumps and not particle sizes that pass through a 20 mesh screen. Id. at 538-39.51
However, I reject Murray's and Stephan's opinions and find for a fact that sloughage occurring after the second explosion liberated coal dust that was included in the samples. Miner Ricky Parker, who was chairman of the union safety committee at the time of the explosions, and who, unlike Murray and Stephan, had experience working with the Blue Creek Seam, described the coal as so soft, it could be dislodged from the ribs with one's fingers and turned to dust by squeezing. Tr. 6 at 338-39. Even more persuasive was a video offered into evidence by JWR depicting the pulling of ribs at the No. 5 Mine and the collection of resulting dust that was sifted through a 20 mesh screen. JWR Ex. 217. As the supporting testimony of JWR engineer James Jones established and as the video clearly shows, sloughage produces coal dust of a size that can be sampled. Tr. 12 at 778-91. It is logical to conclude that at least some of such dust was included in the samples that were collected following the explosions.
It is apparent that MSHA had no idea how much coal dust was produced by the sloughage and how much was included in the samples. Stephan agreed that the amount of sloughage between the second explosion and the taking of the samples was "important, relevant and unknown" (Tr. 10 at 212-13), and he conceded in his deposition that, "[t]he liberation of coal and coal dust from the ribs would contaminate the area with respect to conditions that existed before the roof fall." Id. at 219. He also agreed there was no way to know how much the liberated dust affected the samples. Id. at 219-20.
From this review of the record, I conclude that measurable coal dust was liberated in the sampled areas during and after the explosions, that some of the dust was included in the samples, and that the Secretary does not know and cannot establish to a requisite degree of certainty how much this dust affected the sample results. It is another unresolved issue.
The effect of flooding and draining on the samples taken in the formerly flooded area also is unknown. Murray agreed the water coursing in and out of the mine would have moved and rearranged the coal dust and rock dust particles and removed them from areas where they previously existed. Tr. 9 at 180-81. Therefore, coal dust conditions in the flooded areas would have been "different" from those that existed prior to the explosions. Id. at 181. Murray could not say whether the difference was "large," "small," or "otherwise." Id. at 183-84. Kevin Stricklin, a member of MSHA's investigation team, testified that rock dust and coal dust were pumped out of the mine along with the water. Stricklin did not know if rock dust and coal dust amounts were the same after the water was gone. Tr. 7 at 271, 278-79. Nor did he know if flooding and draining the mine "changed the mine conditions by changing the dust composition of the area." Tr. 7 at 277-79.
Stephan agreed there was no evidence as to the content of the water that was pumped from the mine. Tr. 11 at 91-92. However, he maintained that the flooding actually was beneficial to JWR because moisture was added to the incombustible content (Tr. 11 at 153-56) and because the rock dust, being heavier than the coal dust, was more likely to settle out and remain when the water was drained. Tr. 9 at 560.52 But Stephan's opinions in this regard were not based on any measurements or simulations, on-site or off. As Stephan himself testified, none of the accident investigations in which he participated involved mines that had been flooded following explosions. Tr. 10 at 28-29. To put the matter plainly, MSHA simply did not know and could not tell the extent to which pre-accident dust conditions were altered by the flooding process. True, the Secretary offered guesses, but I cannot find that the samples taken outby the toe of the water are sufficiently representative based on guesses. Thus, the effect of the flooding on the composition of the dust is something that cannot be determined with any requisite degree of certainly. It is another unresolved issue.
There are two final points regarding the samples that must be made. Stephan, and thus MSHA, relied in part on two "scientific" principles to confirm the existence of the alleged violation. First, Stephan believed that because some coal and coal dust was burned away by the heat of the second explosion, the incombustible content of the dust sampled in the area affected by the flame of the explosion actually was higher than its pre-explosion content. Therefore, the samples taken within the zone of the flame were even further out of compliance than the results indicated. See Tr. 11 at 165.
While this theory might have offered some inferential support for the existence of the violation if it was established as scientifically credible, it was not. The record reveals that Stephan and other MSHA officials felt that further research was needed to verify the principal and that Stephan asked for and received the assistance of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH"). See Tr. 10 at 96. As JWR points out, and as Stephan himself recognized, NIOSH experiments on the issue were not conducted under conditions equivalent to those involving the explosions at the No. 5 Mine. Lacking other scientific support the principal remains, on the basis of this record, an unsubstantiated theory, one that can have no effect on my conclusion regarding the existence of the violation. See JWR Br. at II-49-50.53
Second, Stephan explained that all of the samples were subjected to alcohol coke tests. If the tests revealed the presence of large to extra large amounts of coke, Stephan believed that it was an indication the incombustible content of the samples was less than 50% and therefore indicative of non-compliance. See Tr. 10 at 79, 81; see also Tr. 9 at 275. Stephan felt the alcohol coke test results were "very critical . . . for making decisions about where the incombustible content was prior to an explosion." Tr. 10 at 79-80.
However, Stephan also testified that prior to coming to a final conclusion regarding the significance of coke in the samples, he felt that consultation with NIOSH was required. As a result, Kenneth Cashdollar of NIOSH, collaborated with Stephan and others at MSHA on the significance of post-explosion coke. Tr. 10 at 97.
As part of this collaboration the sample results were reviewed, and it was noted that some samples showing large amounts of coke had incombustible contents above 50%, even above 65%.54 These results surprised Cashdollar, who felt that more testing was needed. Tr. 8 at 358-62, 385-86.
When Stephan was asked about these "anomalous" results, he conceded that "under some conditions," coking can occur when the sampled dust has an incombustible content of more than 50% (Tr. 10 at 107), but he maintained that only a few tests showed these results, whereas "the knowledge that [MSHA had] . . . [came] from thousands of experimental tests." Tr. 10 at 107-08. When questioned further, Stephan admitted, he had no knowledge of the thousands of experimental tests. Id. at 185-87.
On the basis of the record, I find the Secretary's theory regarding the presence of coke in the samples is unsubstantiated and it will not influence my conclusion regarding the existence of the violation. See JWR Br. at II-49-50.55
Accordingly, I conclude that the Secretary has failed to prove: (1) that conditions relating to the incombustible content of the mine dust did not change between the time immediately prior to the roof fall and the samples' collection; and (2) that the sample results are sufficiently representative of results that would have been obtained at the time of the alleged violation. Therefore, I find that the Secretary has failed to establish the alleged violation.
In reaching these conclusions I am not ruling on likely causes of the explosions or on culpability for them. I am simply ruling on the issue before me whether the Secretary has proved the alleged violation of section 75.403 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Rob September 17, 2010
Before you proceed with dissecting hairs, keep in mind 29 miners were slain in a blast that reportedly extended >12,000 ft. That alone should tell you it wasn't "well rockdusted", regardless of the methane-air mixture at the point of ignition. And Joe, don't be too hard on the Coal Tattoo, they're justing passing on information received. It's not unusual to read negative reports given the circumstance.
By the way, the ruling I quoted from above is from a Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Administrative Law Judge — MSHA did not appeal the adverse ruling, so the Commission decision I linked to previously doesn't address this specifically. Ken.
Minerman too September 17, 2010
Try to find someone who will confirm this was entirely caused by an ignition of only methane. Methane ignitions happen in many mines, and do not kill 29 miners – many miles away from the ignition source
Danny W. September 17, 2010
Since this is written communication, not oral, the tort would be libel, not slander. At a minimum, libel would involve publishing statements which the publisher knew for certain to be false. As I see it, there are three statements presented as true in this story: 1) MSHA presented the quoted sample data to the survivors. 2) The brief definition of "rock-dusting." 3) MSHA told the families that Massey is challenging the right of federal investigators to sit in on witness interviews. And for the first and third of these, the Gazette is reporting what MSHA said, so the story is true even if the data are false, as long as the story accurately reports the MSHA statements. So we're left with a newspaper publishing statements made by a government agency. Are you guilty of slander if you stupidly accuse someone of slander? No. That's free speech, and I am glad we have that in America.
Monty September 17, 2010
Having been on the receiving end of corporate wrath many, many times, I tend to gauge the validity of a statement by the swiftness and shrillness of a corporation's reaction to same. Massey wasted no time in trotting out some heavyweight assertions in this case that, if you will notice, do not directly answer the issues raised. Which leads me to suspect that MSHA hit at least a nice, solid line drive with this one.
You might be better off judging the validity of a statement by reading that ruling in the Jim Walter case, and then asking the question: What has MSHA done since then to improve their rock-dust sampling procedures? That's really the key question there at this point.
Thomas Rodd September 17, 2010
Ken, is there any way you can link to the briefs of MSHA and the company that led to the ALJ's decision that you quoted at length?
Here's an example from another recent Coal Tattoo story of why these sort of decisions should not be given conclusive weight by people interested in forming their own opinions:
If you were to read the decision of the State Bar panel that "gave the benefit of the doubt" to the lawyer who took the doctor's opinion out of the miner's black lung exam report (I did), you might wonder "what's the problem?"
However, if you read the briefs of both sides in the Supreme Court case, you will see why the panel's decision just ignored a lot of important evidence.
The point is that just because a judge ruled one way, and presented all of the evidence that supports the ruling in a favorable way, does not mean there are not strong arguments that go the other way, too.
Balanced understanding can perhaps come best by looking at both side's arguments, if possible, and the judge's opinion — and making your own evaluation.
I appreciate the suggestion.
But I'm not sure you have an understanding of how some of the agencies and courts involved handle these things … The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission puts on its Web sites only final decisions of ALJ's and of the Commission … They don't post briefs or transcripts or exhibits online.
And, obtaining those from them for a case like this — which no doubt has a very significant record with thousands of pages of documents — is not as simple as a quick phone call and they email you the documents.
I don't personally have the briefs or any other records except the two decisions I posted … I've tried to get some additional materials today, but it being a Friday afternoon, that's a tough thing to do.
And, while also blogging and commenting here, I have a print story to write and some other work to complete. So I only have so much time to spend today trying to get those records and post them. Won't be getting to that today ….
I agree with your analysis of how helpful it is to post such materials, but I hope you'll understand that it's not as easy as you make it sound.
rhmooney3 September 17, 2010
It's the final rulings that matters — unsuccessful agruments or ignored evidences do not.
It's like reviewing the moves in chess matches — the outcomees remains the same.
Doing such armchair-quarterbacking can be entertaining or even enlightening but it is useless otherwise.
Of course, when final rulings overturn or reverse prior rulings the basis for those successes are useful in future legal matches.
Right or wrong, the final decisions by judges (and other game referees) are what matters.
It is also like contesting how Ken Ward Jr. writes a story — only the editor's opinion matters on how it is finally done.
rhmooney3,
You're wrong on both counts …
It is certainly important for the public to see, read, understand and learn about both sides in a case like this, and to be able to read those arguments for themselves — otherwise, they can't understand if the ruling was based on strong legal and factual arguments. The public ought to be able to make such decisions, as part of determining if its system of government is working properly.
Governing otherwise amounts to government in secret, which serves no one.
Also, this blog's comment section is proof of how everyone's view of how I write and article matters … everyone gets their say, and readers can decide if I did a good or a bad job … We might all learn something together.
Those are nice thoughts but everything touched by humans has some filtering and biasing, especially so when government is involved. (Much done by prior adiministrations disappears when the next one comes along.)
Insofar as the comments on this blog, those are filtered.
By the way, just because something is learned doesn't mean it gets used. If that weren't so, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster and many others yet to come wouldn't happen.
Your last statement is certainly true … no question about it. Anyone who reads the history of the coal industry knows that much that should and could have been learned from past disasters isn't.
But I'm not sure what your getting at with your first paragraph.
And yes, the comments on this blog get "filtered" but only to stop people from calling each other names, yelling and screaming and generally just attacking folks they disagree with in a nasty, hostile way.
There is plenty of disagreement with how I write stories, and I certainly believe very strongly that I've learned a lot from Coal Tattoo readers over this last year and a half.
One journalism blog recently held up Coal Tattoo as an example of how journalists and their readers can interact in a healthy way that educates us all:
http://changingnewsroom.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/example-of-how-engaging-with-readers-in-comments-pays-off/
I happen to think that how a corporation responds to a regulatory body's assertion is one valid way to measure the validity, or truth, if you will, of the regulatory body's assertion.
What sometimes gets lost in the midst of all this frantic spin control by Massey and MSHA is that 29 men died at Upper Big Branch – and that five months later, we still don't know how, or why, and whether another mine has similar conditions and/or practices that make it ripe for another tragedy.
You must know that you have no bigger supporter than me.
http://groups.google.com/group/bob-mooney/web/ken-ward-jr
I provide you a lot, both on and off this blog because of your tremendous efforts and results.
You are a must-read for everyone involved or interested in the coal industry.
All of us must guard against being too rightful and staying open to thinking and doing differently.
Lastly, I have no qualms about your filtering even though I have been subject to it probably more so than most.
Yes…but Massey Energy has lost hundreds of millions and is fighting to not contiinue losing more. And MSHA is trying to be regulator instead of being industry lapdog.
That meaningful changes result would be the greatest tribute to the fallen miners.
I recall Gov. Manchin saying that would happen soon.


Black hudson beanie - Hudson beanie black by Barts.
Black Barts beanie with reverse.
Simple black oversize beanie with Barts logo and gatherings on the back. Can also be worn "docker style".
By buying this product you can collect up to 1500 loyalty points. Your cart will total 1500 points that can be converted into a voucher of 1,50€.


text:
The Șaroș gas field is a natural gas field located in Dumbrăveni, Sibiu County. It was discovered in 1915 and developed by and Romgaz. It began production in 1930 and produces natural gas and condensates. The total proven reserves of the Şaroş gas field are around 2.84 trillion cubic feet (80 km³), and production is slated to be around 70 million cubic feet/day (2×105m³) in 2010.

References

Natural gas fields in Romania


6 5 diesel 1995 wiring schematic Philadelphia business wire aramark nyse liquidation and acquisition 5.6 million for both the second quarter and year to date 2018 the impact of the change in fair value related to certain At the top of the heap is the next generation 5.0l coyote v 8 featuring the dearborn automakers first large scale commercial application of a spray in cylinder liner. The process plasma transferred In the comment section of my last article there was some great discussion about drawing schematic symbols. It is important you make your schematic symbols understandable sure every wire goes to.
6 5 diesel 1995 wiring schematic Before beginning we would like to remind you that statements made during this conference call may be considered forward looking statements within the meaning of the private securities litigation Philadelphia business wire aramark nyse armk today reported fourth quarter and full year fiscal 2017 results that were favorable under our casualty insurance program 6.5 million gain for In fact i had to get the crossover schematic from crosson because i couldnt figure out how to disassemble the speaker. The driver array and bass loading of the tt1 are conventional. None of.
6 5 diesel 1995 wiring schematic Thomasville n.c. Business wire old day increased 7.5 as compared to february 2018 due primarily to an increase in ltl revenue per hundredweight. For the quarter to date period ltl revenue First choose the bsfc that corresponds with your engine type use 0.5 for naturally aspirated engines. Use 0.6 for to wire these suckers yourself. The base kit starts at 995 and adding fuel Ford has no trouble muscling its way onto this years list with a 526 hp naturally aspirated 5.2l bruiser of a v 8 in the new shelby gt350 mustang. With its heralded flat plane crankshaft and.
Metal or carbon powders or porous carbon papers provided the electronic pathways and to further reduce the asr of the electrode a metallic wire mesh or screen was westinghouse tubular design 39.
It's possible to get or download caterpillar-wiring diagram from several websites. If you take a close look at the diagram you will observe the circuit includes the battery, relay, temperature sensor, wire, and a control, normally the engine control module. With an extensive collection of electronic symbols and components, it's been used among the most completed, easy and useful wiring diagram drawing program. 6 5 Diesel 1995 Wiring Schematic. The wiring diagram on the opposite hand is particularly beneficial to an outside electrician. Sometimes wiring diagram may also refer to the architectural wiring program. The simplest approach to read a home wiring diagram is to begin at the source, or the major power supply. Basically, the home wiring diagram is simply utilized to reveal the DIYer where the wires are.
In a parallel circuit, each unit is directly linked to the power supply, so each system gets the exact voltage. There are 3 basic sorts of standard light switches. The circuit needs to be checked with a volt tester whatsoever points. 6 5 Diesel 1995 Wiring Schematic. Each circuit displays a distinctive voltage condition. You are able to easily step up the voltage to the necessary level utilizing an inexpensive buck-boost transformer and steer clear of such issues. The voltage is the sum of electrical power produced by the battery. Be sure that the new fuse isn't blown, and carries the very same amperage.
The control box may have over three terminals. After you have the correct size box and have fed the cable to it, you're almost prepared to permit the wiring begin. Then there's also a fuse box that's for the body controls that is situated under the dash. 6 5 Diesel 1995 Wiring Schematic. You will find that every circuit has to have a load and every load has to have a power side and a ground side. Make certain that the transformer nameplate power is enough to supply the load that you're connecting.
6 5 performance diesel engine 6.5 diesel injection pump timing gm 6 5 diesel performance parts 6.5 diesel fuel line diagram chevy 6 5 diesel parts 6.5 diesel short block new 6.5 diesel engine 6.5 diesel head studs.