I don't entend to get into the controversy over definitions, but have
two observations:
1. Driving a school class on a visit to a gravel pit a week ago, I
noted
that they were actually quarrying. I saw my first cone crusher, and
was most impressed (I had only seen jaw crushers, ball mills etc.
previously). The V.I.P. guiding the tour definitely considered their
quarry as part of "mining", and he was working closely with the
mines association, because everyone is now having the same
problem getting permits, etc.
2. In my own short experience with construction mining, I was
shocked to find that we were required to ride on a skip with
explosives, because in the mines it was forbidden to carry men
and materials on the same skip. When I commented on this,
the superintendent notified me smugly that this project did not
come under the mines act. Of course, I already knew that
companies are not in the business of providing safe working
conditions, and will consider safety only when they are forced
to do so by law or economic sanctions.
I am not getting on any band wagon when I say this,
I am just stating the reality of the situation. It is only natural
that companies will attempt to get legislation that will be
favourable to their enterprise and any definitions in the
legislation will reflect this.
When, by the way, I commented in the gravel quarry
that the driller was drilling dry, I was told that this was a
matter for the driller, that water was available, but was
generally only used for callaring. Since this was a limestone
quarry, silicosis wasn't a problem. Perhaps some of you here
can tell me whether or not limestone has respiratory hazards.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|