U.S. coal mining deaths: 1990-2008

Here are the number of coal mining deaths in the United States, from 1990 through 2008, and the fatality rate (deaths per 200,000 work hours).

1980: 133 deaths, .06 per 200,000 hours.

1990: 66 deaths, .04 per 200,000 hours.
1991: 61 deaths, .04.
1992: 55 deaths, .04.
1993: 47 deaths, .04.
1994: 45 deaths, .04.
1995: 47 deaths, .04.
1996: 39 deaths, .03.
1997: 30 deaths, .03.
1998: 29 deaths, .03.
1999: 35 deaths, .03.
2000: 38 deaths, .04.
2001: 42 deaths, .040.
2002: 27 deaths, .028.
2003: 30 deaths, .031.
2004: 28 deaths, .027.
2005: 23 deaths, .021.
2006: 47 deaths, .040.
2007: 33 deaths, .029.
2008: 29 deaths.

For some comparison, check out China’s coal-mining death toll over the last several years:

2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: More than 3,200.

Data on Chinese coal miners’ deaths per 200,000 hours of work aren’t available, but statistics on deaths per 1 million tons of coal indicate China’s miners are dying at a rate about 37 times America’s fatality rate. China’s fatality rate has declined since 2003, but it remains high.

In 2007: China: 1.485 deaths per 1 million tons of coal. U.S.: 0.04 deaths per 1 million tons of coal.

Frank Warner

* * *

A few other statistics:

Average annual U.S. mining deaths (not only coal), in five-year periods:

1936-1940 ... 1,546

1941-1945 ... 1,592

1946-1950 ... 1,054

1951-1955 ... 690

1956-1960 ... 550

1961-1965 ... 449

1966-1970 ... 426

1971-1975 ... 322

1976-1980 ... 254

1981-1985 ... 174

1986-1990 ... 122

1991-1999 ... 93

2000-2004 ... 67

2005-2008 ... 61 (four-year average)

Comments

[Nicholas]

This is one reason I point out that nuclear power is safer than coal power. Not much uranium is required and far less people die mining it. Not to mention the deaths associated with the pollution from coal plants, while almost nobody has died from pollution from nuclear plants, even if we include the incompetent idiots in Russia who managed to kill about 30 firefighters.

[Frank Warner]

I think a few more died (56?), and maybe 4,000 more were expected to die of cancer from the released radioactivity. But Chernobyl's design was uniquely dangerous.

Nuclear plant safety still can be improved, and certainly our U.S. officials finally have to pick a site for the spent fuel rods. (It'll be in Nevada, but everyone seems to delay the obvious choice.)

By the way, Australia has an even better coal-mine safety record than the United States. I don't know if it's because Australia does more surface mining than the U.S. does, but it's worth noting.

[Nicholas]

I think a lot less people actually ended up dying than predicted.

A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

And this was, as far as I know, by far the worst nuclear accident ever.

Yes, nuclear safety has been improved, and probably could be improved further. The need to store used fuel rods would drop dramatically if reprocessing in the US resumed. (I heard recently it was going to! That's exciting news.) It was stopped by Carter due to fears over nuclear proliferation, but come on, if the US can't guard plutonium from reprocessed nuclear fuel properly (which is not ideal for making weapons), how can you expect to guard all your weapons grade plutonium from all those decomissioned cold-war weapons?

I believe the material removed from weapons can be mixed in with regular fuel too. Better than just storing it somewhere.

Not sure why we might have a better record. I think our deposits are in particularly convenient locations close to the surface, but I'm not 100% sure. We do use a lot of coal because it's so convenient.

[Nicholas]

Actually, I guess you're right. They're saying they only have about 50 cases which are KNOWN to be related to the accident, but predict about 4000 occuring anyway.

That's less than die in China each year from coal mining.

Interestingly, the report says that the psychological damage to people has been profoundly worse than the physical damage. Another reason that we shouldn't get hysterical over radioactive substances and nuclear power. The hyteria, it seems, is worse than the danger itself.

I view nuclear power as just another scientific discipline. There are plenty which can have adverse impacts on our lives. People die from motor vehicles, electrocution, drug poisoning, plane crashes, pollution, etc. Yet we continue to drive, use electricity, take medicine, fly, live in cities etc.

Why are those other, provably greater risks "acceptable" while nuclear power is not?

I guess I'm more logical than most people. Unfortunately. Or maybe fortunately? I don't know...

[jj mollo]

The 4000 estimate is so-called "excess deaths" which are not diagnostically separable from early cancer deaths due to background radiation, etc. I believe, however, that this is really a gross underestimate of deaths attributable to the accident. The original estimate was made assuming the background death rate remained constant. The loss of the facility itself has probably caused more deaths than the radiation. Think about the stressful impacts in the lives of the hundreds of thousands displaced, the loss of employment opportunities, the reduction in farm productivity, the increase in pollution from replacement sources of energy.

Think about the overall increase in pollution worldwide caused by the global panic reaction. That difference translates into a lot of asthma attacks. A lot of those mining deaths could be reasonably blamed on Chernobyl. Only France shrugged it off and kept their nuclear power program going. Even they probably ended up spending a lot more money than they needed to because of Chernobyl.

This accident was a result of typical Soviet incompetence. Design, implementation and remediation were all typically Soviet. You can be certain that there was gross mismanagement of resources, inferior construction, and hidden problems of all sorts that will come back to haunt us later. Meanwhile, you have to remember that mismanagement of resources in itself is a deadly affair. People die early for lack of, or inadequate, education, nutrition, healthcare, employment. Everything the Soviets did, the successor nations are paying for now. The Soviet government left a legacy of despair: alcoholism, tuberculosis, despoiling of land, rust and humiliation. Chernobyl was just the tip of the iceberg.

[Nicholas]

If you want to blame the Soviets for causing lots of problems, I won't argue with you. The question is - was Chernobyl a fault of nuclear power, or a fault of the Soviet incompetence? I'm arguing the latter. I suspect you are too.

It's not that a nuclear accident in Japan, France or the USA is impossible. In fact, they have happened. There was Three Mile Island (multiple safety systems failed, core melted, nobody died) and a few people have died in Japan due to mismanagement of radioactive material. But so far, no mass casualties, and as long as the programs are run with as good or better safety compared to what all three have now, chances are it will never happen (well, maybe once every few hundred years if we all go nuts with nuclear power, but it's not much of a risk compared to the benefits of doing so). Especially with newer, safer designs which have already been tested.

I don't think one accident should ruin an industry, especially one with so much promise. Should we have abandoned air transit after the first major plane crash? Life involves taking calculated risks. I wish people weren't so rotten at those calculations, and so ignorant of the science.

Basically my point is, it's obvious to anyone who investigates that coal power kills thousands and thousands of people. There's even evidence that people living near the coal plants are at much greater risk of dieing due to those plants (not massively significant, but when you work out the "excess deaths" on a large scale, so many people near so many plants, they're quite frightening). Yet nobody freaks out, like they do over Cheronbyl. Why?

[George]

The Soviet nuclear power plant had
no containment building -- something
that is not allowed in the USA.
Negligence? Incompetence? Arrogance?
The Soviet nuclear power industry
can be described in many ways.

[Frank Warner]

And even after the Chernobyl accident, Fidel Castro demanded that Russia finish building a Chernobyl-design nuclear reactor in Cuba.

It was never completed.

[traveller]

What are your reference of China's coal mine fatality rate between 2000 and 2004?

According to China Coal Industrial Statistics Yearbook 2001, the 2000 death toll of China's coal mining industry is 5,798. Your number is close, but not accurate enough.

[Joshua Glover]

I'm an underground coal miner and i agree that presently, coal mining has some improvements to make. But did you ever stop to think that although it's dangerous, coal miners actually like what they do? Given the oppurtunity to speak, just about everyone of us will tell u that we don't want to work n e where else. Seriously, u guys like to drive dont you? How would u like a bunch of people banding together trying to put you on foot? The only difference is, the average miner makes about $1500 a week, AFTER taxes and we all pay out the ass to drive, SO. Oh, and don't worry about the earth so much. I's been here for about the last 4.5 BILLION years. Society in general has only been industrialized for about the last 100 years. Think about it. Oh, and if your interested in the energy of the future, look up COAL GASIFACATION. Thats about as logical, cost effective, and economically friendly as your gonna get.

[justine nadherny]

Coal miners like to produce CO2 and like to contribute to the 10,000 americans that die from air pollution related diseases? If you dont want to think about the earth, lets start thinking about the people it effects. Seriously, do some research on how many people die mining, how many children cased asthma attacks we can prevent and lets take some PRO ACTION here!!

[Dave Calvert]

i,m a coalminer and i love it coal is always going to fuel electric and thats just a fact of life GOD BLESS MY FELLOW COALMINERSTHOSE WHO COME AND GONE AMEN