Public Administrationpsychology Essay Example

demonstrated a genuine passion for his job and a sincere concern for the well-being of the miners.

Scandal, for various reasons, saw the Centralia No. 5 mine as the worst in the district, providing a unique perspective and insight compared to other inspectors. This recognition spurred him to take action and he was persistent in his efforts to draw attention to the problematic areas in the mine. Through numerous letters, he carefully outlined issues, potential recommendations, and concerns he had about the mine's condition. These concerns included:

The amount of dust (2) and the overall cleanliness of the mine were addressed by Scandal over a period of thirteen years. Scandal made efforts and attempts to potentially prevent the disaster that occurred in the Centralia No. 5 Mine. They reached out to various entities such as the Department of Mines, Minerals at Springfield company, directors of various departments, Governor Green, presidents in numerous agencies, and superintendents. They also attended meetings and took other actions that could have benefited the miners and improved the overall condition of the mine.

After noticing the lack of effort to assist the miners or the mine, Scandal had several alternative actions that he could have taken. These included personally dusting the mine and sprinkling the roads, as well as threatening to close down or actually closing the mine. While these options were available, they would have required a significant amount of time and effort. Despite this, Scandal did everything within his power to prevent the mine disaster. It is worth noting that according to regulations, a mine inspector had the authority to shut down a mine.

Scandal notified the miners about

the risks they may face and also provided some compliments while sharing his discoveries with the relevant authorities. If necessary, Scandal could have decided to shut down the mine or sought assistance from a higher-ranking inspector or supervisor. Responsibility, as mentioned in an article called "Can Government Regulate Safety? The Coal Mine Example," has been taken up by the Federal government for more than 35 years. The government has been actively involved in coal mining safety through the implementation of three main pieces of legislation passed in 1941, 1952, and 1969.

According to Lewis-Beck and Alfred (1), the fatality rate in coal mining was significantly reduced by the 1941 and 1969 regulations. In an article titled "The Needless Peril of the Coal Mine: The Bureau of Mines and the Campaign against Coal Mine Explosions, 1910-1940," Mark Aldrich, a professor of economics at Smith College, stated that the bureau carried on safety investigations that were originated by the SIS'S, with a main focus on preventing explosions and their consequences.

The bureau's work, apart from certifying and promoting permissible mine equipment, involved launching a campaign for first-aid and mine rescue. However, its most significant contribution was investigating the causes of coal dust explosions and striving to disseminate rock-dusting technology. This emphasis on safety was influenced by the bureau's bureaucratic structure and scientific and technological focus. With no specific group responsible for setting priorities within the bureau, its initiatives were driven by these factors (Aldrich 542).

Conclusion: Taking the appropriate actions suggested by Scandal regarding the mine could have averted the disaster. Preventing such mishaps is not solely the responsibility of one individual or organization; it requires collective

efforts from workers, the community, legislation, inspectors, and various others to ensure safe working conditions and eliminate potential hazards for society as a whole.