in the news just now is a group of coal miners
who got trapped underground after an explosion ...
and the newscaster said they had no form of communication,
and therefore rescuers had no idea where they are.

has no one ever thought of giving EVERY miner a workable
communications device so he/she could communicate signals
in the event of emergency?

to me, it seems so obvious ... i'm assuming i'm missing something.

would appreciate info on this.

thanks!
mike

Dear mikeginnyc-ga;

Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question. I?m
with you in that the suggestion seems obvious but there are apparently
some prohibitive issues, not the least of which is cost and
technology. In Australia, for example, miners are more commonly being
outfitted with Personal Pager Receiver (PED) devices that allow them
to communicate individually in the event of a disaster. This device
also allows an external GPS device to track them by way of an encoded
?tag?.

Xstrata's Newland North Coal Mine to install PED and TRACKER
http://www.mining-technology.com/contractors/communications/mine/press2.html

MINING TECHNOLOGY
http://www.mining-technology.com/contractors/communications/mine/

Simply put, in the United States however, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA), the US Department of Labor and other regulatory agencies do
not mandate this practice (for whatever reason) and so it appears at
least that some mines either choose not to or find the technology cost
prohibitive. The PED has been approved for use in US mines but has not
been mandated:

Mine Safety and Health Administration
http://www.msha.gov/techsupp/acc/lists/23teleph.pdf

Your question poses a certain challenge to legislators (read: ?no
brainer?) that might be worth pursuing. Presumably if unions and
lobbyists for the mining industry (which are quite strong) were
interested enough in changing the law so that each miner issues a
communication or tracking device, the situation might be different.
Apparently they are not as interested in this subject as the rest of
us because there has not been, as yet, such an organized movement.

I hope you find that my answer exceeds your expectations. If you have
any questions about my research please post a clarification request
prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher



INFORMATION SOURCES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
http://www.msha.gov/


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

Mines

Receiver

Communication

Device

Personal

PED

Mandate

Law

Regulations

I LOVE this service, and have from the start.  I always appreciate
other people's enlightening comments, but I always feel a bit bad that
the system doesn't allow me to contribute to them individually --
beyond saying that I got value from ALL of the comments.  I'm very
satisfied (by the great answer) and dissatisfied (by the reality). 
But not so dissatisfied or time-free that I can pursue it further.  I
feel as though my question was marvellously addressed ... again. 
THANKS TO ALL.  mike

Sounds like a good idea.
Two issues come to mind.
First, radio transmissions don't travel well through earth and sea.
The U.S. navy uses extraordinary technology to deal with this.
Second, the mining industry often uses explosives with wired
detonators.  They do not permit use of any radio transmitters near the
blast area since radio transmitters could detonate the expolsives.

There are such devices for RECIEVING messages in an emergency but the
amount of power required to push the signal at low frequency through
100s of metres of rock makes them impractical for 2 way
communications...

Learn more about one company's solution here:

http://www.minesite.com.au/category/category.asp?categoryid=1&childid=9