Connect with us

News

Coal miners are getting new protections from silica dust linked to black lung disease

Published

on

Coal miners are getting new protections from silica dust linked to black lung disease

WASHINGTON — Coal miners will be better protected from poisonous silica dust that has contributed to the premature deaths of thousands of mine workers from a respiratory ailment commonly known as black lung disease, the Labor Department said Tuesday as it issued a new federal rule on miners’ safety.

The final rule, announced by Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, cuts by half the permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica for an eight-hour shift.

Mine workers, community advocates and elected officials from Appalachian states have pushed for the stricter rule, noting that health problems have grown in recent years as miners dig through more layers of rock to gain access to coal seams when deposits closer to the surface have long been tapped. The increased drilling generates deadly silica dust and has caused severe forms of pneumoconiosis, better known as black lung disease, even among younger miners, some in their 30s and 40s.

“It is unconscionable that our nation’s miners have worked without adequate protection from silica dust despite it being a known health hazard for decades,” Su said Tuesday. “Today, we’re making it clear that no job should be a death sentence, and every worker has the right to come home healthy and safe at the end of the day.”

In Central Appalachia, an estimated one in five tenured coal miners has black lung disease. The condition reduces life expectancy by an average of 12 years and makes it a “struggle to get through a phone call or play with their grandkids without losing their breath,” Su said in a speech in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, where she appeared with Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, and other union leaders.

Advertisement

“For too long, we accepted this as just the way things are for people who work in mines,” Su said. “They’ve had to work without the same protections from silica dust that people in other industries have, even though we’ve known about the harms of silica dust since Frances Perkins,” who was labor secretary in the 1930s and 1940s.

The election-year rule shows “what it looks like to have the most pro-worker, pro-union president in history,” Su said, a political comment referring to Democratic President Joe Biden.

Rebecca Shelton, director of policy at the Appalachian Citizens Law Center, which pressed for stricter rules to protect miners, said the group was reviewing the rule to ensure regulators from the Mine Safety and Health Administration accounted for comments by health professionals, attorneys and miners who have worked on the rule for years.

“There are too many lives at stake to get this wrong, and we’ll do whatever we can to ensure that this rule provides the protection that miners deserve,” Shelton said.

Democratic senators from Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia hailed the new rule, saying it will be essential in safeguarding miners.

Advertisement

A spokesman for the National Mining Association said the group was reviewing the rule but supports the lower limits. The mining lobby has pushed to allow use of administrative controls and personal protective equipment to meet safety standards. “Unfortunately, those recommendations were not included in the final rule,″ said spokesman Conor Bernstein.

Vonda Robinson, whose husband, John, was diagnosed with black lung a decade ago at age 47, said she’s felt hopeful as officials considered the rule changes. But she was skeptical how the rule will be enforced.

Robinson, who lives in rural Nickelsville, Virginia, near the Tennessee line, said the mine safety office does not have enough staff or resources to adequately protect workers and their families.

“You can have rules, but until you back it up with enforcement, it’s not going to mean anything,” she said in an interview. “If they’re going to put out these rulings, you need to hire more people.”

The White House requested a $50 million increase to the mine safety office’s budget for the current year, most of which would have been for more inspectors and enforcement. Congress rejected it, keeping the budget at the 2023 level of $388 million.

Advertisement

Vonda Robinson said her husband struggles every day. John Robinson worked in the mines for almost three decades. Two years ago, the couple met with a physician about a lung transplant.

“Until you see it and live with it, you don’t understand,” Vonda Robinson said. “And knowing what we’re looking at now — miners being diagnosed at 32 – they’ll probably never see their children graduate or have grandchildren.”

The Labor Department rule lowers the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air for a full-shift exposure, calculated as an 8-hour average. If a miner’s exposure exceeds the limit, mine operators must take immediate corrective actions.

The rule is in line with exposure levels imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on construction and other non-mining industries. And it’s the standard the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was recommending as far back as 1974.

The Labor Department began studying silica and its impact on workers’ health nearly a century ago, but the focus on stopping exposure in the workplace largely bypassed coal miners. Instead, regulations centered on coal dust, a separate hazard created by crushing or pulverizing coal rock that also contributes to black lung.

Advertisement

In the decades since, silica dust has become a major problem as Appalachian miners cut through layers of sandstone to reach less accessible coal seams in mountaintop mines where coal closer to the surface has long been tapped. Silica dust is 20 times more toxic than coal dust and causes severe forms of black lung disease after even a few years of exposure.

___

Willingham reported from Charleston, West Virginia.

News

Video: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

Published

on

Video: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

new video loaded: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

A federal judge in Washington on Friday ordered that President Trump’s name be removed from the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

By Jackeline Luna

May 29, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s doctor recommends he lose weight and exercise more but says he is in ‘excellent health’ | CNN Politics

Published

on

Trump’s doctor recommends he lose weight and exercise more but says he is in ‘excellent health’ | CNN Politics

The White House released the results of President Donald Trump’s May physical late Friday evening, sharing a memo from his physician recommending he lose weight and exercise more while noting he is in excellent health.

“President Trump remains in excellent health, demonstrating strong cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and overall physical function,” White House physician Dr. Sean Barbabella wrote in a letter. “Cognitive and physical performance are excellent. He is fully fit to carry out all duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.”

Barbabella wrote, “Preventive counseling was provided,” during the exam, “including guidance on diet, recommendation to take a low-dose aspirin, increased physical activity, and continued weight loss.”

Advertisement

The doctor noted the president stands 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 238 pounds.

At his physical exam last April, Trump weighed 224 pounds.

His visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Tuesday marked the third time he’s visited the facility for a medical exam since becoming the oldest president ever inaugurated last year.

Prior to the visit, the White House said the check-up would include “routine annual dental and medical assessments,” despite him having already visited a dentist in Florida twice this year.

Immediately following the visit, Trump offered scant details on Truth Social, writing “Everything checked out PERFECTLY.”

Advertisement

Since returning to the White House in 2025, visible ailments and speculation over his health have prompted the White House to divulge new details of the president’s physical condition.

The White House said swelling in his legs and ankles that was revealed last summer​ was a result of chronic venous insufficiency, a condition in which valves inside certain veins don’t work the way they should, which can allow blood to pool or collect in the veins. Trump attempted wearing compression socks, but found them uncomfortable.

In Friday’s letter, the president’s doctor wrote that, during Tuesday’s physical, “Slight lower leg swelling was noted, with improvement from last year.”

The president has also developed noticeable bruising on his hands during his second term, which the White House has chalked up to frequent handshakes and attempted to cover up with concealer in photographs.

According to the doctor’s readout, Trump also submitted to a “comprehensive neurological exam,” which showed “normal mental status, intact cranial nerves, normal motor strength, sensation, reflexes, gait, and balance.”

Advertisement

As for Trump’s heart health, the doctor said, “Al-enhanced electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis estimated his cardiac age…to be approximately 14 years younger than his chronological age.”

Barbabella’s letter noted that Trump currently takes aspirin but didn’t give a dosage. When it’s used for preventive purposes, doctors generally advise taking 81 milligrams of aspirin per day, but Trump told the Wall Street Journal in January that he takes 325 milligrams, a dose that can raise the risk of bleeding.

“They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart,” Trump told the WSJ. “I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. … They’d rather have me take the smaller one. I take the larger one, but I’ve done it for years, and what it does do is, it causes bruising.”

Trump again took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a 10-minute screening test used to detect mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. The doctor said the president scored 30 out of 30.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Judge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire

Published

on

Judge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire

A federal judge has struck down a New Hampshire law that blocked new voters from using a sworn affidavit to prove their citizenship in the absence of official documents such as a birth certificate or passport.

The decision, filed late Thursday by Judge Samantha D. Elliott of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, found that “eliminating the affidavits” as a means of proving citizenship “constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.” The ruling immediately overturned the law, which was passed in 2024 and signed by the Republican governor at the time, Chris Sununu.

A spokesman for New Hampshire’s Justice Department said the state intended to appeal the decision.

The law “represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections,” the spokesman, Michael Garrity, said in a statement on Friday.

The law, which created some of the strictest voter registration requirements in the country, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire on behalf of several groups, including the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.

Advertisement

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate,” Henry Klementowicz, the state A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “This law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot.”

Reports of wrongful voting in the state did not decline after the law’s passage, Judge Elliott noted, with a similar number of reports filed with the state attorney general in the year before the law was passed, and the year after.

The push for proof of citizenship has been at the core of Republican-backed efforts to change voting rules, ever since President Trump and his allies began promoting baseless conspiracy theories over the past decade that there has been widespread voter fraud by noncitizens.

Mr. Trump put documentary proof of citizenship at the center of his effort to change the country’s voting laws last year. He first signed an executive order in March 2025 that partly sought to establish such a requirement for federal elections, but that provision of the order was rejected by federal courts.

Republicans in Congress then took up the charge, making documentary proof of citizenship central to their federal voting legislation, known as the SAVE America Act. But the measure has stalled in Congress, where Republicans do not have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster of the bill.

Advertisement

With the bill in limbo, Mr. Trump has threatened not to sign any other legislation until Republicans reform the filibuster to pass it, a procedural move known as the “nuclear option.” But his threats have not moved many Republicans to make the move.

There is no evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens, and the Trump administration’s efforts to prove these conspiracies are not succeeding: Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked by the beginning of 2026, the Department of Homeland Security referred around 0.02 percent of the names for further investigation. Any actual proven cases are likely to be a fraction of that fraction.

Even before the new law was passed, New Hampshire’s voting access had been more limited than most states’. It did not offer early in-person voting, or registration by mail for most voters. And it removed inactive voters after four years. More than 195,000 voters were removed in 2021 alone, according to a summary of evidence in the 100-page court decision.

New Hampshire does offer same-day registration on Election Day, an option that was used by voters some 350,000 times from 2016 to 2024, witnesses testified.

Under the law that was struck down, voters who showed up to register could present a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers “or any other reasonable documentation.” But they could no longer, as an alternative, sign an affidavit stating they were 18, a resident of the municipality they were voting in and a citizen of the United States.

Advertisement

“It may be tempting for some to describe the Qualified Voter Affidavit as an exception to the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but it is not,” Judge Elliott wrote in her decision. “A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship.”

“Moreover,” she added, “the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.”

Experts testified in a trial this year that 5,000 to 30,000 residents in the state did not have documentary proof of citizenship. They said that 14,700 voters had used the affidavit option to register to vote from April to November of 2024.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending