Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

60 Minutes tanks company by supporting Greentards.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    It is a state EPA with a Zero Tolerance mentality. They are not looking at what is a reasonable standard but rather continuing to lower the standard and justify it with faulty science. This is nothing new. The US EPA does the exact same thing as does OSHA, and the CPSC and a plethora of other bureaucracies.

    Sure, the Chinese company lied on their labeling. That is nothing new. Drywall, rebar, the same thing happened.

    But, it becomes a Greentard thing when the environmental bureaucracies lower standards simply because they can justifying it in any way they can. These bureaucracies are just as willing to lie about their standards as the Chinese company is about compliance.
    OSHA? You mean the federal agency created to prevent Gilded-Era esque working conditions? It exists to protect workers. If this means hitting the pockets of fat-cat CEOs, so be it.

    The same with the CPSC. It ensures the safety of products for the consumer using them. Otherwise we'd be brushing with lead laden toothpaste.

    I don't think restrictions on formaldehyde are "faulty science." If California has determined that .15 ppm is the limit, that is their finding. The federal government, despite its health standards, is still relatively lax on many of these issues owing to the influence of big-business lobbyists. The impotence of the FDA on food-safety matters (meats in particular) is a testament to this. If a product is identified as harmful, the state has every right to reject it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      OSHA? You mean the federal agency created to prevent Gilded-Era esque working conditions? It exists to protect workers. If this means hitting the pockets of fat-cat CEOs, so be it.

      The same with the CPSC. It ensures the safety of products for the consumer using them. Otherwise we'd be brushing with lead laden toothpaste.

      I don't think restrictions on formaldehyde are "faulty science." If California has determined that .15 ppm is the limit, that is their finding. The federal government, despite its health standards, is still relatively lax on many of these issues owing to the influence of big-business lobbyists. The impotence of the FDA on food-safety matters (meats in particular) is a testament to this. If a product is identified as harmful, the state has every right to reject it.
      All utter nonsense. OSHA, the EPA, even the CPSC has a role in keeping things safe and clean but they need to be on a very tight leash. Otherwise, they develop a Zero Tolerance mentality.

      That is, you can be too safe. You can remove too much pollution. You can make consumers less comfortable and give them less choice by being over safe.

      The CPSC for example does this sort of all the time.

      They recalled all Big Wheel tricycles because they had a plastic "key" on the gas tank-like lump in front of the seat. Seems that there were 10 (that's right TEN) cases of a reported injury 3 needing minor medical attention reported in the US.
      For that they recalled several million Big Wheels, made the manufacturer put a non-removable flat plug over the hole at a cost of millions of dollars because a handful of children with over-protective parents got upset that their kid got a "owie" off the key.

      They tried to get crossed sticks over the top of 5 gallon buckets to prevent the 9 to 13 small child drowning's that occur each year in the US. Users complained that that would make the buckets useless to them in some cases. Others said they'd just smash the little sticks out and use the bucket without them. The CPSC said they'd include law making it a crime to remove this "safety device."
      Manufacturers said it would add billions to the cost of making buckets. The CPSC didn't care. Saner minds got the final say. Now there is a warning label on 5 gallon buckets:



      And, 9 to 13 small children a year drown in one of these buckets because their parents are stupid. You can't fix stupid.

      Like lead soldiers? Ever collect them? CPSC banned them entirely because they were made from evil lead.

      This same crap applies to the EPA:

      They want right now to lower allowable ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. They claim that the 5 ppb reduction will save 35,000 lives a year offsetting the estimated 50 to 90 Billion dollars in cost this regulation will cost. The EPA is lying out their god @$$.
      They made the numbers up to justify a miniscule decrease in ozone pollutants at an insane cost. They couldn't tell Congress (who asked) how or where that number came from. They technically don't have to either. They are legally allowed to make up quack science to justify regulations.

      OSHA is no different. Sure, I think many of their rules are reasonable. But, now they are just fishing for the last .0001 % of additional safety regulations to justify their jobs and nothing else.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        They want right now to lower allowable ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. They claim that the 5 ppb reduction will save 35,000 lives a year offsetting the estimated 50 to 90 Billion dollars in cost this regulation will cost.
        If I might ask, where did you get these numbers?

        This report, http://static.ewg.org/reports/1997/S...881.1425435242, mentions that reducing pollution from "particulate matter," along with other means of pollution-control, will save over 35,000 American lives yearly.

        According to this report:
        "Stationary sources (factories and power plants, as opposed to cars and trucks) account for 96 percent of SO2 emissions, 56 percent of particle pollution, and 48 percent of NOX emissions, the three major forms of particulate pollution."

        The report also notes that making positive changes is actually relatively cost-effective: The EPA-estimated cost of pollution control per year amounts to "only" $6.3 billion, compared with $1.2 trillion in average gross revenues for the top 105 polluters, and the average of $68.9 billion in income for the top 114.

        I agree with some of your points, though: some excessive child safety regulations these days are a bit daft, to say the least. This kind of thing actually hurts child development. If they aren't exposed to cuts and bruises when still young, they will grow up to become extremely fearful, poorly-coordinated adults. It's the same with the new "baby-proof" playgrounds where there are no rope ladders, slides, or jungle gyms. All this leads to is poor motor skills and increased risk of height-related phobia...

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...29063506832312

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
          If I might ask, where did you get these numbers?

          This report, http://static.ewg.org/reports/1997/S...881.1425435242, mentions that reducing pollution from "particulate matter," along with other means of pollution-control, will save over 35,000 American lives yearly.

          According to this report:
          "Stationary sources (factories and power plants, as opposed to cars and trucks) account for 96 percent of SO2 emissions, 56 percent of particle pollution, and 48 percent of NOX emissions, the three major forms of particulate pollution."

          The report also notes that making positive changes is actually relatively cost-effective: The EPA-estimated cost of pollution control per year amounts to "only" $6.3 billion, compared with $1.2 trillion in average gross revenues for the top 105 polluters, and the average of $68.9 billion in income for the top 114.

          I agree with some of your points, though: some excessive child safety regulations these days are a bit daft, to say the least. This kind of thing actually hurts child development. If they aren't exposed to cuts and bruises when still young, they will grow up to become extremely fearful, poorly-coordinated adults. It's the same with the new "baby-proof" playgrounds where there are no rope ladders, slides, or jungle gyms. All this leads to is poor motor skills and increased risk of height-related phobia...

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...29063506832312
          That has nothing to do with the new ozone rules.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us...ions.html?_r=0

          The proposed regulation would lower the current threshold for ozone pollution from 75 parts per billion to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, according to people familiar with the plan. That range is less stringent than the standard of 60 parts per billion sought by environmental groups...

          ...William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said, “Ozone is not only killing people, but causing tens of millions of people to get sick every day.”

          But industry groups say that the regulation would impose unwieldy burdens on the economy, with little public health benefit.
          William Becker is a lying ass on the face of it.

          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ne-reductions/

          In 2010, the EPA estimated that a 60 ppb standard would avoid 4,000 to 12,000 premature deaths, 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits and cut down on the number of school and work days missed by 2.5 million.
          The EPA changed it to 35,000 to give them the economic numbers needed to justify the change.

          Let's put this in perspective. 75 ppb is the equivalent of giving every American (about 300 million) a white T-shirt that says "Air" but randomly selecting 250 people and giving them an orange T-shirt that says ozone.
          Reducing this by 5 ppb to 70 ppb means we find 16 people with orange T-shirts and exchange them for white ones.
          Then we have to assume that everyone in the US lives somewhere where the current ozone level... cough, cough... big cities... is high enough that it will be affected.
          The upwards of 90 billion dollars a year to make this reduction happen in those big cities would wreck the economy. Even Obama the Ignorant recognizes this and has held off until recently letting the EPA put this rule in place. But, now that he's on his way out it looks like he will do it wrecking what recovery has occurred.

          Comment


          • #20
            You never know what topic will be the focus of heated debate I guess. I will say that the more companies get burned by insisting on selling Chinese products the better. On the other hand, I wouldn't endorse 60 Minutes or any other "news" show in any case because these types of shows have a long history of fabricating statistics, omitting facts, and just plain old outright lying to get the story slanted the way they want to. Put me down as neutral on the flooring controversy I guess. My contribution has amounted to nothing. Sorry to waste your time!

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X