Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

60 Minutes tanks company by supporting Greentards.

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

  • Steve573
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
    Well, it's state law. The product did not meet the requirement, so it was rejected. How is this "greentardism ?" It sounds instead like a state government taking steps to protect is citizens from toxic chemicals and big business corporations looking to make a quick buck at their expense.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    Well, it's state law. The product did not meet the requirement, so it was rejected. How is this "greentardism ?" It sounds instead like a state government taking steps to protect is citizens from toxic chemicals and big business corporations looking to make a quick buck at their expense.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    Bottom line in my opinion is if your gonna sell a product here even if made overseas........its your responsibility to at least make sure your selling what you claim..........with a minimal search I also found there is a class action suit filed against LL for this issue two years ago.........so 60 minutes just has old news........

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    just another way the chinese are killing us off.......who needs to go to war.. just slowly poison us while selling us the poison

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Bravo...Foxtrot...Delta...
    I thought I'd thank you for your input in several languages...



    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Bravo...Foxtrot...Delta...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Now LL is saying 60 Minutes report is wrong.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insid...1n?ocid=SMSDHP

    The Lumber wars have begun!

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    That is the problem. They only cite the California standard. Right now, not in the future, the national standard is about double the California one. That makes the product legal for sale in 49 out of 50 states right now.

    That the Chinese company lied about their compliance with California's standard is a separate issue from the one I raised. 60 Minutes didn't cite the other standard so it is a lie by omission that is costing this company millions due to sensationalist reporting.
    The show sites the CA standard and also clearly state that currently it is ONLY the CA standard, not the US standard. They then correctly state that it will soon be standard across the country.

    The problem with selling it in the other 49 states is that ALL the cartons of the flooring STATE on them that they meet those CA standards, which is a LIE. Therefore no matter WHERE the product is sold the company is committing fraud, no matter what the standard.

    The issue is LL, not the Chinese companies lying to LL. The interview in the Chinese company clearly shows that LL knows that NO laminate can be made to meet the CA standards for the price LL wants to pay for it. The company looks the other way and claims it meets the standard even though they know it can not be done for the money they pay.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    You're wrong. They clearly state that only CA currently has those standards now and that later this year those become the national standards. All the testing they site ONLY concerns the CA standards and is clearly stated as such. Did you even watch the report?
    That is the problem. They only cite the California standard. Right now, not in the future, the national standard is about double the California one. That makes the product legal for sale in 49 out of 50 states right now.

    That the Chinese company lied about their compliance with California's standard is a separate issue from the one I raised. 60 Minutes didn't cite the other standard so it is a lie by omission that is costing this company millions due to sensationalist reporting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I mentioned that right off. I'm not defending the Chinese company's actions, only denigrating 60 Minutes for not mentioning what the actual levels were in their report. Lie by omission is just as bad.

    I am also not defending the quality of LL's products. I personally wouldn't buy most of their crap because that is really what it is, cheap crap. But, then again, any laminate flooring product is not really worth installing unless you are planning to sell soon or the floor will see little traffic.

    What I am pointing out is 60 Minutes sensationalized their report at the expense of this company. It won't be the first or last time a "news" source does that either. But, it is worthwhile to learn that they do it regularly and how to spot when it is being done.
    You're wrong. They clearly state that only CA currently has those standards now and that later this year those become the national standards. All the testing they site ONLY concerns the CA standards and is clearly stated as such. Did you even watch the report?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X