Connect with us

Finally... a (possible) nanny decision I agree with

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by brent, May 2, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. brent

    brent Guest

  2. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    Given the government record in getting ride of harmful substances when
    there is a powerful industry lobby involved, I'd be surprised if
    anything happens. Look at the disgusting lead paint story:
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/21/lead-poisoning-ignored-scandal/
     
  3. Guest

    "Congress had banned the sale of interior lead paint in 1978, but it
    remained on the walls of millions of homes nationwide, and there was
    no adequate federal program to deal with it."

    Idiocy to imagine the feds can or should do it--they're bumblers.
    That's the problem right there--they're not supposed to or able to
    micromanage such a large country. States and cities can and should
    handle this kind of problem.

    But don't worry, Obama's EPA'd a bunch of tyranny making it illegal to
    work on your own home. Yes We Can't!
     
  4. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    That's just duckwitted.
     
  5. Guest

    No, it's duck-witted to think Congress can solve it, as evidenced by
    your own article and the giant cluster they've made of it.

    It's duck-witted to think the solution to a 21-year-old single slum
    mom who lets her kid from eat lead is Congress, the same people who
    made her, the apartment, and her ignorance possible and profitable.

    It's particularly duck-witted to think draconian measures against me--
    who already does the right thing--will do duck-all to improve her
    lot. In fact, the duck-witted non-solutions from Congress make it
    more attractive to leave lead in place, since the removal is now so
    costly, cumbersome, and complicated. Oh, and legally dangerous.

    Yes We Can't!
     
  6. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    That's American incompetence. Everybody else seems to be able to manage that particular kind of "micromanagement" without effort.

    It would help if American government wasn't designed so that the people whoown the country - in this case the paint factories - didn't have quite so much influence on the government.
    Nice to see that James Arthur's preprogrammed routines are running as reliably as ever

    Of course it does help that they don't have to make any kind of sense.
     
  7. I would think it in the interest of Big Paint to support a mandatory
    nationwide repainting program?
     
  8. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    It might well be a sensible move. A too sterile environment appears to
    have triggered all sorts of crazy autoimmune diseases these days. If you
    kill off all the good bacteria you leave openings for the bad guys.
    The dose makes the poison. In the ROW it is known more often by its
    chemically related name of Paracetamol or Acetaminophen.

    Tylenol just has some caffeine added and a USian brandname.

    By comparison Aspirin is more likely to cause stomach problems so you
    pay your money and take your choice. Paracetamol is banned in Japan.
    They have a propensity to overdose themselves.
    Only if you overdose on it (and there is a trivial compositional change
    to the formulation that would fix it, but they don't do it).
    It is in a lot of over the counter cold remedies...
     
  9. amdx

    amdx Guest

    The government is making us all criminals, and if you haven't broke a
    law, wait untill tomorrow.
    Mikek
     
  10. The parents don't have the brains, mainly because of all the
    paint-chewing they did themselves! :)
     
  11. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    That's funny, in a way. The congress is stuffed with politicians who
    take money from corporations to get re-elected, and in return do the
    bidding of these corporate interests. One of the most lucrative
    activities for a politician is therefore opposing regulations, and
    opposing expenditures in the common good. In this case the
    beneficiaries are mostly poor people - these are the easiest and safest
    to deny help to, since they tend not to vote. Failing first to ban lead
    paint for years, then failing to rectify the health problem that had
    been created, is not just immoral, it carries an enormous social cost.
    The main reason Republicans hate and fear Obama is that he has inspired
    many poor people to vote for the first time.
     
  12. And I agree, but I didn't actually write what you quoted above.
     
  13. Robert Macy

    Robert Macy Guest

    NO one mentioned the change over of milk cartons? Years ago the milk
    cartons had a flat top and a small attached 'plug' that one pulled out
    to open it. The milk industry liked those flat top cartons because the
    cartons stacked easily, and shippings costs were ok. Then pure-pak
    invented the creased/folded/sealed top that looked like a sloped roof
    and instantly got not just approval but a dictate from the government
    that ALL milk cartons had to use this new SANITARY seal. Giving the
    logic that children drink milk and drink from the carton and this new
    top was more sanitary if you drink from the carton since the fold was
    tucked under, and the govt MUST jbe to keep foods for children
    sanitary. Yet, have you seen the muck that can get all over the top
    of a soda can? The word hypocrite comes to mind.
     
  14. Robert Macy

    Robert Macy Guest

    Surprised no one is touting the 'conspiracy' theory that lead paint
    blocks house scanning and viewing the occupants, so it HAD to be
    banned.
     
  15. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    Sorry!
     
  16. Guest

    Nicely played.

    It's not always a conspiracy!
     
  17. Guest

    Acetaminophen is the leading cause of liver failure in the US, a
    particularly nasty way to go. The problem is exactly what you say--
    it's in so many different formulas and remedies that people overdose
    for long periods without realizing it.
     
  18. Guest

    At some point people just ignore the laws. Obama, for example. And
    Congress.
     
  19. Guest

    That's the direct, inevitable result of your bigger and bigger,
    centralized government as a solution. The more intrusive they are,
    the more they impact people and business' daily lives, the more people
    and businesses have to get involved just to survive. Otherwise, the
    lawyers in Congress--who have no idea have to do anything--make quite
    a muddle of running all the rest of us.
    Complete bollocks--the easiest thing for a politician is to spend
    money, common good or not. Then spend more, and more, and more.
    Your victim here was a high school honors student, now a 21-year-old
    single mom with her own apartment. How did that happen? A clever
    young woman, how was she able to do that, and why did she think she
    should/could?
    Creating the entitlement network that financially and socially
    encourages bright young women in these ways--the nanny state--is what
    created the enormous social cost.
    I'm independent, not Republican, but my complaints about Obama stem
    from how he's hurting the poor, wiping out jobs and their road up out
    of poverty to the middle incomes; creating and encouraging dependence
    over work, constantly race-baiting and denigrating when he could be
    uniting and uplifting. "Obama's" society is one founded on creating
    dependent self-victims like this one en masse, and telling them
    they're entitled, there's nothing they can do, and it's not their
    fault.

    That's *dis*-empowering. That's telling people they're helpless
    victims of other people's decisions, and, implicitly, that they should
    be.

    Ignoring the fact that he's economically incompetent, never having had
    a real job, he's easily the most divisive, radical president in my
    life time, an uncompromising, inflexible, dogmatic, mean-spirited
    demagogue. For example, he recently had Medicare denying cancer
    patients treatment, so that he could blame the sequester (that he
    himself invented).
     
  20. Greegor

    Greegor Guest

    No, it's duck-witted to think Congress can solve it, as evidenced by
    There are huge federal grants for lead abatement.
    They scrape paint off and paint to "encapsulate" it.
    Old window casements are replaced with vinyl
    because sliding the old windows up and down
    grinds the old paint or varnish in the tracks
    into fine dust.
    Old "slate" siding that is more like thin concrete
    contains asbestos in the mix.
    Instead of removing it they just put siding
    over it, actually breaking it open in the process.

    An 80K house can get a 30K+ grant, as long as
    the owner doesn't sell the house within 5 years.

    I know of at least 6 houses that got lead and
    asbestos abatement grants like that just
    two summers ago.

    Our government just defecates money for stuff like that.

    And keep in mind that the asbestos and the
    lead paint threats are reduced but not removed.

    The contractors hire mostly ex-cons so
    dumb that they mix an entire 30 Lb bag
    of concrete to fill a 3 Lb hole.

    I hate the nanny state and their saccharine
    spending of everybody's money too, but we
    were using pthalate esters everywhere, even
    in baby bottle nipples, before we realized
    they were reprotoxins, reproductive toxins.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

    From the OP article about triclosan in soaps:
    "To me it looks like the risks outweigh any benefit associated with
    these products right now," said Allison Aiello, professor at the
    University of Michigan's School of Public Health. "At this point, it's
    just looking like a superfluous chemical."
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-