Deadly threat

[Bill of Rights]

I got a phone call from 7th Stepper shortly after I got to work this morning. She was at a story she found reading a news update:

[noparse]http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11437/societal-control-sugar-essential-ease-public-health-burden[/noparse]

It's not the sugar that concerns me as a "deadly threat"; people have been eating sugar for far too long for me to consider that credible. (She usually compares such things to a story that she read years ago claiming that human sperm caused cervical cancer in women. )

No, what I consider to be the deadly threat, and the reason I put this in Gen Pol, rather than the Break Room) is the concept that government has any business "banning" any substance. I know there are some who think that it's appropriate and correct for government to ban such things as DDT or Thalidomide. Some then take the step toward bans of LSD, crystal meth, heroin, and still others don't go that far but do think marijuana should be banned, and I've chatted with people on here who think alcohol should be and here and elsewhere, that think tobacco should be banned. (I used to wish that myself, but now, while I wish it had never been discovered/invented, my view has changed.)

This is the next step. If Big Nanny Government can ban some things, it can ban anything, and this article serves as proof of that being possible....note that I said, "possible", not "proper".
All of these things have been invented. They exist. Those genies will not return to their bottles. This is why my view changed on tobacco and other substances.
If government MUST be involved, I would say they should be involved at the level of incentivizing unbiased education on the topics. I'd prefer they were not involved at all.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Food for thought on the banning of stuff: The banning of DDT over our environmental concerns led to an almost world-wide ban.

And millions of people died from malaria as a result.

-J-

 

[jbombelli]

Well, I guess I have to spread the rep around some more.

 

[Stschil]

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where the government has gone beyond it's limits is in deciding to protects us from ourselves.

Ronald Reagen

Kind of my feelings on the subject...

 

[jgreiner]

Food for thought on the banning of stuff: The banning of DDT over our environmental concerns led to an almost world-wide ban.

And millions of people died from malaria as a result.

-J-

The number is far larger than 1 million. I believe it is 5 to 6 times larger.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Food for thought on the banning of stuff: The banning of DDT over our environmental concerns led to an almost world-wide ban.

And millions of people died from malaria as a result.

-J-

I'm not debating the wisdom of banning things, but DDT was fairly quickly losing effectiveness in areas where it was used, requiring heavier and heavier applications because the it was being used in agriculture to a much higher degree than needed for mosquito control. Meanwhile, its affect on the ecosystem was pretty devastating when it was being used in that fashion. Because its bioaccumulation was rapid, and its residence time was fairly long (year to a decade), higher and higher applications in agriculture were quickly overwhelming many higher order organisms ability to deal with it, to the point where the effect even in humans was becoming evident. It's entirely probable that the continued widespread agricultural use of DDT would have resulted in even more deaths than from malaria.

And point in fact, DDT isn't completely banned for mosquito control, it's mostly banned for agricultural control of pests, and WHO still recommends DDT for certain outbreaks of malaria in areas where the mosquitoes don't have resistance.

Whether governmental control is a good thing depends on your point of view. In a completely unregulated free market, the chemical company will be happy to make something, and the consumers will be happy to use it. Many will argue that this is the basis of the free market, but the devil is in the not readily evident details such as the fact that who now pays for the damage that appears several years later as a result? Sure, if the chemical loses effectiveness the pure freemarketers will argue that the chemical company will sell less of it and eventually it will be not used, but that will very often be long after the global damage has been done, and the chemical company and the consumers who use it will strenuously resist taking responsibility for the results of their actions when the damage extends beyond the areas where the chemical was applied. Meanwhile, much of that damage is irreversible. It's one thing to take that approach when you don't know something has damage, but when you know that damage exists and yet you still produce and consume it and deny responsibility, then the freemarket breaks down.

That's why it's hard for me to be able to be in favor of complete elimination of all types of governmental control. I see that leading to just as much tyranny as does too much governmental control. Where the balance is is the tricky question. When the ban is on something, like sugar, where the effect is entirely on the consumer, I'm far more against that than when the ban is on something that has effects far beyond the consumer of the substance.

 

[jgreiner]

Just wait till they come for your bacon. No doubt it is on the list too.

 

[NYFelon]

Just wait till they come for your bacon. No doubt it is on the list too.

This would be the final straw, methinks

 

[J_Wales]

Q: How much control is enough to satisfy the appetites of statist pigs?

A: There is never enough control to satisfy the appetites of statist pigs.


May the statist pigs burn in Hell.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not debating the wisdom of banning things, but DDT was fairly quickly losing effectiveness in areas where it was used, requiring heavier and heavier applications because the it was being used in agriculture to a much higher degree than needed for mosquito control. Meanwhile, its affect on the ecosystem was pretty devastating when it was being used in that fashion. Because its bioaccumulation was rapid, and its residence time was fairly long (year to a decade), higher and higher applications in agriculture were quickly overwhelming many higher order organisms ability to deal with it, to the point where the effect even in humans was becoming evident. It's entirely probable that the continued widespread agricultural use of DDT would have resulted in even more deaths than from malaria.

And point in fact, DDT isn't completely banned for mosquito control, it's mostly banned for agricultural control of pests, and WHO still recommends DDT for certain outbreaks of malaria in areas where the mosquitoes don't have resistance.

Whether governmental control is a good thing depends on your point of view. In a completely unregulated free market, the chemical company will be happy to make something, and the consumers will be happy to use it. Many will argue that this is the basis of the free market, but the devil is in the not readily evident details such as the fact that who now pays for the damage that appears several years later as a result? Sure, if the chemical loses effectiveness the pure freemarketers will argue that the chemical company will sell less of it and eventually it will be not used, but that will very often be long after the global damage has been done, and the chemical company and the consumers who use it will strenuously resist taking responsibility for the results of their actions when the damage extends beyond the areas where the chemical was applied. Meanwhile, much of that damage is irreversible. It's one thing to take that approach when you don't know something has damage, but when you know that damage exists and yet you still produce and consume it and deny responsibility, then the freemarket breaks down.

That's why it's hard for me to be able to be in favor of complete elimination of all types of governmental control. I see that leading to just as much tyranny as does too much governmental control. Where the balance is is the tricky question. When the ban is on something, like sugar, where the effect is entirely on the consumer, I'm far more against that than when the ban is on something that has effects far beyond the consumer of the substance.

There is another possibility. I've used the example before of electronics (among other items) Most electronics today have the little

on them, and Underwriters' Laboratories is not governmental at all. Companies go to them because they're trusted by consumers. Consumers trust them because they're unbiased. Is it that hard to imagine that a similar group could exist to do what amounts to the same thing for various chemicals, foods, etc., without government getting in the way?

I don't dispute that DDT and other things have been used to cause harm. For that matter, I don't dispute that food should be inspected. What I dispute is that government has to do it. Right now, nothing exists to do that job. Why? Because government has filled that void... but has so many times exceeded its mandate, it's easier to list the times they have not done so.

It's not UCSF, per se. It's that the people there and elsewhere want to use the irresistible force of government to enact their little pet projects and require everyone to participate... whether they want to or not.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[kludge]

BoR... that's not entirely true.

It has nothing to do with trust by consumers, IMO. It has more to do with litigation and limiting liability. Trust me we wouldn't to it in many cases if we didn't "have to".

Some places, especially in California, require a UL logo or some other NRTL logo like CSA, ETL, TUV, et cetera to leagally sell product s in those jurisdictions. If the product is electronic, many times the FCC mark or at least a notice of FCC Class B or some such compliance is required. Europe requires many products to carry the CE mark, China , Austraila, heck, I could go on and on require their own mark. This is not trivial. Testing these product before they can be put in the market costs anywhere from $8,000 to $35,000. Then there are the required factory inspections, which can be around $1,000+ quarterly for each factory, and for each logo that we use.

To get your product on the shelf, many retailers (even outside of certain California counties) require an NRTL logo. Some of them (like Radio Shack and Sears to name two) require extensive reporting. They do this to limit their liability, not because of "consumer trust" issues. So even if it's not required by law it's required by lawyers. The UL promotes their logo to consumers, that's true, and promotes the "trust" issue, but that's just a marketing campaign and has little to do with reality, IMO.

Perhaps it's not "illegal" to sell stuff without the mark, but there is some "coercion" going on.

I'm and EE and I supervise two other EE's, a Tech, and a guy whose FULL-TIME job it is to just deal with safety and EMC labs. And we're not an "electronics company".

 

[rambone]

They'll make sugar so expensive that companies will turn to the "safer" artificial alternatives. Sweeteners like Aspartame, Neotame, HFCS. Companies like Monsanto will be happy to accommodate the increased demand for their disgusting products.

If you want to change society, it needs to be done with ideas and education... Not with more armed government agents chasing people around who don't have permission to eat candy.

"Is that a 'Throwback' Mountain Dew made with real sugar?? Where's your tax stamp, citizen? Break law, go to jail!!"

 

[steveh_131]

Get ready for some MWACC (Man With A Candy Cane) calls.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BoR... that's not entirely true.

It has nothing to do with trust by consumers, IMO. It has more to do with litigation and limiting liability. Trust me we wouldn't to it in many cases if we didn't "have to".

Some places, especially in California, require a UL logo or some other NRTL logo like CSA, ETL, TUV, et cetera to leagally sell product s in those jurisdictions. If the product is electronic, many times the FCC mark or at least a notice of FCC Class B or some such compliance is required. Europe requires many products to carry the CE mark, China , Austraila, heck, I could go on and on require their own mark. This is not trivial. Testing these product before they can be put in the market costs anywhere from $8,000 to $35,000. Then there are the required factory inspections, which can be around $1,000+ quarterly for each factory, and for each logo that we use.

To get your product on the shelf, many retailers (even outside of certain California counties) require an NRTL logo. Some of them (like Radio Shack and Sears to name two) require extensive reporting. They do this to limit their liability, not because of "consumer trust" issues. So even if it's not required by law it's required by lawyers. The UL promotes their logo to consumers, that's true, and promotes the "trust" issue, but that's just a marketing campaign and has little to do with reality, IMO.

Perhaps it's not "illegal" to sell stuff without the mark, but there is some "coercion" going on.

I'm and EE and I supervise two other EE's, a Tech, and a guy whose FULL-TIME job it is to just deal with safety and EMC labs. And we're not an "electronics company".

Thanks for the correction. So UL is required in some places by law to sell the product. Is that how it started or was that something government decided to horn in on when they saw that UL had a good thing going?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[kludge]

I'm not sure how UL got started, but they have been writing safety standards and test procedures for probably more than 100 years. It's a brilliant "racket" actually, and I suppose there are real benefits, especially since no engineer can take the time or pay to have the components tested that (s)he is designing in, so it speeds the design and reduces test time.

Say for instance I want to put a power switch on my product, and the product has to have the UL mark. I can pick any switch from any manufacturer that I want according to the desing ratings of the switch. To get the UL mark on my product I have to pay for testing of the product. And there is a clause 14.6 in IEC 60065 that covers switches and says the switch has to be able to carry such and such current so so many cycles to be accepted. Or I can just use a switch that the manufacturer has already had tested by the UL to those criteria, and then I don't have to take any more time or money to have the switch tested.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not sure how UL got started, but they have been writing safety standards and test procedures for probably more than 100 years. It's a brilliant "racket" actually, and I suppose there are real benefits, especially since no engineer can take the time or pay to have the components tested that (s)he is designing in, so it speeds the design and reduces test time.

Say for instance I want to put a power switch on my product, and the product has to have the UL mark. I can pick any switch from any manufacturer that I want according to the desing ratings of the switch. To get the UL mark on my product I have to pay for testing of the product. And there is a clause 14.6 in IEC 60065 that covers switches and says the switch has to be able to carry such and such current so so many cycles to be accepted. Or I can just use a switch that the manufacturer has already had tested by the UL to those criteria, and then I don't have to take any more time or money to have the switch tested.

Sounds a lot like Consumer Reports, which takes no advertising and gives, therefore, an unbiased report of a product or group of products. That's good, though not unexpected, that they would accept their own rating of something they've already tested. Why reinvent the wheel? And if they didn't accept it, why should anyone else?

Private enterprise. Gotta love it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

Just wait till they come for your bacon. No doubt it is on the list too.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXhJPey3i_A[/ame]

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm not sure how UL got started, but they have been writing safety standards and test procedures for probably more than 100 years. It's a brilliant "racket" actually, and I suppose there are real benefits, especially since no engineer can take the time or pay to have the components tested that (s)he is designing in, so it speeds the design and reduces test time.

It was started to advocate and supply testing information. It was first required by insurers (underwriters) to issue liability insurance to their clients.

 

[Bondhead88]

They want to ban everything. I love this Wendy's commercial, the keyword is choose.

[ame="http://youtu.be/5CaMUfxVJVQ"]http://youtu.be/5CaMUfxVJVQ[/ame]

 

[Bondhead88]

It's great when the state decides for you. No complex choices over styles and options. You get what we give you!

Look at these innovative Soviet Products and commercials.

[ame="http://youtu.be/QPOMBdO4dyA"]http://youtu.be/QPOMBdO4dyA[/ame]