What is Digg?134 Comments
- wreckosaurus, on 12/19/2007, -7/+31You can't rely on companies to do the right thing. That's why the FDA and EPA exist.
- scabbers, on 12/19/2007, -9/+25Countdown until Ron Paul drones tell us that the free market would've handled this... 4...3...2
- Popperian, on 12/19/2007, -4/+20Don't forget the history of the leading manufacturer of asbestos ... Dresser Industries.
Dresser Industries gave George Bush Sr. his very first job. He ultimately became a director/top-exec at the company and owned a substantial amount of it.
The company got wrecked with asbestos liability debt in the $4B-$8B range when the health issues emerged. Halliburton, under Cheney as Halliburton CEO, then bought the debt-plagued company out, transfering a substantial chunk of money to Bush Sr.
Halliburton shareholders were furious about this because they viewed it as a bad reputation thing and Halliburton was getting saddled with massive debt. The Halliburton shareholders hated this deal so much, Cheney was likely to be thrown out as CEO, because it basically mean the Halliburton shareholders were going to bail out the Bush family and pay for the asbestos liability.
I have long thought that this "payoff to Bush Sr." is both the reason Cheney was selected VP and also is the reason Halliburton has received so many corrupt contracts ... the corrupt contract money is being used to cover Bush Sr.'s first companies asbestos liability debt. - reeder, on 12/19/2007, -5/+21Yet both have historically sided with companies in almost all regulatory matters. In fact, the FDA is now DIRECTLY involved with pharmaceutical companies for "research" purposes. And the EPA showed its true colors on ground zero.
- Frei, on 12/19/2007, -10/+24And here come the Ron Paul free market Laissez-faire *****.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -4/+16" In fact, the FDA is now DIRECTLY involved with pharmaceutical companies for "research" purposes. "
This is fine in most regards, they should be aware of the everyday goings-on in the large pharmaceuticals.
The FDA needs strict reforms, NOT REVOLUTION AND DISSOLVEMENT.
Libertarians intend to "remove the middlemen" by not utilizing lobbyists and instead having the largest companies run the observance and certification bodies directly. Childish madness, wilfully ignorant of recorded history and all potential externalities of letting "the free market" run all aspects of medical science and public protections. - Zaneris, on 12/19/2007, -1/+11I should probably submit a comment on here, since my job primarily consists of asbestos and mould removal... I'm certified in Type 3 asbestos removal in Ontario. Anyway, a bit about it... it's practically in everything... we'll go to work in a 30 year old building, and seal off the whole floor since the insulation on the piping contains asbestos, the ceiling tiles, often the floor tiles, the mud they used on the dry wall, etc... etc...
We wear NIOSH approved masks and HEPA rated filters, the stuff is nasty, don't take it lightly, if you do, it'll kill you. Again, as mal1964 said, it's spread through dust, but often times the insulation is exposed, or with the ceiling tiles, it gets into the ambient air, so this is why they're constantly removing the stuff, because if you're working somewhere that has it around you, well... guess what, it gets stuck in your lungs 1 fibre at a time and builds up. Also, even if you can't see the "dust", the fibres are so small, like... 1/100th the width of a human hair, that you can't see them.
SO, just my 2 cents... - pintomp3, on 12/19/2007, -5/+14you mean the hidden hand of the free market won't cure my cancer?
- bffoley, on 12/19/2007, -0/+9Come on, abestos builds character!
And cancer cells. But mostly character! - pintomp3, on 12/19/2007, -2/+10exactly. we can rely on companies to do the profitable thing. sometimes it's the also right thing, more often it's not.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -1/+9"In almost all cases only regulatory bodies with the power of the government can succeed in stopping the abuse at the core"
The problem of course is that idiot libertarian-minded have been systematically defunding the oversight groups such as the FDA and EPA in the interest of corporate self-regulation, and then any horrible abuses of those companies is blamed on the same agencies they want to remove. Give them proper funding, and they will do the job far better than any "independent certifying body" made up of old lobbyists could ever hope to achieve. - chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+8Because private corporations have no one to report to but their shareholders.
Contracts hold no power without government enforcement, and "Reputation" means little when the flow of information is totally controlled and manipulated by Corporations. - MutexDeadlocked, on 12/19/2007, -4/+12Oh right, so if regulatory agencies don't work let's just have no regulations at all, because that makes perfect sense.
These arguments are beyond ridiculous. If you let the "free market" control every aspect of society there will be absolutely no checks and balances. It is exactly these regulatory bodies that have the mandate to stop potential abuses. Sure they may corrupt over time, but the solution is to fix them instead of destroying the last bastion protecting us from raw capitalism.
Just look at how capitalism in China is working out, and you will see what lack of regulation does to a society. - MutexDeadlocked, on 12/19/2007, -2/+10How do you suppose people can regulate business effectively? A boycott perhaps, litigation, or perhaps competition? In an unchecked capitalism, what effectively happens is, large corporations consolidate all of the smaller businesses leading to monstrously powerful corporations with only one interest, the bottom line of profit. Even if any individual manages to defeat such a corporation in litigation, in most cases it comes in the form of settlement which can accounted for as a standard component of operating costs, and the abuses will continue.
In almost all cases only regulatory bodies with the power of the government can succeed in stopping the abuse at the core. Without such a body, individuals can litigate, but even if they succeed the root of the problem usually still exists, except in the minority of cases.
It seems like libertarians wish to return to the "good old days," in other words a return to system seen in the last century. Yet if you've studied history at all, you would recall that in the times before regulatory bodies were in place, working conditions were abysmal. Death due to industry was at an unacceptably high level. This is what you can expect in a country with no regulations. - inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7Publicly traded corporations are required, BY LAW, to do everything they can to maximize profits. Required, not expected. Comparing government requirements and publicly traded company requirements is for economic children...
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7GREAT! So a company can make billions poisoning me and my kids, and possible generations, for a decade or two, then when we catch them, we can sue. A much better plan than actual enforcement of guidelines.
What a great plan that is. I believe that is called the 30's through 70's... - Gerz1219, on 12/19/2007, -3/+10You are a stubborn ideologue. Without the FDA, pharmaceutical companies could release any drug they wanted without any oversight. They would rush drugs to market, however flawed they might be, and ensure that the cost of legal settlement was low enough to maintain profitability (think the Narrator's equation from Fight Club). You the consumer cannot be reasonably expected to conduct your own research -- if a doctor prescribes you a drug, and you take it, and your heart explodes ten years later, it is not your fault or the doctor's fault. It is the drug company's fault, and the settlement bone they throw at your surviving relatives will be of little consolation to them.
- MattB123, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7Just eat sugar in reasonable amounts and you will be fine. Sugar isn't bad for you, too much sugar is.
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8Mesothelioma has been a tremendous source of financial support for graduates of America's ***** law schools.
- tidu, on 12/19/2007, -0/+6woah there, cowboy.
- zyko, on 12/19/2007, -3/+9Corporations have more rights than humans under the laws, but operate without any moral or ethical obligations. When humans act like this they are called sociopaths.
- colberrep, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8because government's purpose is to protect the people, corporations' only purpose is profit. if government strays from that, you elect new people. tough to figure out, huh?
- Tenlow, on 12/19/2007, -1/+7And those jerks who think it's crap are a pain in the ass to someone who's lost not one but two family members to mesothelioma.
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5"Duh, a company can't make billions poisoning you. UNLESS, you are foolish enough to buy stuff without knowing what the hell it is you're getting."
Tha is a joke, right? How old are you? Do you even know ANYTHING about the 70's, or Reagan's loosening of EPA standards in the 80's and the ramifications?
Really, do you have ANY clue about the past, and what happened when regulations were nearly non-existent? I am just going to give you a pass.
I don't know where your "low price" quote came from. It wasn't me. But saying don't buy low priced stuff (you know "free market!"), and name brand (like Dupont?!?!) is even more retarded than your first argument.
Your last line is the lamest of all. Companies do, and have, poisoned entire communities, all in the name of profit. You really are quite the naive one, aren't you? - harmonix, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8Stuff like this scares the crap out of me. I'm just waiting for them to prove that Diet Coke causes cancer.
- bosssmiley, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5"The Shameful Past of Asbestos..."
Asbestos was young and all alone in the big city, it was desperate, it needed the money. Then some nice men in good suits came up to it and said it could do good work preventing fires... - inactive, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6Let's get rid of the cops too. Who needs murder prosecutions when my surviving relatives can sue for wrongful death?
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5"Duh, a company can't make billions poisoning you. UNLESS, you are foolish enough to buy stuff without knowing what the hell it is you're getting."
Yes, like the ASBESTOS WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE TOPIC OF THIS VERY ARTICLE.
Consumers are not provided the information they require, doubly so with no oversight. - inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5Why no bid? How is that free market? If I want to take money from company "A", why are you limiting me? See how silly that sounds? Ron Paul supporters bitch about Halliburton on one hand, then bitch about the lack of free market on the other.
Yeah, I know it is somewhat over simplified, so save your pandering responses. I don't expect any but a scant few Ron Paul supporters to be able to debate the free market issue. Ron Paul hasn't given you enough buzzwords, catch phrases, or cut and paste lines... - geomon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5You know, for all the bitching about asbestos, you forget what the world was like *before* asbestos was used extensively.
If you worked in a steam room, the only insulation product found on most steam lines was horsehair. Workers often suffered second- and third-degree burns from contact with boiler surfaces and steam supply lines. Asbestos was not called "the miracle fiber" just by its manufacturers. To the workers in high-heat environments, it was a life saver.
Yes, friable asbestos needs to be removed. It is dangerous over time to workers. But the wholesale removal of material from buildings can actually INCREASE the risk on non-friable materials by disturbing asbestos that wasn't dangerous to begin with. Look into the AHERA program of the late 1980's and early 1990's. There were MORE contamination events *because* of removal than if they had managed the material in place. - inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4So... Shouldn't we all have cancer, then?
- r00tus3r, on 12/19/2007, -4/+8This is why capitalism can be such a negative thing. When profits are such a critical factor, and human welfare and quality of life are given a back seat, this is the result. The system is flawed, and while strong consumer rights groups and strict laws help, they don't address the core problems at the heart of a capitalist society.
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4"I've eaten melamine. No ill effects. I've eaten a lot of it too while making particle board resin."
You are exactly the guy the big chemical corporations are looking for. Melamine toxicity is chronic, not acute. bladder and liver damage, and cancerous. It takes years to show up.
Why anyone would post that they eat melamine, like it makes them cool, is beyond me. Your post demonstrates your idiocy quite nicely. You just keep eating that *****, and don't look to us to pay your long term medical bills. - Shamanusa, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4They still make products with asbestos? What???
- Zaneris, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Get your facts straight, buried.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4"9/11 = INSIDE JOB
Don't drink the fluoride water"
Thanks, Johnny Rottenteeth, but you're a hideous retard. - jeuhrn, on 12/19/2007, -4/+8Dudes, asbestos isn't really that dangerous. It does not radiate or poison or any of that *****, I had a teacher who wore an _asbestos-suit_ in one of his first jobs. The dangerous part comes in when you inhale a lot of this dust, because it'll sit in your lungs and when you're old you _might_ get a problem, it's not a given.
Being around asbestos, or working on it is not dangerous at all as long as you use necessary protection equipment. As many others have said, it's the dust that's the problem, and you're not gonna be sprouting cancer-cells if you get a dose of it. - mikehill33, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4What did the six year old paraplegic get for Christmas?
Cancer. - chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3MoveOn didn't make things up out of whole cloth like the LaRoucheites/Ron Paulsies.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3You mean Chiropractors, Nutritionists, uncertified "Doctors of Oriental Medicine", and other people not licensed to practice medicine? Fluoride does not cause ill effects under any normal dose in the water supply. MOST ANY chemicals can cause issue when over-applied. Chlorine and others used in purification, *****.
Hell, salt can injure and kill with enough of a dose, you idiots blathering on about your precious bodily fluids have been a joke for decades. - mal1964, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3look in old basement , houses, churches , building, if its a 9 by 9 floor tile more than likely Asbestos. But if its in place and not chipping its OK. its when you tear it or break them the dust is the problem.
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Tell that to fat old fatties with ten flavors of diabetus.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5It'd be nicer if there was a medical backing for all the fearmongering.
- mal1964, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3A still character filedl with embalming fluid.
- sodade, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Very interesting - source?
- Zaneris, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4HERE, for all of you misinformed people that think it's not that dangerous, read about it first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos .
And for those of you who believe that the EPA admitted they were wrong by reverting their outright ban, they only changed it so that a non-friable (doesn't get into the air easily) type of ACM (asbestos-containing-material) doesn't have to be removed.
As I said in response to another comment, asbestosis affects your lungs ability to breathe, much in the same way as with a smoker, a smoker usually won't realize they can't breathe as well as a non-smoker, same thing with asbestosis, unless you're tested, you might not be aware that there's anything wrong. Where there's visible symptoms, those are extreme cases, with high exposure.
Knowing that, most people aren't okay being around something that is slowly creating scar tissue and reducing their ability to breathe. Even if it's not by much, that little bit is TOO MUCH. - inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Its a shame.
- chaosium, on 12/19/2007, -3/+6All the idiots who claim that consumers are abused only because of BIG GOV are the same idiots who claim that snake-oil, homeopathy and other quackery shows no benefits because of BIG AMA and BIG UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.
- geomon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3Translation - none.
- jeffiek, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Well at least we don't run all over the world spreading massive doses of fatal lead poisoning.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is