[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-28, 13:45, said:

This is going on in just about every area into which the government sticks its grubby paws.

In 1965, when I graduated from high school, the paperwork required to obtain a permit to build a nuclear power plant (that's build - after you build it you have to go through another paperwork drill to get a license to operate the damn thing), piled up, stood man high. In 1975, when I finished my Master's Degree, it filled a room. I can only imagine it's worse now.

And this is a bad thing?

[mike777]

It can be a very bad thing in the sense more regulations, more power to regulators lead people to rely more on government to set standards that people equate with safety.

Government standards do not become the minimum standard they become the de facto standard, that is dangerous. The illusion that regulators are somehow, someway independent truth seekers who opt out of power or profit.

Again please do not read this as rant for zero regulations, more so the limits of government. More so the limits of giving great power to a few, very few.

[blackshoe]

Electrical appliances are "regulated" by Underwriters' Laboratories, which publishes safety standards which are pretty much uniformly followed (voluntarily) by the manufacturers of such devices. UL is a private firm, not a government agency. This approach has worked well for over a century (UL was founded in 1894). There are similar organizations both in the US and in other countries (competition is a good thing). I see no reason why the principle can't be extended to other areas.

Also, mike777 has this one right. So yes, more government regulation is a bad thing.

[barmar]

In general, when an industry seems to be successful at self-regulation, the government doesn't usually get into regulating it. Since the UL process works, they've allowed it to run unfettered.

But there's no UL for mines or the nuclear industry. The mountain of paperwork for licensing a nuclear plant is almost certainly a direct result of failures like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The possibility of catastrophic failure, and the severe consequences of it, demand strong regulation. Most large businesses won't build in sufficient safety without being forced to -- it's cheaper for them to just pay out a huge settlement in the event of a failure (and they buy insurance to subsidize it).

[PassedOut]

Many regulations come about to correct situations that have become intolerable. My own experience with the NRC was around 25 years ago when the Browns Ferry Nuclear plant was trying for recertification.

The plant had a troubled history and had been decertified in 1985. TVA hired outside companies to correct the problems, and I came in to manage one of the projects in that effort. I saw first hand that the decertification by the NRC was absolutely justified (scarily so). I also saw that the Browns Ferry management completely disagreed with the NRC, and were seething with anger about the decertification.

The goal of the teams that came from outside, and of the NRC, was to get the plant back online safely as soon as possible. And lots of things needed to be corrected. The goal of the Browns Ferry management was to get the plant back online with as few corrections as possible. There were many stormy meetings.

I was relieved that there was a government agency with the power to shut down a dangerous operation and keep it shut down until it was ready to restart safely. The best way I know to hold down regulations is to do a good enough job that no one sees a need to impose regulations.

[mike777]

I note that TMI and even the Japan meltdown came after the room full of regulations.
I use the above as examples of the danger of relying on regulations.

With that said I do not advocate for zero regulations regarding altering/modify genes
I fully concede that mankind kills species, changes ecology, and is highly dangerous.

I also note Ky and Nd tied 66=66 20 seconds left

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-March-28, 20:42, said:

In general, when an industry seems to be successful at self-regulation, the government doesn't usually get into regulating it. Since the UL process works, they've allowed it to run unfettered.

But there's no UL for mines or the nuclear industry. The mountain of paperwork for licensing a nuclear plant is almost certainly a direct result of failures like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The possibility of catastrophic failure, and the severe consequences of it, demand strong regulation. Most large businesses won't build in sufficient safety without being forced to -- it's cheaper for them to just pay out a huge settlement in the event of a failure (and they buy insurance to subsidize it).

Most of the increase in paperwork from 1965 to 1975 that I mentioned was to satisfy OSHA, and had nothing to do with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, both of which happened after 1975.

The possibility of catastrophic failure may demand strong regulation, but it doesn't follow that the government should be doing the regulating. As for your last point, just make sure that whatever happens, the company, possibly with the aid of insurance, pays all reparations, and that if individuals within the company are found to be criminally negligent, they get to pay too. The whole idea that corporate structure should protect individual corporate employees from the consequences of their actions is abhorrent.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-29, 12:51, said:

Most of the increase in paperwork from 1965 to 1975 that I mentioned was to satisfy OSHA, and had nothing to do with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, both of which happened after 1975.

The possibility of catastrophic failure may demand strong regulation, but it doesn't follow that the government should be doing the regulating.

No, it doesn't.

However, the regulating body needs to:

• be independent from the industry it regulates
  
• work for the citizens they are aiming to protect

These two mean that the funding needs to come from the citizens.

In addition, the regulating body must have the power to reinforce what it regulates.

Of course, it doesn't have to be the government, but given thst the government fullfills the obvious criteria to do the job, it would be my first candidate.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-29, 12:51, said:

As for your last point, just make sure that whatever happens, the company, possibly with the aid of insurance, pays all reparations, and that if individuals within the company are found to be criminally negligent, they get to pay too. The whole idea that corporate structure should protect individual corporate employees from the consequences of their actions is abhorrent.

Obviously there is the slight problem that it is impossible to pay in the case of a nuclear disaster. How much are you suggesting should have been paid in damages for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Japan? What monetary amount are you going to put on the damage that was done? Do you really think that everything can be paid with money?

I know that you are a fan of capitalism, but that is capitalist extremism.

Rik

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-28, 18:54, said:

Electrical appliances are "regulated" by Underwriters' Laboratories, which publishes safety standards which are pretty much uniformly followed (voluntarily) by the manufacturers of such devices. UL is a private firm, not a government agency. This approach has worked well for over a century (UL was founded in 1894). There are similar organizations both in the US and in other countries (competition is a good thing). I see no reason why the principle can't be extended to other areas.

The market for consumer electronics looks nothing like that for building nuclear power plants.

just consider the sheer number of models of consumer electronic devices that come to market each year and compare that to the construction rate for nuclear power plants.
It's been close to four decades since they broke ground on a nuke plan here in the US. Even during its heyday, they weren't building more than a dozen each year.

[y66]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-29, 14:36, said:

Obviously there is the slight problem that it is impossible to pay in the case of a nuclear disaster. How much are you suggesting should have been paid in damages for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Japan?

Ditto for the case of neonicotinoids that was mentioned a few posts back.

There also appears to be a slight problem with regulatory policies based on interpretations of data that are not peer reviewed which has more to do with how to regulate than who regulates and the difficulty of ensuring the independence and trustworthiness of regulators or even forum mates paid to reanalyze the data.

[barmar]

I assume from its name that Underwriter's Laboratory is funded by the insurance industry, not the appliance industry that they're regulating. That seems to be a good fit, because they're insuring the manufacturers whose products are being tested. Their goals coincide with consumers: customers don't want accidents, and insurers don't want to pay out claims in response to accidents. And they can enforce compliance by requiring UL certification before they'll insure the products.

Conceivably, a similar approach could be taken for other industries -- if producers need insurance, the insurance industry could dictate practices that must be followed. The only problem would be if some manufacturer has deep enough pockets that they think they can go without insurance.

[Trinidad]

One problem that I see in drug development is the following: A company has a great idea for a new drug. They have done all the computer calculations and concluded that this must be a good candidate totrewat variation X of disease Y.

They need to figure out to synthesize the drug (investment).
They test it in the test tube (more investment).
They test it on animals (much more investment).

Most research has failed before it gets to this stage, but this is good stuff and, for once, everything looks promising.

Now, they need to find a hospital for clinical trials. That is difficult. But after a good search, they find a partner that is willing to do the trial. Who pays for the costs? The drug company. That is fine, they are going to take the profit too. The hospital does a nice clinical trial and reports the results. The new medication seems to work and side effects seem to be acceptable. Great! Finally a new product that makes it through the process. The product and the process are filed with the authorities (FDA, etc.) again, costing a lot of money.

The drug company starts to manufacture the drugs and puts them on the market. They refer to the successful clinical trial. Now, the criticism comes: "This was not independent research, since it was funded by the drug company!!!" Yeah, right, as if anybody else was ever going to pick up the bill for the research.

Rik

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-29, 12:51, said:

Most of the increase in paperwork from 1965 to 1975 that I mentioned was to satisfy OSHA, and had nothing to do with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, both of which happened after 1975.

The possibility of catastrophic failure may demand strong regulation, but it doesn't follow that the government should be doing the regulating. As for your last point, just make sure that whatever happens, the company, possibly with the aid of insurance, pays all reparations, and that if individuals within the company are found to be criminally negligent, they get to pay too. The whole idea that corporate structure should protect individual corporate employees from the consequences of their actions is abhorrent.

This reflects a fundamental divide between libertarians and others.

Libertarians fail to see any need for government at all, because libertarians see the world through the lens of what they would like reality to be rather than what experimental and experiential evidence suggests reality actually is.

To the libertarian, we humans are purely rational intellects, capable of organizing ourselves to pursue individual success in a rational manner, and capable, as a group, of developing appropriate means of sanctioning behaviours that are deleterious to others. Any person who doesn't measure up deserves whatever she or he gets.

Any attempt to get rich by engaging in business practices that defile the environment would, I assume, be met by boycotts so effective that the business would fail.

Any attempt to get rich by selling addictive, harmful substances to children would fail because either the children or their ever-so-responsible and informed parents would refuse to buy or allow their children to buy. Meanwhile, any children who did buy would be getting only what they (or their parents) deserve.

Alternatively and being as generous as I can be towards Blackshoe I suppose he might argue that there would be a court system (who pays for it, who says what the law is?) that would award damages and that these damages are adequate reparation. The reality is that many businesses calculate the cost of litigation as part of the cost of doing business. Meanwhile I can assure Blackshoe that if one is diagnosed with lung cancer, or mercury poisoning, and so on, being told that one is getting a lot of money doesn't actually make one feel better about losing one's life, usually at the end of a painful and protracted illness.

Such a worldview is either idiotic or barbaric or both. It is idiotic if it is based on the notion that consumers are capable of informed and rational decisions, or that those motivated by the profit motive are always going to act in an ethical fashion. It is barbaric if it includes the notion that those who are injured by the business practices that cause harm 'have it coming' or are themselves the only people to blame.

I have said it before: government is 'us'. Government is the way society sets (most of) the rules that regulate the interaction between societal members. It is the way we restrain the rich and motivated from harming the rest of us, in their selfish pursuit of power and riches. Government is necessary because of what we are as humans: individually self-centred, bye-and-large, emotionally driven, of variable intellect, and often woefully ignorant, and almost always short-sighted.

We are driven more by short-term 'benefits' than long-term risks. We have almost no intuitive ability to assess large numbers or long term issues.

Government is not perfect. It depends, in the western sense and perhaps universally, upon the level and quality of education. The US has an appalling educational system for most of its population. It has an entire major television network devoted to the spreading of misinformation (with the Orwellian motto of 'fair and balanced'). It has an election system that empowers the wealthy to spend unlimited funds to buy elections....look at the Koch brothers who will, I gather, spend 1 billion dollars in the 2016 cycle.....

Yet libertarians say that government is unnecessary....we can trust the oligarchs to act in our best interests....even tho it is a tenet of libertarianism that they won't and shouldn't....the Koch brothers, according to a libertarian, should be acting solely in their own interests....if that harms people....well, those people are to blame for not having been born into vast fortunes.

In short, the libertarian view of the world reflects a delusional belief in the nature of the human animal, and an appalling lack of empathy.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2015-March-30, 11:42, said:

I have said it before: government is 'us'. Government is the way society sets (most of) the rules that regulate the interaction between societal members. It is the way we restrain the rich and motivated from harming the rest of us, in their selfish pursuit of power and riches. Government is necessary because of what we are as humans: individually self-centred, bye-and-large, emotionally driven, of variable intellect, and often woefully ignorant, and almost always short-sighted.

I'll go further and say that government is a "better version of us". Without government you'll likely have vigilanteism, such as the Wild West, or total anarchy. Pure libertarianism might work in small groups, but human society is much too large for that, and has been for millenia.

Read "The Better Angels of Our Nature". The rule of law is one of the reasons that society is much less violent now than it was centuries ago. When people had to take the law into their own hands there was much more crime and violent retribution (e.g. shooting cattle rustlers).

[y66]

More on bees and neonicotinoids in yesterday's Guardian:

Quote

In a study published in the journal Nature, scientists from Newcastle Univeristy showed that bees have a preference for sugar solutions that are laced with the pesticides imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, possibly indicating they can become hooked on the chemicals.

Also published in Nature on Wednesday was a study that has been endorsed as the most conclusive evidence yet that the group of pesticides, neonicotinoids, harm wild bee populations, which include bumblebees and solitary bees.

Scientists from Lund University in Sweden carried out the first successful ‘real world’ experiment on the effect of neonicotinoids on bees and found that wild bee populations halved around fields treated with them. Bumblebee hives stopped growing and produced less queens where the chemical was present. However the study did not find evidence that more robust honeybees, which are used to pollinate many crops, were affected.

Dr Maj Rundlöf, the lead author of the study, said the impacts on wild bees were “dramatic”. “I think it’s really important evidence when discussing how neonicotinoids used in real agricultural landscapes influence bees,” she said.

Dave Goulson, a bee expert at Sussex University, not involved in the research, hailed the findings as hugely significant.

“At this point in time it is no longer credible to argue that agricultural use of neonicotinoids does not harm wild bees.” He said the paper was “a major step forwards in clarifying the neonicotinoid debate ... This was the first fully field-realistic, well-replicated trial so far, an impressive piece of work.”

[barmar]

Last night's Daily Show had a good segment with Aasif Mandvi interviewing an anti-GMOer and a pro-GMO scientist.

[y66]

From How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food by Mark Lynas

Quote

The environmental movement’s war against genetic engineering has led to a deepening rift with the scientific community. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed a greater gap between scientists and the public on G.M.O.s than on any other scientific controversy: While 88 percent of association scientists agreed it was safe to eat genetically modified foods, only 37 percent of the public did — a gap in perceptions of 51 points. (The gap on climate change was 37 points; on childhood vaccinations, 18 points.)

On genetic engineering, environmentalists have been markedly more successful than climate change deniers or anti-vaccination campaigners in undermining public understanding of science. The scientific community is losing this battle. If you need visual confirmation of that, try a Google Images search for the term “G.M.O.” Scary pictures proliferate, from an archetypal evil scientist injecting tomatoes with a syringe — an utterly inaccurate representation of the real process of genetic engineering — to tumor-riddled rats and ghoulish chimeras like fish-apples.

... As someone who participated in the early anti-G.M.O. movement, I feel I owe a debt to Mr. Rahman and other farmers in developing countries who could benefit from this technology. At Cornell, I am working to amplify the voices of farmers and scientists in a more informed conversation about what biotechnology can bring to food security and environmental protection.

No one claims that biotech is a silver bullet. The technology of genetic modification can’t make the rains come on time or ensure that farmers in Africa have stronger land rights. But improved seed genetics can make a contribution in all sorts of ways: It can increase disease resistance and drought tolerance, which are especially important as climate change continues to bite; and it can help tackle hidden malnutritional problems like vitamin A deficiency.

We need this technology. We must not let the green movement stand in its way.

Mark Lynas is a researcher at the Cornell Alliance for Science and the author, most recently, of “The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans.”

[barmar]

The reference to climate change is on point.

Natural selection is a slow process. Natural climate change is also pretty slow. Human technology has increased the rate of climate change drastically, and it's unlikely that natural evolution can keep up. So if we're altering the climate artificially, we need to take similar measures to help the species that we depend on to adapt to it.

[onoway]

http://www.businessi...nization-2015-3

Of course Monsanto has demanded they retract the findings and their tentative criticism (results found to be true at least a dozen years ago). As an independent scientist recently said, studies funded by Monsanto tend to say that everything is fine. studies not funded by Monsanto tend to reach very different conclusions. This week a Monsanto employee admitted that Monsanto has a whole department whose only job is to befuddle and confuse the public by mocking and deriding anyone who dared suggest there might be a problem, and calling into question the qualifications and competence of anyone who dares suggest all might not be well. This has long been reported to be true, now confirmed by someone so employed. There was of course an example of this in this thread when Dr Shiva was dismissed as being unworthy of trust, presumably any unnamed scientist working for Monsanto being more deserving of such. Truth and Monsanto are strangers to each other, it seems.

It strikes me as odd that people decry the diminishing respect that people hold for science when such stuff goes on. If what Monsanto is giving us is "science", then scientists deserve to be treated with the same distrust if not actual contempt that politicians have earned, and for the same reason.

Oh yes...in India four farmers have raised record(that is to say beating all previous crop yields) harvests without GMOs, without chemical fertilizers and without pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc. And in another area of India farmers with failed GMO crops beat up a Monsanto rep who met with them and told them it was all their fault their crops failed.

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2015-April-29, 00:04, said:

Oh yes...in India four farmers have raised record(that is to say beating all previous crop yields) harvests without GMOs, without chemical fertilizers and without pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc. And in another area of India farmers with failed GMO crops beat up a Monsanto rep who met with them and told them it was all their fault their crops failed.

Served him right!