Glad to see this topic in back in your face!

[Dick Seibert]

Dick
Which homes are you talking about

Old homes from the 19th century, mostly Victorian in Oakland and San Francisco, back in the late 50s I had a job in Chinatown in San Francisco, we were remodeling a street level Chinese herb shop into a liquor store. In doing the work we had to get a vent through three stories above the herb shop, the old Victorian rooms were filled with paint peeling off in huge "flakes", the occupants were all Chinese immigrants who didn't speak a word of English, there were generations of people crammed into each room, there must have been dozens in some rooms, dresser drawers were pulled open containing babies sleeping and crying in them, there were babies crawling all over the place on the floor, I have no idea whether the paint was lead based and I don't recall seeing any babies eating the paint chips flaking off the wood trim. The men were absent during the daytime so I assumed they were working, walking on the street you could see many doorways open to Chinese "sweat shops" where Chinese women sat at rows of sewing machines sewing clothes together.

[Bill Robinson]

Dick
Which homes are you talking about

[Dick Seibert]

Lead regulation is only one piece in a drastically over-regulated economy, in the paper today was an article about British Columbia reducing it's regulations by 50% while simultaneously increasing it's GDP.

With “historic reforms to both taxes and regulation,” Mnuchin believes GDP growth of 3 percent or more is attainable.
The details of this historic agenda are not yet clear, but critical to any reform should be cleaning out the regulatory cobwebs that have been accumulating for seven decades.
A look to our neighbor in the north provides a glimpse of the power of some simple spring cleaning. Since 2001, the Canadian province of British Columbia has cut its regulatory requirements by nearly 50 percent. In terms of real GDP per capita growth, the province went from the worst performing major economy in Canada in the 1980s and ’90s to the best in the years since reform was enacted. Alongside this turnaround, British Columbia has maintained a position as one of the healthiest places in Canada.
Contrast this with the United States, where the pendulum of regulatory accumulation swings in just one direction, and economic growth is bitterly disappointing.
A core reason for our troubles may be the near relentless rise of federal regulation.
Regardless of which political party controls the White House or Congress, the level of federal regulation has been growing for years.
In 1950, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was under 10,000 pages. By 1975, it had grown to more than 70,000 pages. By 1990 — after the “Reagan Revolution” supposedly rolled back big government — it stood at more than 125,000 pages. Today the CFR is nearly 180,000 pages long and includes more than 1 million restrictions.
At some point, the accumulation of rules is not just costly — it’s absurd. Regulators become like hoarders who refuse to throw away any possessions. They add thousands of new rules to the pile each year, but rarely, if ever, do they seriously clean up what’s accumulated.
British Columbia achieved its regulatory reductions in part by capping the amount of regulation that could be in place at any given time. The Trump administration is now moving in this direction, with a requirement that at least two rules be identified for repeal for each new one proposed.

A cap on regulations works like a cap on possessions. With every new rule, we reassess the old ones: Which are vital? Which have outlived their usefulness or become passe? Which ones can be modernized with a little tailoring?

The regulatory closet will always need some essential items to protect citizens and maintain a fair marketplace. But at some point, as we add more and more rules without ever cleaning out the old ones, even necessary rules just add to the mess and create confusion, becoming less effective than they should be.¹

Generations of people of all ethnicities lived in these old homes without ill effects, lead was banned in paint 29 years ago, that should have been enough to allow it to gradually phase out without damage, economic or health-wise to anyone, if we were to scrap 50% of our regulations what better regulations to scrap?

Oh, Ted's dog, he's out with Social Justice Warriors chasing rainbows, he thinks rainbows are unicorn farts in utopia.


¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/...ed-for-growth/

[Ted S.]

Has anyone seen my dog?

[Bill Robinson]

Dick
Hand washing extends across the aisle

There will always be a market for teaching hand washing

Till the waters rise above the gunnals

[MarkMc]

Dick, JLC's first and biggest* SJW!

[Dick Seibert]

Dick, it is obvious you have a limited understand ing of the cultural, social, and economic conditions anywhere outside of Martinez. The same goes for what you know about lead and other toxic materials.

Yet somehow you know about the Toluene in some caulks and sealants and seem to accept that condition.

Your pontificating on the lead issue is akin to someone reading about the Grand Canyon having never actually been there.

FYIW, this town has two oil refineries and a third across the bay that put lead in gasoline prior to the ban.

Why do you believe the science behind the lead rules, faith? Just yesterday I was reading Ron Unz' blog about intelligence:

So, what do intelligence researchers think about racial differences in intelligence?

Invitations were emailed to 1237 persons and at the end only 228 (18 %) participants completed the process (70 fully and 158 partially). As far as the authors could make it out, “lefties” and “righties” turned down the offer in equal numbers, complaining that the questions were not good enough, the selection of experts would not be good or that they did not want to participate in a process which suggested that the truth could be found by majority decisions. In fact, the authors just wanted to find out what expert opinion was, in all its variety, and were not intending to come to any conclusions of a majority sort. (Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science). As many pointed out, one good study can smash down an old consensus.¹

Highlighting by me, with all the fraud exposed in climate science academics are panicking that science is now held in such disrespect that they will all lose their funding.

As I've demonstrated above this is political regulation, you Democrats can't accept the fact that you lost and want to continue this absurd regulation, hopefully Scott Pruitt will get around to cleaning house in the EPA getting rid of bad science. In the meantime I have to assume that you will continue to rip people off teaching them to wash their hands, at least until the regulations can be reformed.



¹ http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-iq...-intelligence/

[Bill Robinson]

Too much lead can be harmful, drinking too much water can kill you, it's all a matter of degree. In most older ghettos generations of immigrants have moved in and moved out, in New York City I've read of Dutch, German, Jewish, Puerta Rican, and now black, the same paint has been used, painted over, sanded off, and painted over time and time again, why is it only a problem now? If anything is "for the children" you can bet your money it's a fraud.

A scientist should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.---Albert Einstein

Dick, it is obvious you have a limited understand ing of the cultural, social, and economic conditions anywhere outside of Martinez. The same goes for what you know about lead and other toxic materials.

Yet somehow you know about the Toluene in some caulks and sealants and seem to accept that condition.

Your pontificating on the lead issue is akin to someone reading about the Grand Canyon having never actually been there.

[MarkMc]

[...]Several times I've posted Eisenhower's farewell address wherein...

[...] needs new science on both sides of any scientific issue before laws and regulations are written so informed decisions can be rendered before wealth is redistributed...

Too much lead can be harmful, drinking too much water can kill you, it's all a matter of degree....

Speaking of Ben Carson, it's readily apparent why you chose the hammer over the gavel.

[Dick Seibert]

Double post

[Dick Seibert]

It would be interesting to know why you are so obstinate in your objection to protecting children

I understand you choose to not accept the dangers of lead poisoning children

Too much lead can be harmful, drinking too much water can kill you, it's all a matter of degree. In most older ghettos generations of immigrants have moved in and moved out, in New York City I've read of Dutch, German, Jewish, Puerta Rican, and now black, the same paint has been used, painted over, sanded off, and painted over time and time again, why is it only a problem now? If anything is "for the children" you can bet your money it's a fraud.

A scientist should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.---Albert Einstein

[Bill Robinson]

More nonsense dick

Or should I call you Roger

You and your laws

If it is not against the law it is ok huh?

It would be interesting to know why you are so persistent in your objection to protecting children

I understand you choose to not accept the dangers of lead poisoning children

And am grateful you do not work on old homes

What does bother me though is that some people might actually believe your bs and poison some kids

[Dick Seibert]

It was written by some office types who had no idea how things are in the field.

EPA does not do a good job of setting up the class or enforcing the rules.

And you are saying Trump's EPA shouldn't reform these regulations written by The Sierra Club?

[Dick Seibert]

That is just plain stupid dick

The lead issue has been a problem long before Nixon created the EPA and long before John Muir walked the Sierras.

I just watched a thing on Roger Stone, you remind me of him.

Yes lead has always been here, let's take the older homes that Mark Beezo works on, generations of people have grown up and lived in those homes, why has lead all of a sudden become such a great problem? Looking at your video, not only is it condescending but how many people have been protected by a few young people being taught to wash their hands? Is washing hands of any value whatsoever? Even you admit that the regulations are written by suits that are unfamiliar with the real world, so why do it?

[Bill Robinson]

That is just plain stupid dick

The lead issue has been a problem long before Nixon created the EPA and long before John Muir walked the Sierras.

I just watched a thing on Roger Stone, you remind me of him.