EPA Scientific Advisory Board Shakeup

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2017, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you ever wonder what caused the demise of this forum.....look no further that the provided examples.

What demise?  According to whom?

Quote:No one said remove the scientists; I simply disagreed with a post that said remove private industry representation entirely and provided a short example of why all interests should be represented.

Yeah, this coming from the same guy who claimed an insult isn't insulting.  Gimme a break.

Quote:To achieve the best solution for all parties.

"Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible."

If that were true of industry we wouldn't even need the EPA.

The reason Trump is rolling back EPA standards is so industry doesn't have to produce materials in the "cleanest, practical manner possible," but rather the cheapest.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2017, 08:15 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Not to be cynical, but there are numerous reasons your friend would be assigned said project.   Public good will would be a major one, but to say it against their profit interests seems false.  Very few cell phone plans charge per txt msg currently.  In the end, aside from limiting a very dangerous activity which I absolutely abhor and frequently yell at people for while riding my 2 wheel vehicles; they are lessening network loads.  

I agree with you that industry needs to be at the table as you described above.  But, the way I read the OP was that scientists were being replaced by industry professionals.  

The brain drain of institutional knowledge away from the EPA, state dept and countless other depts is scary.  I certainly don't believe it will last, but it will take time to repair.

I can only go by what he said, but his position was always to advise management how to make the most money. He absolutely hated the project because it went against everything he was schooled and trained to do. There was no profit in it and it was costing them money to conduct the research/ develop plans. The "problem" was too many people were getting into accidents while texting and driving.

I need to earn what ever certification that is required that when I see you texting while driving, I can stop you, snatch your phone from your hands, and throw it down the nearest drain.  

As to the rest: I agree there should be voices from all different walks on panels such as these.

[Dill]

(05-09-2017, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you ever wonder what caused the demise of this forum.....look no further that the provided examples.

No one said remove the scientists; I simply disagreed with a post that said remove private industry representation entirely and provided a short example of why all interests should be represented. To achieve the best solution for all parties.

Someone simply threw up a syllogism which suggested scientists reach silly conclusions, and left it hanging.

If anything, that silly syllogism implied "the best solution for all parties" would be to get rid of those guys.

Critical readers aren't to blame for clumsy implication--or the "demise" of a forum which appears to be chugging along pretty well.

[Dill]

(05-09-2017, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The reason Trump is rolling back EPA standards is so industry doesn't have to produce materials in the "cleanest, practical manner possible," but rather the cheapest.

This.

[Benton]

(05-09-2017, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you may underestimate the stewardship of some businesses. For instance I know an ad-hoc Econ Professor whose daytime job is working for one of the large cell phone service providers. He was assigned the project manager of a research project that looked for ways to reduce texting and driving.

He said it conflicted with his usual practice; as the goal was not to maximize profits.

I can provide numerous other examples of where big industry cut into their profit margin to do the "right thing". I think some of us are just too cynical.  

As a part of a corporate beast and someone whom manages business school grads, I don't think you're going to sway me much, especially with a cell phone company trying to reduce texting while driving. That's not exactly the same as a pesticide producer whose product may be poisoning water tables on the watchdog agency designed to stop groups from poisoning water tables.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible."

If that were true of industry we wouldn't even need the EPA.

They just can't get this.

Despite all of the history in our country to the contrary.  Despite all of the current examples all over the world right now proving them wrong.  The rubes still belive that government regulation is bad and industry is really the party that cares about the well being of US citizens.

"Don't trust scinetists.  They want to take away all of our cars!!!"

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you may underestimate the stewardship of some businesses.

I think you may be underestimating the entire history of the industrial revolution in America and the current state of affairs in every country on earth that has weak environmental regulation.

(05-09-2017, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can provide numerous other examples of where big industry cut into their profit margin to do the "right thing". I think some of us are just too cynical.  

Thank you for offering to provide these "numerous" examples. You post your list and i'll post mine.

i think some of you have been brianwashed by the right wing echo chamber.  

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only go by what he said, but his position was always to advise management how to make the most money. He absolutely hated the project because it went against everything he was schooled and trained to do. There was no profit in it and it was costing them money to conduct the research/ develop plans. The "problem" was too many people were getting into accidents while texting and driving.

Cell companies are all competeing to find safeguards.

The company that can develope the best safeguards will advertise that fact in order to increase sales.

This is 100% profit driven.  Best safeguards increase sales.  Just like the tire company that can claim to have the "safest tire".  It is all profit driven R&D.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 08:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you may be underestimating the entire history of the industrial revolution in America and the current state of affairs in every country on earth that has weak environmental regulation.




Thank you for offering to provide these "numerous" examples. You post your list and i'll post mine.

i think some of you have been brianwashed by the right wing echo chamber.  

No doubt I have been brainwashed by suggesting such a panel should not be devoid of corporate representation. I have studied business practices and cooperate stewardship at a post-graduate level; as well as, written (non-published) papers on the matter(s).

I do not say this to brag or suggest I know more than anyone else here. Merely to shut down refute your baseless accusation that I feel diversity and opposing views are good for any panel, is not formed by listening to the "right wing echo chamber".  

Do you think such panels should be devoid of corporate representation or are you just arguing to argue?

As to examples go to your search bar and type in "examples of corporate stewardship".   

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 08:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Cell companies are all competeing to find safeguards.

The company that can develope the best safeguards will advertise that fact in order to increase sales.

This is 100% profit driven.  Best safeguards increase sales.  Just like the tire company that can claim to have the "safest tire".  It is all profit driven R&D.

This is simply not true.

You really think the cell phone company that employs a method that restricts the user from texting in  moving vehicle will increase sales?

If you believe that just look around at the other cars (hell perhaps your own. I don't know your driving style) at the folks that might disagree with you as well.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 09:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I have been brainwashed by suggesting such a panel should not be devoid of corporate representation. I have studied business practices and cooperate stewardship at a post-graduate level; as well as, written (non-published) papers on the matter(s).

I do not say this to brag or suggest I know more than anyone else here. Merely to shut down your baseless accusation that I feel diversity and opposing views are good for any panel, is not formed by listening to the "right wing echo chamber".  

Do you think such panels should be devoid of corporate representation or are you just arguing to argue?

As to examples go to your search bar and type in "examples of corporate stewardship".   

Is that like the girlfriend from another town that "you wouldn't know" but is TOTALLY real?




Back to the topic:  I suppose there can be an argument of equal representation on such boards that are deciding policy.  But I tend to side with the argument that if Exxon wants to push policy to benefit them there should be a separate entity with no influence from them looking at the proposals too.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 09:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is simply not true.

You really think the cell phone company that employs a method that restricts the user from texting in  moving vehicle will increase sales?

If you believe that just look around at the other cars (hell perhaps your own. I don't know your driving style) at the folks that might disagree with you as well.

I actually agree with you. The money in the driving restrictions for cell use is in the patent and then the accompanied legislation requiring patented technology, not that the safety is going to make people run out and get it. Heck, the push back on wearing seat belts is only relatively recently fading away and those come free in every car.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 09:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: I actually agree with you. The money in the driving restrictions for cell use is in the patent and then the accompanied legislation requiring patented technology, not that the safety is going to make people run out and get it. Heck, the push back on wearing seat belts is only relatively recently fading away and those come free in every car.

My phone has an application for that.  When activated if the car goes about 10 MPH it turns on automatically and sends a pre typed message to whoever texted you.  Certain other applications won't work either.

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 09:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: My phone has an application for that.  When activated if the car goes about 10 MPH it turns on automatically and sends a pre typed message to whoever texted you.  Certain other applications won't work either.

There are tons of apps and similar things to accomplish the same thing. The issue is many grown adults do not have an interest in such applications. Texting and driving has kind of been the poster child of distracted driving but there are many other things almost everyone does that does in fact increase the chance of accidents that no one cares about. There are pretty telling statistics regarding things like talking on the phone, talking to someone in the car, eating or drinking, even listening to the radio.

Many get behind the "no texting and driving" idea because they can do without texting but many of the other ideas are so ingrained in most peoples driving life that they would freak out if they also got banned. In Europe you can be fined for distracted driving for eating or drinking while driving. How well would that go over in the U.S.? It may have not come across that way, but I agree texting and driving shouldn't be allowed. I don't however think there should be an actual required barrier from allowing it to happen (optional sure). Some would argue it could stop accidents, but I'd argue the car breathalyzer in every car could stop a majority of DUI's but that doesn't make it right to enact.

As I said though, I don't think people will run out to buy the newest smartphone that "restricts their freedoms".

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 09:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: My phone has an application for that.  When activated if the car goes about 10 MPH it turns on automatically and sends a pre typed message to whoever texted you.  Certain other applications won't work either.

Hell, my phone has a power button. I can turn it off when I get in the car. Doesn't mean everyone will choose that option.

The project was to develop a way to make it non-optional. Fred and others may see this as motivated by profit; as they have already made their bed; but the professor assured me it was not and he absolutely hated it.

Giving it more thought: It is most likely why they assigned him lead; for a dissenting voice. I wonder if there are any other panels, in which, a dissenting voice could be an asset.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 09:45 AM)Au165 Wrote: As I said though, I don't think people will run out to buy the newest smartphone that "restricts their freedoms".

"I wanna get that new phone that doesn't allow me to text while driving. Cause my old one makes me."

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 09:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: "I wanna get that new phone that doesn't allow me to text while driving. Cause my old one makes me."

Yea, it is kind of interesting. I could see parents getting it for their children, which would have a positive financial impact for companies, but as it's been pointed out you can get much cheaper options to accomplish them same thing. We let people make decisions, even bad decisions, because it's their right to do so then suffer the consequences for making such decisions. When we start taking away the right to make bad decisions we start going down a slippery slope.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 10:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, it is kind of interesting. I could see parents getting it for their children, which would have a positive financial impact for companies, but as it's been pointed out you can get much cheaper options to accomplish them same thing. We let people make decisions, even bad decisions, because it's their right to do so then suffer the consequences for making such decisions. When we start taking away the right to make bad decisions we start going down a slippery slope.

As the project grew they did find an ally. Now their motivation WAS profit driven. Can anyone guess who that was?

[Au165]

(05-10-2017, 10:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As the project grew they did find an ally. Now their motivation WAS profit driven. Can anyone guess who that was?

Car Manufactures and lobbyists?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 10:20 AM)Au165 Wrote: Car Manufactures and lobbyists?

Insurance companies.