Comments for Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes »
Posted By Aidenag 1 year, 1 month ago in Political NewsThe Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 65 of 66 Comments
-
-
79%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.>>>
Reply
What a bunch of freaking slobs. Congress needs to squash their nonsense with new laws governing environmental impact. Environmental groups can also sue to overturn the bush administrations filthy assault on our environment & our people. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned19 Replies
-
0%
sanyi_oradea1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who cares, I just hope they are not going to dismount the toilets, the sinks, and remove the coper tubings from the walls of the White House, like any decent real blue blooded American would do, when he is forced out of his home/house do to foreclosure, and as far as they are concerned, it is a foreclosure situation... for them.
Reply-
-
100%
orndorffter1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sanyi-oradea:> Shame Shame Shame, Shame on you that was not a very nice thing to hope for. The White House dose not belong to any of them , and you say those Shamful thins like that. you need your mouth washed out with soap, only a child would talk like that.
Reply
-
-
-
82%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just another reason to view Bush for what he is. A murdering, lieing, thieving, heartless, brainless idiot. Who has not had to work hard for a living ever.
Reply
Whose ideas of protecting people is protecting the profits of the greedy no accounts who could care less about man kind.
Those who defend him are either stupid or have not had to put it on the line every day, looking forward to a day when one can retire in somewhat good health.
You Bush backers really need a lesson, you go do the work and see.
Nah you couldn't hang !!!!! You'd be whining after the first week !!!!! LMAO hahahahahaaaaa -
36%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
did any of you clowns read the article?
Reply
jordan: labor hygiene rules have nothing to do with environmental rules.
psycho: this is a worker safety issue, beyotched mainly by the AFL CIO. you're being played. are you saying that we are likely to be dirtier than China? LOL. you must be a kid. we used to BE like China. we cleaned up.
bluedragon: sheesh. google up the rule and see for yourself what they are talking about. its a restriction ON dumping overburden. historically, mountaintop mining has been doing it for years and years.
mountainman: if you are a welder, you know that OSHA rules already apply. whasamatter? you can beeyotch here, but you can't complain to your employer? make them meet the regs. its your right.
CG: what are you? the cheerleader for a bunch of mental midgets?
folks. if you want to complain about crappy politics, go right ahead. if you want to complain about the technical aspects of some of these bills, go right ahead,too. just to go on and on about something you don't understand and have made no attempt to understand either, is just plain silly.-
70%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OSHA rules may or may not apply to zinc poisoning. But that's not the point of the article, or of Bush's new rule.
Reply
It's not about whether mntnman's friend has a grievance--it's about actually preventing all workers from future harm.
FTA:
"The Labor Department regulates occupational health hazards posed by a wide variety of substances like asbestos, benzene, cotton dust, formaldehyde, lead, vinyl chloride and blood-borne pathogens, including the virus that causes AIDS.
"Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses."
and:
"The department is constantly considering whether to take steps to protect workers against hazardous substances. Currently, it is assessing substances like silica, beryllium and diacetyl, a chemical that adds the buttery flavor to some types of microwave popcorn.
"The proposal applies to two agencies in the Labor Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
"Under the proposal, they would have to publish 'advance notice of proposed rule-making,' soliciting public comment on studies, scientific information and data to be used in drafting a new rule. In some cases, OSHA has done that, but it is not required to do so."
-
-
57%
amazed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here come the torrents of negs, but....
Reply
all of the same people who are carrying on about how this regulation amounts to "murder" on Bush's part -- (the way I read the regulation is that OSHA should know that the toxin is a threat in the manner in which it is used in the particular industry) before it issues work rules banning the substance or making very restrictive rules on how it must be handled) -- are, for the most part, the same ones yelling about the evil corporations who keep sending all the work overseas.
Now, it makes tons of sense to me, that the way to entice corporations to keep their production in the states is to throw EVEN MORE regulations at them...yeah, right.
This headline and, to a bit lesser extent the article, is just aimed at (pretty effectively, apparently) whipping up people with an anti-business mindset into a frenzy.
Kind of like when they sent my kid's entire school home for the rest of the day because a teacher broke an old mercury thermometer in a closet.
We need a little more rationality and a lot less hysteria when it comes to work place regulations.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
50%
Will13131 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kind of like when they sent my kid's entire school home for the rest of the day because a teacher broke an old mercury thermometer in a closet.
Reply
---
yep and given the right temp.. it can evaporate into the air and your kid could have inhaled it....
better safe than sorry...
your comment shows just exactly how uninformed you are...
Metallic mercury is a hazardous chemical that can cause serious health problems. Children (especially very young children) and fetuses are most vulnerable. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the U.S. Public Health Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Exiting ATSDR are jointly issuing an alert to the general public. There is a continuing pattern of metallic mercury exposure in children and teenagers and in persons using certain folk medicines or participating in certain ethnic or religious practices.
It is important for the general public to understand that either short-term or long-term exposures to metallic mercury can lead to serious health problems. Human exposure to metallic mercury occurs primarily from breathing contaminated air. Other forms of mercury can be absorbed by drinking contaminated water, eating food (usually fish containing mercury), and from skin contact. At high levels, metallic mercury can cause effects on the nervous system and the developing fetus. Other forms of mercury can damage other organs. Even at low levels, metallic mercury can cause health problems. Metallic mercury exposure can cause harm before symptoms arise. Once released into the environment, mercury is very hard to clear up. If it is left unattended where exposures can occur, it can have dangerous effects on human health.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/alerts/970626.html-
-
100%
Will13131 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that would explain your mental problems.. thanks for clearing it up....
Reply
anyone that thinks that mercury is harmless is simply not facing reality..
and you'd have been the first in line to sue the school .. the teacher.. the school board and anyone else you could find if you kid had gotten sick.....-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't suggest that children SHOULD play with mercury, I am stating a fact that children DID play with mercury in the past. Not every day, not as a constant and favorite toy, but when thermometers broke or a bit of mercury came around one way or another, yeah, children (and even some teachers) used to handle it.
Reply
It rolls around in your hand, and acts like not much of any other substance. It gives a weird tingly feeling and is generally kind of cool. It also eats gold -- an indication to those who DO play with it and have on rings, that maybe it's not such a good thing to play with.
I would be willing to be that the vast majority of people over the age of 45-50 have played with mercury at some point in their life.
Now, would I let my children play with it? Obviously not, but one broken thermometer in a closet is not going to kill an entire school or even have any adverse effects -- especially if the stuff is cleaned up.
Use a little common sense. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sometimes, even when you read stuff like you posted, you have to think for yourself.
Reply
the people that wrote this should go back to school. when i log out, i'm going to be sending the author of that paper a note.
writing something that causes panic for the untechnical reader is disservice.
organic mercury is deadly toxic. overeating fish with high concentration of mercury is bad. inorganic mercury (salts like oxide and chloride) are something you are careful with. metallic mercury should be contained. its not rocket science.
what the article doesn't tell you is what concentration (micrograms per cubic meter of air) of any form makes it of concern and what level makes it dangerous.
closing a school for breaking a thermometer in a confined area is dumb. pick it up with a mercury disposal kit.
if it all evaporated, there isn't enough mercury atoms to reach a dangerous concentration. its mathematically impossible. its not even enough to reach a level of concern. but if you like living in panic mode, who am i to stop you?
let's look at an easy example.
there's about 5 micrograms of mercury in a compact fluorescent bulb. congratulations. you just dropped it on the floor and it broke. if every particle of mercury dissipated in the air, that would contaminate about 5 cubic meters of air. but if you look down, most of that mercury is trapped in the fluor dust. maybe 5% of the 5 micrograms gets airborne. if you are really REALLY concerned, open a window and gather up the dust by blotting it with a wet paper towel. throw it in the trash.
see comment 123
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal...
what we have is a general population that fears chemicals. its amazing. the chemistry set that i had as a kid, and the chemical books i used to experiment in the basement with, would cause evacuations now.-
100%
Will13131 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another of your mindless uninformed rants.. your link is about the small amount in a light bulb..
Reply
I'll believe the center for disease control that I posted the link from...
the dorm in Boca Raton cost millions to clean up.....
now run along and play with a thermometer.. .. inhale a bit and then get back to me...
you've once again proven you ignorance..
-
-
-
BlueAutumn_1989Comment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
75%
ForrestPhelps1 year, 1 month ago
-
25%
beavith11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's a pretty snarky question from someone who may not have himself.
Reply
their opinion is just as valuable as you of the peanut gallery. the 'deeply offended' self righteous Bush haters.
sorry gang. this issue has almost nothing to to with Bush. at worst, you can say 'politics sucks' and 'he's doing something i don't like.'
welcome to the cold cruel world.-
100%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As usual beavith you didn't answer the question . Now my guess is you are one of the management types who receives their bonus and doesn't care who has to suffer as long as you receive it.
Reply
Have ya ever worked in a factory where dangerous chemicals are ??? I manage a warehouse on the night shift where we receive, handle and ship hazardous chemicals.
Corrosives, acids, fire hazards, lung and skin toxins.... Now we have the MSD on all of them. But one could be dead by the time you find the information. Should the manufacture have to label the drum with the information ?????
I think so !!!! But of course you have never had to deal with spill of something deadly have you ?????
At our warehouse if you walked out and caught a whiff of certain things you could die !!!!
So yeah !!!!! Making the laws harder to enforce or regulate could very well be a matter of life or death dimwit !!!!!!! So yeah to me that is a conspiracy commit murder !!!! Maybe ya don't know who you are going to murder but ya know you will kill someone.
But you'd cry like hell if someone put the stuff in your office and said it leaking look up the data and see how deadly it is. Oh but ya might be dead or have your lungs burned out or your eyes blinded by the fumes before ya could find the answer.
So then maybe no one else knows and they come in and suffer the fate....
Not very bright are ya ?????? -
100%
ForrestPhelps1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To beavith1:
Reply
Wow! Sorry if my question seemed snarky.
For the record, I don't consider myself a member of the peanut gallery, I'm not particularly 'deeply offended' easily, try very hard not to be self-righteous (probably fail upon occasion), and don't really 'hate" Bush, although I do think he's been one of worst Presidents of my lifetime. I think this issue does have something to do with Bush, it's his Labor Department that's about to issue the new rule.
Funny, I was going to include you when I asked the question, based upon your earlier comments, so it's appropriate that you responded. And you and the other two haven't answered the question. The three of you write comments that make it seem as if you consider yourself experts on the subject. I'm just asking for credentials, so to say.
Finally, I've spent a few years in the "cold cruel world", and about the only thing I've learned is that it would be nice if everyone worked to make it less cold and cruel.
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I worked for several years at a printing company and I own a auto body repair and truck repair shop.
Reply
For nearly every OSHA regulation, there is a contradictory regulation further down in the rules.
I am required to insist that my workers use hearing protection and eye protection (no problem with that) but their refusal to use is neither legitimate grounds for dismissal, nor exonerates me from the fines that could be incurred.
The original OSHA requirements were good things and truly contributed to worker's safety. We provided fresh air masks and most other safety equipment (that we could afford) even before it was required and are now looking to switch over to waterborne paints.
However, new OSHA regs, more often than not, provide incremental improvements in worker safety and health for draconian price tags.
If a company cannot be competitive, it cannot remain in business. If I go out of business, 20 people lose their jobs. A small number to be sure, but many small businesses going out of business add up to real numbers of people out of work-
Neutral
ForrestPhelps1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To amazed:
Reply
Thanks for your answer.
For your specific case, I'd call OSHA and have them, in writing, explain the contradictions you have found in the regs. As for workers not wearing their PPE, have all employees sign a document stating that they will wear proper PPE and that failure to do so will result in x numbers of warnings, and then termination.
Every industrial site I visit, and it is many, in numerous industries, have no problem banning visitors or personnel who will not follow safety regulations.
And isn't almost all safety equipment you are required to provide able to be written off as a business expense, for tax purposes? I'm not an accountant, but I know several small businesses that love safety equipment since it ends up saving them money.
But perhaps I live in a different world than yours. I deal with regulators on the local, state and federal level, and almost all of them are more than reasonable to deal with, and generally very helpful to ensure the work is completed in as safe a manner as possible.-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be quite honest with you, I would NEVER do ANYTHING that might cause OSHA to become aware of my company's existence. As with most gov't agencies, if they get you in their sights, they will be sure to find enough that you're doing wrong to fine you right out of business.
Reply
Again, there is no problem banning visitors who do not wear the proper safety equipment, but regardless of what you believe, we have been told outright, that regardless of what they signed or how many warnings were given, firing an employee for refusing to wear safety equipment is not a legitimate reason. However, any injuries incurred by their failure to wear their equipment IS my responsibility and will greatly affect my workers comp rate and will subject me to OSHA fines, should I get inspected.
You must be in a different world than I, because I have found most regulators on the local, state or federal level to be be quite power hungry and revel in their ability to make a small business person's life miserable.
Perhaps you come at them from a larger corporation so there is a least a perception that your power corresponds to theirs. Seeing how you seem to deal with many of them, I suspect this is the case. When you are a tiny company, they tend to prefer to stomp on you.-
100%
ForrestPhelps1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To amazed:
Reply
Well, as regards my company, we're less than a dozen employees, so I doubt we're big and powerful.
Maybe it's all in how one approaches regulatory bodies? And if you don't mind my asking, who is it that told you not to fire employees who don't follow the safety requirements of their job?-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To amazed:
Reply
OK, hold onto your hat. I'm a "liberal", and if the facts are as you've presented them, then it was a bad decision by the state labor board.
I wholeheartedly agree that an employer needs to be able to discipline, and fire, personnel who do not adhere to company safety policies.-
Neutral
amazed1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know what the relevance of your being a liberal is to this conversation, unless by that you mean that you implicitly trust the government to do what is best for you.
Reply
In CT, (a very liberal state), it is very rare for a company -- even a large company to "win" against any regulatory agency.
When I fired a driver who had gotten arrested for heroin and refused to take a non-driving job, the first guy found that it was not a justified firing and I had to pay unemployment. I appealed and won the appeal, but then the guy was apparently too strung out to show up, so I got the default judgement. I'm not convinced that I would have won that if he had remembered to show up for the hearing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.