[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

[Bourquin, Marty]

This should probably be taken off line since it is wandering away from
the original argument but your statement about Dodd-Frank is not
completely accurate.   The vast majority of high risk (sub-prime) loans
were made by institutions that were not subject to the CRDA.  The
failing was the ratings agencies giving this bundled subprime paper AAA
ratings thus allowing it to be resold at high prices.  If the paper had
been rated B- or lower like it should have been it wouldn't have had a
market to be sold in.  No resale market would have meant no (or fewer)
sub-prime mortgages being written.  But the ratings agencies would have
lost a lot of business from the big financial institutions if they rated
it lower so ...  And since these privately held ratings agencies were
basically unregulated (and in fact still are not regulated) guess which
won out - greed or the best interests of taxpayers?

And now I head back to the shadows to lurk until I feel the need vent
once again


Marty


Martin W. Bourquin 
Manager - EHS
Radiation Safety Officer 
W.R. Grace & Co 
Chattanooga, TN  37406 
423-697-8216 

423-309-1547(m)
   

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:57 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

Robert,
Banks were forced by Dodd-Frank to lend our deposits to home-buyers
incapable of repayment, so not a valid simile.
 Nothing could have prevented meltdown in an even more unlikely Mt Fiji
lava flow, either ("full range").
Howard
On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:40 PM, "Robert J Gunter, CHP" <rjgunter at me.com>
wrote:

> The problem with self regulation is the utilities are not capable or
willing to assume the liability of the full range of accident scenarios
(much like our banks....).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:23 PM, William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
>> "Self-regulation" is an oxymoron.
>> 
>> Bill Lipton
>> doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Nuclear "Business" is better regulated by customers than by
self-serving
>>> bureaucrats, Dewey, -
>>> 
>>> - as is physician care. 94% of Medicaid cost in KS is for other than
>>> doctors, their overhead, labs and imaging. The bureaucracy is 98% of
>>> "health" cost for Medicaid  in New Jersey!
>>> 
>>> Read Rockwell. Review the finance costs for nuclear plants.
>>> Would you invest in regulatory harassment for 15 years (while
interest cost
>>> mounted)?
>>> Palo Verde puts out electricity 1/4 the cost gas or coal generators
do.
>>> Why does it have just 3 instead of the planned 10 reactors? State of
Fear
>>> (Crichton)
>>> 
>>> Read Freedomnomics (Lott) if you believe government regulation keeps
>>> nuclear reactors safer than Westinghouse or GE would, or that
economics is
>>> not choked by cancerous government growth.
>>> 
>>> Howard Long
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 5:55 AM, "Thompson, Dewey L"
<DThompson3 at ameren.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All right, I'll bite.  I think you got it wrong Howie.
>>>> 
>>>> The impediment to new nuclear power is NOT regulation.  It's
economics.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu