[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

[Howard]

Mike, you sound like my son, bitter about "Big Biz".
Some of the immorality you describe is there, indeed, like Madoff and Enron.
However, some gov. officials brag about similar acts, enslaving our grandchildren in debt!

I favor biz/gov although biz (insurer) did not pay me when I gave "unnecessary" service.
But gov.(Medicare) would jail me for fraud, doing what I thought best and the patient wanted.
I escape both tyrannies by having to sell a patient on a service, like back injection or BP med. when I reject any third party payment, as with Ryan plan. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

Big biz, like nuc plant, expects crippling cost, loss of investors and personal shame for execs
if any safety failure over many years, - so tends extra careful. 
However, regulators, unionized USA inspectors of BP deep well concrete sealing, not so.

Fuku survived Richter 9 quake, but not 30' tsunami, but no radiation deaths among 10,000!
  The nuclear industry proved its safety again, and should be proud.

Howard Long

On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:00 PM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> "What specific damage was done by profit motive (vs political
> regulation)?"
> 
> Fraud, embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, bribery, and a
> variety of other corruptions are driven by the profit motive and, to the
> extent they are controlled at all, are controlled by regulations.  And
> it your rebuttal is, "But some of those are against the law!", well,
> "the law" is a set of regulations.  
> 
> Some people contend there is a difference between actions a person
> controlling the action of a company do to enrich themselves vs. the
> things they do to theoretically enrich the company (I as "theoretically"
> because it often turns out they had their eye firmly on their own
> benefit, regardless of their claimed motive).  To the extent this is
> true, regulations can (and should) protect the long term interests of
> both the immediate owners (the shareholders) and the owners of the
> entire economic system (the stakeholders) from actions that are
> excessively short sighted and not adequately risk adverse.  
> 
> And since you bring it up, "reputation" only provides regulation if the
> persons in question believe they will get caught, or do not believe they
> can steal enough before they get caught to not have to go back to that
> well again.    
> 
> 
> 
> -----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 12:18 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation
> 
> Peter, 
> What specific damage was done by profit motive (vs political
> regulation)?
> Freedomnomics describes explicit studies showing surprisingly strong 
> regulation by reputation 
> (and indirect result on profits).
> Howard Long
> 
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Peter Collopy <chaosforthefuture at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Having been in the Nuclear Power business since the early days (
> 1970s) I can tell you from first hand experience that allowing the
> utilties and manufacturers a free hand would be disasterous. That is not
> to say they most in the industry do not mean well; the drive for profits
> is simply too strong an incentive and allows all sorts of self
> rationalizing when making decisions on safety. It is somewhat akin to
> what happened when the banks were deregulated with the result of a major
> economic collapse in our country. The risks were known (read "Too Big to
> Fail" its quite illuminating) by JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers etc but they
> were so afraid of being left out of the wind falls being created by the
> derivatives and sub-prime loan markets they simply wished it away.
>> 
>> I would agree that too much regulation is incredibly suffocating and
> not good for safety or the economy. The trick is to find the right
> balance - its real hard and we all have opinions on whether the poridge
> is too cold or too hot. One thing I do support is the periodic review of
> regulations so those that did not accomplish their intended purpose or
> are found to be overly burdensome are eliminated and tweaks are made in
> the useful regulations to ensure their effectiveness. One big problem
> with OSHA and EPA is that once a regulation is approved its almost
> impossible to change it or eliminate it.. Kind of runs against the grain
> of a "Continuous Improvement Process."
>> 
>> I personally don't like posting my political opinions on this board
> (and I should be castigated for it-don't worry I will punish myself by
> watching Twighlight) but in this case I felt in necessary to weigh in
> based on personal experience within the nuclear power community,
>> 
>> 
>> Pete C
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Peter Collopy, CIH, CHP, CSP 
>> Director, Entropy Control 
>> Chaos for the Future 
>> 129 Second Street
>> Troy, NY 12180
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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