Re: Re: POLITICS Adjudicating Pollution Disputes - what makes us safe?

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:46:00 -0800

" Sea Orca " <seaorca@...> wrote:

>

> Not at all by what you said. Lack of regulation = no quality standards =

> lower prices = what poor people can afford. I want to know that even when my

> family is poor (which we are some months) that everything I buy is under a

> regulatory umbrella so I have assurance that my family's health is not

> dependant on corporate greed.

I'm admittedly way behind on this thread although I was involved early

on and plan on catching up with all my posts this week, but I think you

miss a very real point here that is not a question of theory as your

premise that we would be unsafe without government regulation has

ALREADY been proven wrong in the marketplace.

One of the top certifiers in this country is private even though most

people do not realize such is the case. Businesses voluntarily submit to

their standards and seek their certification. You see their insignia on

billions of products, Underwriter Laboratories. They have been around

for over a century (and were certifying in a number of industries before

the government got involved). Below is an article explaining exactly how

they work.

excerpt:

" Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their

homes--toasters,

fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions, etc.--have been tested

by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like

bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial ice cream machines, and

chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other products.

" But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned,

financed,

and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services.

It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its excellent

reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven enemies on the

left despise it.

" The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the

dramatic

increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000 scientists,

engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent verdict on

hundreds of thousands of products.

" The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that

without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit

without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to

impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The

government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing

fatal accidents.

" The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate

itself,

and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without

oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no one would

trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department or the

Federal Trade Commission. "

######

http://snipurl.com/d9pf

What Keeps Us Safe?

Mark Thornton

Look at the back of your computer monitor, the bottom of your table lamp,

or the label on your hair dryer. Chances are you will see the symbol " UL "

with a circle around it. It stands for Underwriters Laboratories, a firm

headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., and an unsung hero of the market

economy.

Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their homes--toasters,

fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions, etc.--have been tested

by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like

bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial ice cream machines, and

chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other products.

But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned, financed,

and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services.

It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its excellent

reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven enemies on the

left despise it.

The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the dramatic

increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000 scientists,

engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent verdict on

hundreds of thousands of products.

The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that

without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit

without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to

impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The

government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing

fatal accidents.

The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate itself,

and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without

oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no one would

trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department or the

Federal Trade Commission.

Unlike quality and price, safety isn't always at the forefront of the

consumer's mind. But that hasn't kept manufacturers from seeking out the

Lab's testing services. For those who appreciate the virtues of private

enterprise, the UL insignia is an inspiration.

The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of pilots and

planes before the government intervened. It set the standards for

building materials, fire fighting equipment, air conditioners, and

household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and pyrotechnicians to test

safes, and a variety of unique machines and devices to test thousands of

other products each year. It has been testing multicolored Christmas

lights since 1905, and entered the building code business right after

the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Despite its unparalleled experience and success, the market economy

keeps the Lab innovating. As engineer Drengenberg of the Lab said,

" There's always some little twist in a new product--an innovative

feature or something to make it cheaper--to keep us busy developing the

appropriate test procedure. "

Its effectiveness in determining safety standards (even for brand-new

products) and maintaining them over time has generated an interesting

result. Many government regulations, especially at the state level,

merely mimic the building codes and insurance requirements of the Lab.

The Lab also " regulates " in a cost-effective way. Companies come to the

Lab to present their products and the tests they have already conducted.

The company pays a testing fee ranging from a couple of hundred dollars

to several thousand, depending on the costs of the tests to be conducted.

If the product passes, it receives one of three designations. To be " listed "

means that the product has passed muster for sale as a final product,

like a hair dryer. If it is listed as " recognized, " it is safe to use as

a component within the final product, like a transformer. To be

" certified " means that the product has met someone else's standards,

such as the Chicago building code.

Each product is tested for each use, and the Lab is strict about how its mark

is used by manufacturers. For example, Securitron Magnalock sent a new

lock to the Lab for testing. New standards had to be established, and

the lock was duly tested and " recognized " as a component for a delayed

exit system.

When the company faxed all of its field representatives that the product was

" UL approved, " Lab officials suspended the listing. It then required

Securitron to inform all employees that UL does not " approve " any

product.

To insure continued safety, manufacturers agree to let the Lab inspect their

production facilities and to retest on demand. These on-site inspections,

often four a year, are unannounced. Lab inspectors can require

manufacturers to present data and to rerun safety trials and experiments.

Companies, in turn, pay a tiny fee for every UL designation symbol they

put on their products.

Manufacturers can modify their products to adapt to market conditions,

but the Lab oversees changes that affect product safety. The Lab is

inflexible and scientific, but it's also driven by common sense and

realism.

Nothing is perfectly safe, of course. The competitive marketplace and

the Lab aim for safety in a framework of rational attention to costs. UL

official Drengenberg has noted that " It would be very easy for us to

come up with an overly strict standard, " but then no one could afford to

buy the product.

In fact, the Lab once built a fireproof office for some of its employees.

The expensive room featured ceramic tile on the walls and ceiling, a

thick concrete floor, metal furniture, and similar standards. Not only

was the cost high, the esthetic results were not impressive. As

Yereance, author of Electrical Fire Analysis says, " most of us cannot

afford a fireproof dwelling and would not like living in it if we could. "

The Lab notes that 80% of accidents and fires are caused by consumers,

not products. It takes this into account in its requirements. In the

case of space heaters, for example, the Lab felt that enhanced warning

labels would reduce as many fires as an expensive redesign, thus keeping

down cost and price.

Compare this approach with the government's. Its standards are as difficult

to understand as they are contradictory. But its uncertain standards

contrast with its hard-edged enforcement and oversight. With the

government, products that meet the standards don't have to be safe,

while perfectly safe products can fail to pass the regulations.

The Lab is not perfect, and, in a few cases, it has paid damages for its

mistakes. But the failures have been few and far between. Just last year,

it tested more than 16,500 types of products, nearly 80,000 different

products, conducted ongoing on-site inspections, and placed the UL

symbol on nearly nine billion products.

The Lab has its critics, of course. For example, Stuart Statler of the Trial

Lawyers of America calls the Lab " totally driven by industry money. "

Whereas they should be driven by trial-lawyer money? " Consumer advocate "

Ralph Nader claims that the Lab is a " very meek, 'lowest common

denominator type' operation. " In short, it doesn't impose unreasonable

burdens on the market, bankrupt companies, or harm consumers.

Most recently, the New York Times accused the Lab of letting down its

guard and conspiring with manufacturers. The controversy surrounds the

Lab's listing of a new $2 twister cap that connects copper and aluminum

wires. When copper was relatively expensive, houses were wired with

aluminum. After long use, however, it has proven more of a fire hazard.

Full rewiring is expensive, so the innovative caps allow homeowners an

intermediate solution.

But for bureaucrats and left-wing ideologues, no private solution is

praiseworthy. The Times's Barry Meier writes that the Lab is " sparring

with Federal officials in a behind-the-scenes battle " that is " exposing

some potential shortcomings of industry self-regulation. " The hope of

those who oppose the twister cap is that the government will refuse to

approve it for use. People will have to use old aluminum wires or the

old, unsafe cap. In either case, the fire hazard will remain higher.

Such are the consequences of siding with government over private

standards. After a century of public service, Underwriters Laboratories

has proven a safe, effective, and cost-conscious alternative to

government bureaucracy. It shows us that the market discovers new and

effective solutions to the problems of everyday life, reduces the risks

all around us, and does it without resorting to the coercion and

inefficiency of government.

_______________________________

Mark Thornton teaches Economics at Columbus State University

######

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:16:49 -0800

<slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Its effectiveness in determining safety standards (even for brand-new

> products) and maintaining them over time has generated an interesting

> result. Many government regulations, especially at the state level,

> merely mimic the building codes and insurance requirements of the Lab.

By the way, this is a direct answer we had to a thread a long time ago

about how the free market would deal with housing codes. Heidi was

saying it would be a disaster, Suze wanted to know how it would work,

and and me (and maybe some others - forgive me if I have forgotten)

were trying to explain how it would.

Well there you have it above in a nutshell. I was arguing back then that

private codes were often MORE stringent than government codes, which is

true. Now it turns out that gov't codes often mimics private codes as

well.

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

You forgot this part:

Q: Do I need to have the UL Mark on my product in the US?

Is there a law stating that my product should have a UL Mark?

Does our product require UL testing?

A: Manufacturers submit products to UL for testing and safety certification

on a voluntary basis. There are no laws specifying that a UL Mark must be

used. However, in the U.S. there are many municipalities that have laws,

codes or regulations which require a product to be tested by a nationally

recognized testing laboratory before it can be sold in their area. UL is

the largest and oldest nationally recognized testing laboratory in the

United States. UL does not, however, maintain a list of the jurisdictions

having such regulations.

If you plan to market your product nationally or internationally, it is

advisable to obtain UL Listing. If a limited marketing program is

anticipated, check with the Municipal office having jurisdiction in the

particular areas to learn first hand the local retail ordinances or product

installation requirements applicable in that area.

Many companies make it their policy to obtain UL Listing not only to

minimize the possibility of local non-acceptance, but also as a matter of

corporate policy and commitment to minimize the possibility of risk in the

use of their products.

I wonder how many companies would use UL if they didn't need comply with

codes in order to sell their product. This is not the market at work here.

Irene

At 08:16 PM 3/6/2005, you wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:46:00 -0800

> " Sea Orca " <seaorca@...> wrote:

> >

> > Not at all by what you said. Lack of regulation = no quality standards =

> > lower prices = what poor people can afford. I want to know that even

> when my

> > family is poor (which we are some months) that everything I buy is under a

> > regulatory umbrella so I have assurance that my family's health is not

> > dependant on corporate greed.

>

>I'm admittedly way behind on this thread although I was involved early

>on and plan on catching up with all my posts this week, but I think you

>miss a very real point here that is not a question of theory as your

>premise that we would be unsafe without government regulation has

>ALREADY been proven wrong in the marketplace.

>

>One of the top certifiers in this country is private even though most

>people do not realize such is the case. Businesses voluntarily submit to

>their standards and seek their certification. You see their insignia on

>billions of products, Underwriter Laboratories. They have been around

>for over a century (and were certifying in a number of industries before

>the government got involved). Below is an article explaining exactly how

>they work.

>

>excerpt:

>

> " Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their

>homes--toasters,

>fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions, etc.--have been tested

>by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like

>bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial ice cream machines, and

>chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other products.

>

> " But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned,

>financed,

>and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services.

>It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its excellent

>reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven enemies on the

>left despise it.

>

> " The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the

>dramatic

>increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000 scientists,

>engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent verdict on

>hundreds of thousands of products.

>

> " The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that

>without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit

>without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to

>impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The

>government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing

>fatal accidents.

>

> " The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate

>itself,

>and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without

>oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no one would

>trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department or the

>Federal Trade Commission. "

>

>######

>

>http://snipurl.com/d9pf

>

>What Keeps Us Safe?

>Mark Thornton

>

>Look at the back of your computer monitor, the bottom of your table lamp,

>or the label on your hair dryer. Chances are you will see the symbol " UL "

>with a circle around it. It stands for Underwriters Laboratories, a firm

>headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., and an unsung hero of the market

>economy.

>

>Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their homes--toasters,

>fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions, etc.--have been tested

>by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like

>bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial ice cream machines, and

>chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other products.

>

>But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned, financed,

>and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services.

>It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its excellent

>reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven enemies on the

>left despise it.

>

>The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the dramatic

>increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000 scientists,

>engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent verdict on

>hundreds of thousands of products.

>

>The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that

>without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit

>without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to

>impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The

>government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing

>fatal accidents.

>

>The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate itself,

>and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without

>oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no one would

>trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department or the

>Federal Trade Commission.

>

>Unlike quality and price, safety isn't always at the forefront of the

>consumer's mind. But that hasn't kept manufacturers from seeking out the

>Lab's testing services. For those who appreciate the virtues of private

>enterprise, the UL insignia is an inspiration.

>

>The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of pilots

>and

>planes before the government intervened. It set the standards for

>building materials, fire fighting equipment, air conditioners, and

>household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and pyrotechnicians to test

>safes, and a variety of unique machines and devices to test thousands of

>other products each year. It has been testing multicolored Christmas

>lights since 1905, and entered the building code business right after

>the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

>

>Despite its unparalleled experience and success, the market economy

>keeps the Lab innovating. As engineer Drengenberg of the Lab said,

> " There's always some little twist in a new product--an innovative

>feature or something to make it cheaper--to keep us busy developing the

>appropriate test procedure. "

>

>Its effectiveness in determining safety standards (even for brand-new

>products) and maintaining them over time has generated an interesting

>result. Many government regulations, especially at the state level,

>merely mimic the building codes and insurance requirements of the Lab.

>

>The Lab also " regulates " in a cost-effective way. Companies come to the

>Lab to present their products and the tests they have already conducted.

>The company pays a testing fee ranging from a couple of hundred dollars

>to several thousand, depending on the costs of the tests to be conducted.

>

>If the product passes, it receives one of three designations. To be " listed "

>means that the product has passed muster for sale as a final product,

>like a hair dryer. If it is listed as " recognized, " it is safe to use as

>a component within the final product, like a transformer. To be

> " certified " means that the product has met someone else's standards,

>such as the Chicago building code.

>

>Each product is tested for each use, and the Lab is strict about how its mark

>is used by manufacturers. For example, Securitron Magnalock sent a new

>lock to the Lab for testing. New standards had to be established, and

>the lock was duly tested and " recognized " as a component for a delayed

>exit system.

>

>When the company faxed all of its field representatives that the product was

> " UL approved, " Lab officials suspended the listing. It then required

>Securitron to inform all employees that UL does not " approve " any

>product.

>

>To insure continued safety, manufacturers agree to let the Lab inspect their

>production facilities and to retest on demand. These on-site inspections,

>often four a year, are unannounced. Lab inspectors can require

>manufacturers to present data and to rerun safety trials and experiments.

>Companies, in turn, pay a tiny fee for every UL designation symbol they

>put on their products.

>

>Manufacturers can modify their products to adapt to market conditions,

>but the Lab oversees changes that affect product safety. The Lab is

>inflexible and scientific, but it's also driven by common sense and

>realism.

>

>Nothing is perfectly safe, of course. The competitive marketplace and

>the Lab aim for safety in a framework of rational attention to costs. UL

>official Drengenberg has noted that " It would be very easy for us to

>come up with an overly strict standard, " but then no one could afford to

>buy the product.

>

>In fact, the Lab once built a fireproof office for some of its employees.

>The expensive room featured ceramic tile on the walls and ceiling, a

>thick concrete floor, metal furniture, and similar standards. Not only

>was the cost high, the esthetic results were not impressive. As

>Yereance, author of Electrical Fire Analysis says, " most of us cannot

>afford a fireproof dwelling and would not like living in it if we could. "

>

>The Lab notes that 80% of accidents and fires are caused by consumers,

>not products. It takes this into account in its requirements. In the

>case of space heaters, for example, the Lab felt that enhanced warning

>labels would reduce as many fires as an expensive redesign, thus keeping

>down cost and price.

>

>Compare this approach with the government's. Its standards are as difficult

>to understand as they are contradictory. But its uncertain standards

>contrast with its hard-edged enforcement and oversight. With the

>government, products that meet the standards don't have to be safe,

>while perfectly safe products can fail to pass the regulations.

>

>The Lab is not perfect, and, in a few cases, it has paid damages for its

>mistakes. But the failures have been few and far between. Just last year,

>it tested more than 16,500 types of products, nearly 80,000 different

>products, conducted ongoing on-site inspections, and placed the UL

>symbol on nearly nine billion products.

>

>The Lab has its critics, of course. For example, Stuart Statler of the Trial

>Lawyers of America calls the Lab " totally driven by industry money. "

>Whereas they should be driven by trial-lawyer money? " Consumer advocate "

>Ralph Nader claims that the Lab is a " very meek, 'lowest common

>denominator type' operation. " In short, it doesn't impose unreasonable

>burdens on the market, bankrupt companies, or harm consumers.

>

>Most recently, the New York Times accused the Lab of letting down its

>guard and conspiring with manufacturers. The controversy surrounds the

>Lab's listing of a new $2 twister cap that connects copper and aluminum

>wires. When copper was relatively expensive, houses were wired with

>aluminum. After long use, however, it has proven more of a fire hazard.

>Full rewiring is expensive, so the innovative caps allow homeowners an

>intermediate solution.

>

>But for bureaucrats and left-wing ideologues, no private solution is

>praiseworthy. The Times's Barry Meier writes that the Lab is " sparring

>with Federal officials in a behind-the-scenes battle " that is " exposing

>some potential shortcomings of industry self-regulation. " The hope of

>those who oppose the twister cap is that the government will refuse to

>approve it for use. People will have to use old aluminum wires or the

>old, unsafe cap. In either case, the fire hazard will remain higher.

>

>Such are the consequences of siding with government over private

>standards. After a century of public service, Underwriters Laboratories

>has proven a safe, effective, and cost-conscious alternative to

>government bureaucracy. It shows us that the market discovers new and

>effective solutions to the problems of everyday life, reduces the risks

>all around us, and does it without resorting to the coercion and

>inefficiency of government.

>

>_______________________________

>

>Mark Thornton teaches Economics at Columbus State University

>

>######

>

>

> " I feel sorry for all those health food

>people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

>dying of nothing. "

>Redd Foxx

>

>=================================================

> " This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

> He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

> ... he will take... He will take... "

> (I 8:11-17)

>=================================================

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:11:53 -0800

Irene Musiol <Irene.M@...> wrote:

> I wonder how many companies would use UL if they didn't need comply with

> codes in order to sell their product. This is not the market at work here.

Actually it is since the UL folks were operating successfully long

before many government laws in various industries came into existence,

and when they did come into existence they often used the UL standards

as the de facto gov't standards, which you noted in the first part of

your post which I snipped (but would be happy to repost if you don't get

my point). You are putting the cart before the horse.

In the absence of gov't standards, companies tend to compete on safety

and reliability among other things. And

if they don't then they must bear the wrath of the consumer. Remember U

Labs was a *market*

response to what was happening in the market, NOT a gov't response. The

fact the gov't turns to companies like them only further illustrates the

point.

In the presence of gov't standards companies generally only meet the

minimums and then compete in other areas, because the gov't has

effectively shielded them from market action in the area of safety and

reliability (including legal action).

Tomorrow I will post a longer answer to this illustrated from an

industry where the application will be immediately obvious, because the

safety of one's person is consciously in play everytime someone

participates.

until then,

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================