Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Anti-Humans 30

Status
Not open for further replies.
zdas04

zdas04

Mechanical
Jun 25, 2002
10,274
I've often referred to the environmental lobby as "anti-human". I just came across a document on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) web site that supports that idea. The whole document is at Laramie Energy, but I've extracted a page from it that I've attached.

The attached is a series of quotes from noted environmentalists. I especially like the quote from John Davis (editor of Earth First) who said
Human beings as a species have no more value than slugs
Click to expand...
or
PETA said:
I do not believe that a human being has a right to life ... I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals
Click to expand...

I think that the quotes in the attached fully support the idea that the law firms generally called "Environmental Non-Government Organizations (e-NGO)" are totally and completely against their own species.

David
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Or, if the pallets were strapped together and the capacity of the fork lift was enough to handle the increased moment etc. perhaps it wasn't so dangerous really - more resourceful.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is not a particularly reliable source, but the numbers should be correct. Workplace fatalities are down significantly (about 80 percent) since OSHA was chartered in 1970 and the nanny state rules were implemented that all the old guys complain about.

I spent a few years in the construction industry from the early 1990s through the mid 2000s. Even during that time, OSHA was implementing new regulations that made the job site safer.
The company owners invariably tried to use lawyers to get out of trouble rather than make the job safer with the same money.
I believe that every person I worked for would have gladly traded my life for a few thousand dollars, as long as it wasn't put quite like that.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
==> Workplace fatalities are down significantly (about 80 percent) since OSHA was chartered in 1970
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been tracking workplace death and accidents since about 1928 when the death rate was approximately 16 per 100,000 workers. By 1947, that was down to about 10, and by 1970, down to 6.8, and by 1992 is was down to 3.5. That all sounds fine and good, but when you factor in that OSHA wasn't created until 1970, you can see that OSHA had no effect on the rate of decline in fatal workplace accidents. It created government jobs, regulations, and additional business costs that were all passed on to the consumer. But there is no apparent effect on workplace safety. Fatal workplace accidents were on the decline before OSHA and they continued on the decline after OSHA. But OSHA had zero effect on the rate of decline.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My OSHA reference is somewhat oversimplified.

However, federal, and state to a lesser extent, regulations have resulted in a significant drop in accidental fatalities in general, such as highway fatalities and workplace fatalities.

The first federal mine safety laws were enacted in the early part of the 20th century, and fatalities saw a immediate and sustained drop. The same can be said of many federal regulations.

Granted that a lot of the increased safety over time is due to newer technologies, but government regulation plays a large role.

My post is primarily aimed at the belief, which I hear a lot being in the Southern U.S., that the government is evil and its regulations are harmful to the country.

I would not argue that government regulations are wholly good or properly enforced, but they have generally been good for the average person.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The problem is not that organizations such as OSHA improve workplace safety, it's that they NEVER STOP.

So, initally, some real gains are made for little cost. As things get safer, the gains are smaller, the cost higher. As their existence depends upon improving safety, workplaces are never, and CAN NEVER BE, "safe enough".

I have used OSHA, safety and workplaces as shorthand for a whole host of organizations and causes. Clean air, clean water, fuel mileage, exercise, diet, the list is endless. And they NEVER STOP.

Regards,

Mike
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CC,
You are absolutely right--OSHA is not a cause, it is not even an efffect, it is just an irrelevant signpost on a path that was inevitable.

At the start of your timeline the world was just starting to learn how to have workers in close proximity with each other handling incredible forces. With time the workers became more familiar with the forces and population density, engineers figured out how to make the tooling more effective (which usually results in fewer manual interventions that put body parts in harms way), and employers were figuring out that there are limits to how far they can push workers before they push back (with unions, etc). All of those things are evolutionary. Government intervention was just noise in the system. It continues to be.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
How many of those lives were saved because the work was shipped else where and the BLS doesn't track stats in country X?;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well for X=China

"BEIJING, Jan. 11, 2008 (Xinhua) -- A senior official with the Chinese work safety watchdog said Friday that 101,480 people died in workplace and transportation accidents in 2007."
1.32 Billion Chinese in 2007
7.7 Deaths / 100,000
Well over double the US over the same time period.

Has anyone here been apart of negotiating fines with OSHA?
Seems to me the final price of the fine is always talked down to a small fraction of the initial price tag. Makes it feel like you are dealing with a used car salesman not a government official.



Comprehension is not understanding. Understanding is not wisdom. And it is wisdom that gives us the ability to apply what we know, to our real world situations
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
==> How many of those lives were saved because the work was shipped else where and the BLS doesn't track stats in country X?
Given that the BLS has been tracking the data since 1928 (long before OSHA existed and well before off-shoring became an issue), and that the data is reported, not in raw deaths, but as a ratio - fatalities per 100K workers, and finally, given that the rate of decline in that ratio has been essentially constant over the entire 70+ year period, I think it's fair to say that off-shoring has had every little effect on the rate of fatalities in the workplace.

On the other hand, if off-shoring did contribute to a reduction in the fatality per 100K worker rate, and actually helped keep that decline rate constant, one would understandably ask what would the rate have done without the influence of off-shoring? In other words, what would the rate have been with OSHA alone?

I suspect that the single biggest factor in recent times in favor of safety in the workplace has nothing to do with off-shoring and nothing to do with OSHA. I think the biggest influence comes from torts.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When it comes right down to it, your insurance company can have a bigger influence on your safety record than OSHA.
Unless you really don't care about astronomical premiums.
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think you are right about shipping hasadardious jobs overseas. Or the alternate of using industrial robots to replace humans.

I believe this because enviromental regulations have likewise driven some tasks off shore.

Just like any hidden taxes will drive production off shore, as long as import taxes are low.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
We've got an insurable claims rate 1/10th that of the industry we're in- we operate a very safe shop, as evident from how much we're (not) costing our insurance provider as a result of injuries on the job.

Despite this, we've got customers who won't do business with us basically because we don't commit fraud in recording our lost time incident rate. So in a nutshell, one of our guys who strained his back lacing up his boots in the changeroom in the morning and had to go to the clinic and then home for the day, effectively cost us a job with a certain client. How does that sort of regime improve anyone's safety? This so-called "culture of safey", with stats being used to determine who it's safe to do business with isn't improving safety one iota- it's a freaking scam!

Having good quality, well-maintained PPE on hand for anyone who wants to use it, and training people in the selection and use of appropriate PPE for the task at hand- these are good ideas. Forcing people to wear PPE irrespective of the hazards they're actually exposed to is quite the opposite- it is more likely to cause harm than to prevent it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Question we had to face was what if PPE isen't made to keep a person safe. I mean they make it, but it won't keep a person alive in case of an accedent. The PPE dosen't protect from explosions, just fire, and flash burns. The concusion would still kill the person. The PPE just makes it harder for the guys to do there job.

As a boss of mine put it, the PPE only makes a difference in an open or closed casket funeral.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have to do one of those surveys for a client. Since I'm a one-man company if I ever have an accident that causes me to lose an hour of work I won't be able to work for them for 5,000 years. If I hired 10 employees I'd be able to work for them in "only" 500 years.

There is absolutely nothing about their policy that improves anyone's safety. I mostly am too busy to start any of their projects. I really should just cancel the MSA so I don't have to spend an (unbilled) hour a month filling out the survey.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is one of the unfortunate things about insurance companies and statistics that do not tell the whole picture.
I have worked for companies where 3 accidents in a 2 year period put them on the assigned risk list,and others where 10 accidents in a year only cost them a 10% increase in premiums.
Of course the smaller you are the worse these results can get if you have any kind of claim.
Then of course if you have a claim like a small cut on an employees hand that you just pay out of your own pocket, the insurance company can ding you if they find out, because you did not notify them they were " on risk"

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Anyone see the Daily Show bit a week or so ago about PETA suing Sea Word on the basis of the slavery amendment? It may have been the DS's finest work. Very funny.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No but I saw a news article about PETA kills 95% of the animals that are brought to them.

Talk about conversations of the left and right hands.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom