It looks like GM is called out....................
- Thread starter demarpaint
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Yeah, those EPA [censored] won't let my children lick lead, asbestos paint!!
Funny you mentioned lead paint. Years ago I took a class on dealing with and proper handling and disposal of lead paint in renovations and repaint work. It was EPA mandated and all licensed contractors were supposed to take it. Five plus hours, I made the best of it. I asked a few questions and some of the answers were stupid, very stupid. One really stuck out, what do do with the lead paint once it was scraped, and sanded and it came time to empty the EPA approved Hepa Vacuum and "properly dispose" of it. Reply: Put it in a black contractors trash bag, do a "goose neck" twist to close the bag, tape it with duct tape, and place it to the curb for garbage collection. My next question was what happens when the bag gets flung into the garbage truck, rips open and the wind blows the lead paint dust in the faces of the sanitation men, and down the street where kids play? "Sir that is how you properly dispose of it."
We were also instructed to police contractors, in other words rat each other out LOL. If you see a painter working outside and he's sanding paint on an old home call the EPA. OK About a week after I was off on a Monday and went to Captree Boat Basin on Long Island, and the Moon Chaser which runs to Fire Island was docked and being repainted. This is part of the Great South Bay, clam beds, bird sanctuaries, you name it. They were using needle scalers, and grinders to remove peeling paint from the boat while it was tied to the dock, and you could see [censored] floating on the water for at least a 1/4 mile away from the boat. It is an old boat and I was certain the paint had lead. I was fuming, and called the EPA, honest to God they told me didn't have the time or man power to follow up on it. I grabbed a paint chip took it home and later tested it and it tested positive for lead.
Bottom line the class I took was a money making crock of B_S to help fund the EPA. Is lead dangerous? Sure it is. Maybe I'm lucky. I've painted for over 40 years and have been tested for lead exposure many times and my blood always comes back perfect. IMO unless you're eating paint chips like potato chips you don't have much to worry about.
Yeah, those EPA [censored] won't let my children lick lead, asbestos paint!!
Funny you mentioned lead paint. Years ago I took a class on dealing with and proper handling and disposal of lead paint in renovations and repaint work. It was EPA mandated and all licensed contractors were supposed to take it. Five plus hours, I made the best of it. I asked a few questions and some of the answers were stupid, very stupid. One really stuck out, what do do with the lead paint once it was scraped, and sanded and it came time to empty the EPA approved Hepa Vacuum and "properly dispose" of it. Reply: Put it in a black contractors trash bag, do a "goose neck" twist to close the bag, tape it with duct tape, and place it to the curb for garbage collection. My next question was what happens when the bag gets flung into the garbage truck, rips open and the wind blows the lead paint dust in the faces of the sanitation men, and down the street where kids play? "Sir that is how you properly dispose of it."
We were also instructed to police contractors, in other words rat each other out LOL. If you see a painter working outside and he's sanding paint on an old home call the EPA. OK About a week after I was off on a Monday and went to Captree Boat Basin on Long Island, and the Moon Chaser which runs to Fire Island was docked and being repainted. This is part of the Great South Bay, clam beds, bird sanctuaries, you name it. They were using needle scalers, and grinders to remove peeling paint from the boat while it was tied to the dock, and you could see [censored] floating on the water for at least a 1/4 mile away from the boat. It is an old boat and I was certain the paint had lead. I was fuming, and called the EPA, honest to God they told me didn't have the time or man power to follow up on it. I grabbed a paint chip took it home and later tested it and it tested positive for lead.
Bottom line the class I took was a money making crock of B_S to help fund the EPA. Is lead dangerous? Sure it is. Maybe I'm lucky. I've painted for over 40 years and have been tested for lead exposure many times and my blood always comes back perfect. IMO unless you're eating paint chips like potato chips you don't have much to worry about.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Now GM is being accused for using software to beat diesel emissions testing. I wonder how this will play out...... I didn't think VW was the only company doing so.
I said from the start VW wouldn't be the only one. The testing is too rigid, which is a good thing and bad thing. It's repeatable, but the automakers are looking to pass a test, not improve emissions, per se.
Of course, part of testing is being able to properly detect cheaters. This aspect was clearly sorely lacking.
Now GM is being accused for using software to beat diesel emissions testing. I wonder how this will play out...... I didn't think VW was the only company doing so.
I said from the start VW wouldn't be the only one. The testing is too rigid, which is a good thing and bad thing. It's repeatable, but the automakers are looking to pass a test, not improve emissions, per se.
Of course, part of testing is being able to properly detect cheaters. This aspect was clearly sorely lacking.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Now GM is being accused for using software to beat diesel emissions testing. I wonder how this will play out...... I didn't think VW was the only company doing so.
I said from the start VW wouldn't be the only one. The testing is too rigid, which is a good thing and bad thing. It's repeatable, but the automakers are looking to pass a test, not improve emissions, per se.
Of course, part of testing is being able to properly detect cheaters. This aspect was clearly sorely lacking.
I said the same thing, that there'd be more cheaters. It should be interesting to see how this unfolds. I was toying with getting a Jeep GC about 2 years ago with the VM diesel, boy am I glad I passed on that!
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Now GM is being accused for using software to beat diesel emissions testing. I wonder how this will play out...... I didn't think VW was the only company doing so.
I said from the start VW wouldn't be the only one. The testing is too rigid, which is a good thing and bad thing. It's repeatable, but the automakers are looking to pass a test, not improve emissions, per se.
Of course, part of testing is being able to properly detect cheaters. This aspect was clearly sorely lacking.
I said the same thing, that there'd be more cheaters. It should be interesting to see how this unfolds. I was toying with getting a Jeep GC about 2 years ago with the VM diesel, boy am I glad I passed on that!
More than likely it will get shoved under the rug since well it's GM and all...
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
So are all the punishments for cheating going to be as hefty as the ones handed to VW?
Unlike VW, it's still alledged cheating...
So are all the punishments for cheating going to be as hefty as the ones handed to VW?
Unlike VW, it's still alledged cheating...
Anyone who believes the EPA is useless has not taken an honest look at how people think, or looked around to where there isn't an EPA, or remember our cities and how they smelled back in the 70s. It's repeated in every history book from academic to religious. Without regulation, people choose what is best for the individual in that moment, because "that's what I want." We don't think in terms of 20yr impacts or community/global impacts, because we live today, and only with what we see with our own eyes.
The EPA isn't perfect, and won't be perfect, because it's run by people, but this needs to be managed.
And before I get pinned as a tree-hugging left-wing, I vote republican.
....
-m
The EPA isn't perfect, and won't be perfect, because it's run by people, but this needs to be managed.
And before I get pinned as a tree-hugging left-wing, I vote republican.
....
-m
Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
EPA has its usefulness, but at this point only as a governing and monitoring body. Their power to make new rules should be taken away pronto, at least for the foreseeable future.
this and C.A.R.B here in California. They have banned trucks built before 1995...So everyone had to replace equipment for no other reason ethan to xcept to stay within the law.
THANK goodness for CARB. I grew up in the 60's in the San Gabriel Valley and remember as a child running around outside and my throat hurting. I remember not be able to see the San Gabriel mountains not twenty miles away because the air was so dirty. Let's see- in California we have triple the amount of people- 4 times as many cars and the air is cleaner today than it was in the 60's. Yea- CARB has been totally ineffective. Sure.
I grew up backpacking in the Tahoe National forest and I remember not being able to see Sacramento because of all the smog and haze when coming back from El dorado hills. It was like this throughout the 1980s but today is VASTLY better. There is even a lot less garbage on the side of the road. Back then people just did not care as much about the environment.
all of that being said I do think both CARB and the EPA have gone too far and need to be reigned in a bit.
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
EPA has its usefulness, but at this point only as a governing and monitoring body. Their power to make new rules should be taken away pronto, at least for the foreseeable future.
this and C.A.R.B here in California. They have banned trucks built before 1995...So everyone had to replace equipment for no other reason ethan to xcept to stay within the law.
THANK goodness for CARB. I grew up in the 60's in the San Gabriel Valley and remember as a child running around outside and my throat hurting. I remember not be able to see the San Gabriel mountains not twenty miles away because the air was so dirty. Let's see- in California we have triple the amount of people- 4 times as many cars and the air is cleaner today than it was in the 60's. Yea- CARB has been totally ineffective. Sure.
I grew up backpacking in the Tahoe National forest and I remember not being able to see Sacramento because of all the smog and haze when coming back from El dorado hills. It was like this throughout the 1980s but today is VASTLY better. There is even a lot less garbage on the side of the road. Back then people just did not care as much about the environment.
all of that being said I do think both CARB and the EPA have gone too far and need to be reigned in a bit.
Originally Posted By: meep
Anyone who believes the EPA is useless has not taken an honest look at how people think, or looked around to where there isn't an EPA, or remember our cities and how they smelled back in the 70s. It's repeated in every history book from academic to religious. Without regulation, people choose what is best for the individual in that moment, because "that's what I want." We don't think in terms of 20yr impacts or community/global impacts, because we live today, and only with what we see with our own eyes.
The EPA isn't perfect, and won't be perfect, because it's run by people, but this needs to be managed.
And before I get pinned as a tree-hugging left-wing, I vote republican.
....
-m
I, sir, agree with you. Just look at how a good portion of people drive and your point about people doing what they want, now, is strengthened that much more.
Anyone who believes the EPA is useless has not taken an honest look at how people think, or looked around to where there isn't an EPA, or remember our cities and how they smelled back in the 70s. It's repeated in every history book from academic to religious. Without regulation, people choose what is best for the individual in that moment, because "that's what I want." We don't think in terms of 20yr impacts or community/global impacts, because we live today, and only with what we see with our own eyes.
The EPA isn't perfect, and won't be perfect, because it's run by people, but this needs to be managed.
And before I get pinned as a tree-hugging left-wing, I vote republican.
....
-m
I, sir, agree with you. Just look at how a good portion of people drive and your point about people doing what they want, now, is strengthened that much more.
Originally Posted By: meep
Anyone who believes the EPA is useless has not taken an honest look at how people think, or looked around to where there isn't an EPA, or remember our cities and how they smelled back in the 70s.
I remember, but do watch how bureaucracy works. Much of what they originally were tasked with accomplishing with emissions has succeeded. The gains are now so incremental and costly. I'm not saying they should stop all their work, but asking for large gains with a short deadline is empire building, not helping some public good.
No one is asking for a return to high sulphur diesel or leaded gasoline or to not bother with cats. Sure, enforce, and advance. Don't tolerate cheating. But, if everyone is cheating, there are two major possibilities. It's either too easy to cheat, or too hard to pass.
Anyone who believes the EPA is useless has not taken an honest look at how people think, or looked around to where there isn't an EPA, or remember our cities and how they smelled back in the 70s.
I remember, but do watch how bureaucracy works. Much of what they originally were tasked with accomplishing with emissions has succeeded. The gains are now so incremental and costly. I'm not saying they should stop all their work, but asking for large gains with a short deadline is empire building, not helping some public good.
No one is asking for a return to high sulphur diesel or leaded gasoline or to not bother with cats. Sure, enforce, and advance. Don't tolerate cheating. But, if everyone is cheating, there are two major possibilities. It's either too easy to cheat, or too hard to pass.
Originally Posted By: Delta
More than likely it will get shoved under the rug since well it's GM and all...
I doubt it. There are attorneys involved in a class action lawsuit looking to sue, this isn't about fines, [yet] they'll do whatever they have to to win. In this case I'd love to see the attorneys lose, and waste a ton of money in the process. Somehow I don't see that happening.
More than likely it will get shoved under the rug since well it's GM and all...
I doubt it. There are attorneys involved in a class action lawsuit looking to sue, this isn't about fines, [yet] they'll do whatever they have to to win. In this case I'd love to see the attorneys lose, and waste a ton of money in the process. Somehow I don't see that happening.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
A bit dramatic aren't we ?
Yeah, pretty much...
A bit dramatic aren't we ?
Yeah, pretty much...
Well, all one has to do is read Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy of government and realize that the U.S. Government has become the poster child of that ideology. Even if there isn't a major problem, government will create one, then ride in like the white knight and generate supposed solutions. All the while increasing their scope and power. It used to be that governments would create outside the country problems to convince the people that they need to increase their scope and take the citizen's focus off of the goofy stuff the government was up to. Once they figured out that they could go the same thing by over dramatizing domestic problems or claiming there was a problem where none existed, they opened up a pandora's box of ways to increase their influence on people's lives. And it leads to abuse of power by government agencies that exceed anything they were originally intended for.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, all one has to do is read Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy of government and realize that the U.S. Government has become the poster child of that ideology. Even if there isn't a major problem, government will create one, then ride in like the white knight and generate supposed solutions. All the while increasing their scope and power. It used to be that governments would create outside the country problems to convince the people that they need to increase their scope and take the citizen's focus off of the goofy stuff the government was up to. Once they figured out that they could go the same thing by over dramatizing domestic problems or claiming there was a problem where none existed, they opened up a pandora's box of ways to increase their influence on people's lives. And it leads to abuse of power by government agencies that exceed anything they were originally intended for.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
It would be a beautiful thing to have the loser pay all legal fees for both sides. That would clear the court calendar for important things, and save the tax payers a lot of money. It would also take the wind out of the sails of a lot of ambulance chasing type attorneys too!
Well, all one has to do is read Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy of government and realize that the U.S. Government has become the poster child of that ideology. Even if there isn't a major problem, government will create one, then ride in like the white knight and generate supposed solutions. All the while increasing their scope and power. It used to be that governments would create outside the country problems to convince the people that they need to increase their scope and take the citizen's focus off of the goofy stuff the government was up to. Once they figured out that they could go the same thing by over dramatizing domestic problems or claiming there was a problem where none existed, they opened up a pandora's box of ways to increase their influence on people's lives. And it leads to abuse of power by government agencies that exceed anything they were originally intended for.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
It would be a beautiful thing to have the loser pay all legal fees for both sides. That would clear the court calendar for important things, and save the tax payers a lot of money. It would also take the wind out of the sails of a lot of ambulance chasing type attorneys too!
The loser will pay legal fees since this has been filed in federal court.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, all one has to do is read Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy of government and realize that the U.S. Government has become the poster child of that ideology. Even if there isn't a major problem, government will create one, then ride in like the white knight and generate supposed solutions. All the while increasing their scope and power. It used to be that governments would create outside the country problems to convince the people that they need to increase their scope and take the citizen's focus off of the goofy stuff the government was up to. Once they figured out that they could go the same thing by over dramatizing domestic problems or claiming there was a problem where none existed, they opened up a pandora's box of ways to increase their influence on people's lives. And it leads to abuse of power by government agencies that exceed anything they were originally intended for.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
It would be a beautiful thing to have the loser pay all legal fees for both sides. That would clear the court calendar for important things, and save the tax payers a lot of money. It would also take the wind out of the sails of a lot of ambulance chasing type attorneys too!
You could call it the "Corporation Tort Immunity Act." Because that would be the result.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, all one has to do is read Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy of government and realize that the U.S. Government has become the poster child of that ideology. Even if there isn't a major problem, government will create one, then ride in like the white knight and generate supposed solutions. All the while increasing their scope and power. It used to be that governments would create outside the country problems to convince the people that they need to increase their scope and take the citizen's focus off of the goofy stuff the government was up to. Once they figured out that they could go the same thing by over dramatizing domestic problems or claiming there was a problem where none existed, they opened up a pandora's box of ways to increase their influence on people's lives. And it leads to abuse of power by government agencies that exceed anything they were originally intended for.
While it may be good to see the attorneys bringing this stuff lose, we all will. GM will have to pay a battery of attorneys to counter this. Since we don't have a loser pays type of legal system, those costs will be rolled into new vehicles down the line. We all will pay for this nonsense, as we usually do.
It would be a beautiful thing to have the loser pay all legal fees for both sides. That would clear the court calendar for important things, and save the tax payers a lot of money. It would also take the wind out of the sails of a lot of ambulance chasing type attorneys too!
You could call it the "Corporation Tort Immunity Act." Because that would be the result.
I heard that Britain has a loser pays all setup in their legal system. Yep, sure cuts down on frivolous lawsuits.
- Status
Similar threads
