Fw: Re: We need a better Internet in America

Coleman Kane ckane at colemankane.org
Thu Apr 8 15:52:24 EDT 2010


On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 14:27 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 04/07/2010 04:08 PM, Coleman Kane wrote:
> > (ca. 1915):
> >
> > http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/quackcures/standradiumsolution.htm
> >
> > Sure, today we all are taught that radiation is bad today, and so we all
> > know it is. However, how much of this knowledge is due to government
> > regulation via the FDA, etc... and public standards of education?
> 
> Marie Curie died in 1934 of radiation poisoning.  You'd expect an FDA to 
> know in 1915 that it was dangerous?

Yes. Considering that it was widely blamed for the death of many others
since its discovery in 1898. I suggest you look up history on the U.S.
Radium company and the "Radium Girls" episode. Radium had gone well into
mainstream use prior to Curie's death.

Curie's death in 1934 occurred long after it was determined to be a
health hazard: a fact that could have been revealed much earlier had
there been an avenue for appeal for the complainants. 


> 
> > What
> > alternative to these institutions has a track record of providing
> > sufficient confidence in our consumables marketplace?
> 
> Underwriters Laboratories is a great example - insurance companies use 
> it to control the risk of the assets they insure, and people buy 
> insurance to control their own risks.  A great negative-feedback loop.

Not great enough as we found out recently.

> 
> There's little competition to the FDA in the US because it's hard to 
> compete against a 'free' government program.  But I do subscribe to 
> Nutrition Action from CSPI ($12/yr) to get a much more science-based and 
> less corrupt idea of what foods are good or bad for me.  In other 
> countries without a strong central food authority there are independent 
> third-party evaluators and certifiers.  If they become 
> unreliable/corrupt, they'll lose reputation and be replaced.  Not so 
> much with the FDA, even now with Monsanto's chief lobbyist as the FDA's 
> 'food-safety czar'. _Food Inc._ is a great watch for a sub-two-hour 
> summation (on Netflix streaming, BTW).  The Stonyfield/WalMart 
> partnership against rBGH is a striking contrast.

By what means, or after what consequences, do they lose their
reputations? As corrupt as the FDA appears today (which you only know
about because of transparency, unlike private agencies), you cannot
write it off without a review of the history that led to its creation:
widespread use of harmful additives to food products, as well as
medicinal products advocating baseless claims. The utopian point of view
that a bunch of certification agencies will compete in good faith on a
level playing field hasn't proven to have much historical credit in this
country. Rather, vertical integration and monopolistic practices
intended to control production, distribution, and certification have
been the standard in the absence of oversight (such as the events that
led to the FDA's creation).

> 
> In a thinly-veiled effort to remain on topic, the same potential applies 
> with the FCC, though I don't know their agency to have such corruption 
> problems.  Except that an agency tasked with maintaining radio frequency 
> registrations (a natural scarcity) is busy trying to tell private 
> network operators how to manage their networks.

Because maintaining RF registrations isn't, and never was, the entire
scope of the FCC's duties.

> 
> -Bill
> 

-- 
Coleman



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list