Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  
Author: Subject: Bureaucratic burden of opening/running a lab
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


mad.gif posted on 2-8-2020 at 01:42
Bureaucratic burden of opening/running a lab


Is there any country out there where the bureaucratic burden of a small enterprise opening a lab, whose work may involve the following hazards (gasp): chemicals, explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, firearms, biological agents, radiological materials/sources, lasers and high voltage equipment is minimal?

For example, in Spain, the small entrepreneur would on average have to spend 363 hours dealing with bureaucracy :o That works out to be about 45x8-hour days, bleeding through money and time. Explosives permit? Good luck.

http://bureaucracyindex.org/2019-results/

Essentially what the status quo is, is that only large organizations with dedicated departments to deal with the bureaucratic burden can open labs that deal witIs there any country out there where the bureaucratic burden of a small enterprise opening a lab, whose work may involve the following hazards (gasp): chemicals, explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, firearms, biological agents, radiological materials/sources, lasers and high voltage equipment is minimal?

For example, in Spain, the small entrepreneur would on average have to spend 363 hours dealing with bureaucracy :o That works out to be about 45x8-hour days, bleeding through money and time. Explosives permit? Good luck.

http://bureaucracyindex.org/2019-results/

Essentially what the status quo is, is that only large organizations with dedicated departments to deal with the bureaucratic burden can open labs that deal with dangerous materials or hazards.

Bureaucracy is the miracle politicians call "job creation".h dangerous materials or hazards. Small start-ups or entrepreneurs in "dangerous" fields have to fight an uphill battle even to start work.

Bureaucracy is the miracle politicians call "job creation". It is also, mostly, a one way street.

What do you all think? Is the current and future regulatory climate too onerous? How much of the regulatory environment is actually needed?

Screenshot_2020-08-02 2019 Results.png - 221kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 02:14


You seem to be proclaiming that you don't have the time / resources/ ability to show that you can do things safely.

Given that , do you think it's unreasonable for society to say that , since you can't show that you can do it safely, you shouldn't put others at risk by doing it at all?

Also you say "For example, in Spain, the small entrepreneur would on average have to spend 363 hours dealing with bureaucracy :o That works out to be about 45x8-hour days,"

Do you actually believe it?
Do you really think that they spend a quarter of the working year on paperwork?

Is it more likely that the figure is simply wrong.

And once you recognise that they have produced the wrong figure, should you trust the rest of their claims?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 03:04


I have no interest in establishing credentials in an internet forum, and neither should you have any interest in another person's credentials. Furthermore I would regard any bait attempt to get posters to demonstrate credentials with suspicion.

If you want to question the veracity of the report, that's fine. What evidence/article do you have that the report is incorrect?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Swinfi2
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 119
Registered: 19-2-2018
Location: England
Member Is Offline

Mood: Catalytic

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 03:15


I get annoyed by filling out log books. They have stickers on everything like the PC "fill out log before turning on" good job it's been on since before I got there. I'm supposed to fill a log book every time I use the precision scales, even if it's to eyeball salt for an extraction. I have a book that I'm told to cross out 2/3rds of every page, and half of all the work I print goes straight from the printer to the recycling bin.

That's beaurocacy

But for the things that matter like when the authority's come knocking at my own lab, I'd much rather have the ability to say, this is exactly where the thing you don't have the field knowledge to know isn't dangerous went. And there's none missing so I can't have made drugs i didnt make. (Have a nice day).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 05:32


Well, in a free country in the (almost) forgotten past, the authorities are supposed to come knocking only if they have reasonable grounds of wrongdoing, and need a warrant if they do not get consent of the owner. It's not up to everyone to justify to them that we are doing nothing wrong.

Also, who are these people who set the safety rules? I have yet to meet a physics, chemistry or engineering graduate who says their career dream is to go work in the safety unit at the government side or in a corporation. In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.

Yes kewls do risky stuff but on the other hand what looks patently risky to some people is less so to people with experience and who know the dangers.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 06:56


Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
. What evidence/article do you have that the report is incorrect?
Like I said:
"Do you really think that they spend a quarter of the working year on paperwork?"

View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 07:12


Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.



Reality doesn't reflect your experience.
https://www.bregroup.com/about-us/our-history/

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Laboratory

https://www.fera.co.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Personal_Protective_T...


https://vito.be/en/about-vito/quality-health-safety


[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 07:26


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
. What evidence/article do you have that the report is incorrect?
Like I said:
"Do you really think that they spend a quarter of the working year on paperwork?"



So basically you have no evidence other than "Hmph doesn't seem right."

Well no offense intended my friend but I think I will believe them over one random guy on the internet.

Yes I can believe one can spend months dealing with bureaucracy, especially for small companies who may not be familiar with the paperwork. Sometimes there are even costs to getting costs to deal with paperwork.

A friend of a friend of a friend opened a lab - a proper legit start-up with big investors - and it took them more than a year, a ton of legal fees and inspections from everyone from the fire department, police, safety inspectors, insurance, municipality, neighborhood cat, etc before they could even start work. Of course there were no serious problems....the founders were all experienced scientists. The whole exercise was a real waste of time and money for everyone except the bureaucrats and lawyers.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 07:34


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.



Reality doesn't reflect your experience.
https://www.bregroup.com/about-us/our-history/

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Laboratory

https://www.fera.co.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Personal_Protective_T...


https://vito.be/en/about-vito/quality-health-safety


[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]


I really doubt you have had any experience dealing with safety inspections or the paperwork involved in start-ups or running a business, if all you can quote is the official websites of the inspectors themselves.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
macckone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1761
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline

Mood: Electrical

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 09:00


As someone who reviewed paperwork for the US Government, I can say that in the US that figure isn't even close to the ball park. Most of the time and paperwork is dealing with MSDS and chemical inventories, which when it was first rolled out was a pain because suppliers didn't have MSDS sheets or weren't willing to provide them. As someone who had to enforce the law if a small business said they tried to get an MSDS and the supplier said no, then we went after the supplier. As for the chemical inventories, there are best business practices and what is required by the federal government. List 1 chemicals have to be kept track of very closely. Stuff like sodium hydroxide, we weren't looking at unless there was a report of a spill and even then we were looking at 500 lb quanities. If it was off by 2 lbs we could give a shit less. Now a small buisness may not understand the rules and how they are enforced and spend more time than they actually need to dealing with things. The other side of it in the US is that local governments can impose rules that make absolutely no sense. This is often the case in smaller towns where they have zero knowledge and just assume 'chemicals scary' mentality. They make local regulations that are asinine and often in direct conflict with state and federal law. Then you wind up with lawyers at town hall meetings telling the city council they are going to get sued into bankruptcy, which they then are.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
arkoma
Forum Redneck
*****




Posts: 1422
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: Red River Bottoms
Member Is Offline

Mood: Iconoclastic

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 13:33


I think the OP is a troll.........



Quote:
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.

Mark Twain


Smash. All. Icons
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 14:02


Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.



Reality doesn't reflect your experience.
https://www.bregroup.com/about-us/our-history/

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Laboratory

https://www.fera.co.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Personal_Protective_T...


https://vito.be/en/about-vito/quality-health-safety


[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]


I really doubt you have had any experience dealing with safety inspections or the paperwork involved in start-ups or running a business, if all you can quote is the official websites of the inspectors themselves.


That's literally what I do for a living.
Which means I'm also not "one random guy on the internet."

I still await your evidence that a Spanish guy running a workshop has to spend a quarter of his time filling in paperwork.

It's an extraordinary claim; you need extraordinary evidence.

[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
****




Posts: 438
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-8-2020 at 18:33


Surprise surprise politics and discussion of bureaucracy turned into an argument.

I have a question, if you don't trust some "random guy" on this forum why the f**k are you even here than.

And calling a contributing member who has been a member almost since the inception of this forum, probably a member while you were still sucking on a bottle (I wanted to be more offensive but this is a public forum, you can decide what bottle was replaced with), a member with not 10x but almost 100x more post contributions than you.

I agree with arkoma, I think you are just a political troll looking to start a political argument, people get banned for that shit around here, trust me it happened to a friend of a friend of mine, one friend less than your lab example, so mine is more true.

[Edited on 3-8-2020 by Syn the Sizer]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 03:48


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.



Reality doesn't reflect your experience.
https://www.bregroup.com/about-us/our-history/

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Laboratory

https://www.fera.co.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Personal_Protective_T...


https://vito.be/en/about-vito/quality-health-safety


[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]


I really doubt you have had any experience dealing with safety inspections or the paperwork involved in start-ups or running a business, if all you can quote is the official websites of the inspectors themselves.


That's literally what I do for a living.
Which means I'm also not "one random guy on the internet."

I still await your evidence that a Spanish guy running a workshop has to spend a quarter of his time filling in paperwork.

It's an extraordinary claim; you need extraordinary evidence.

[Edited on 2-8-20 by unionised]


Yes you are still a random guy on the internet. Anyone can claim to be a safety inspector on an anonymous forum.

Here's a book for you on administrative burdens, and quotes from real people:

Quote:

“Citizens routinely experience government in their everyday lives, and too often such encounters impose cumbersome challenges and reinforce inequality. In this clearly written and power fully argued book, Pamela Herd and Donald P. Moynihan argue that these ‘administrative burdens’ are political tactics, strategically applied to policies by political leaders who aim to restrict access to rights and benefits. Change is possible, however, as demonstrated by policies in which more effective and efficient procedures have been adopted. This captivating and important book is a ‘must read’ for anyone who wants to see government operate better in serving citizens.”
—SUZANNE METTLER, John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, Cornell University

“In ways variable and systemic, citizens shoulder burdens of the everyday operations of government. This fundamental truth of modern public administration has never received the attention it merits. Until now. With cutting-edge conceptual formation, mixed methodological lenses, and uncommon rigor, Pamela Herd and Donald P. Moynihan have authored an instant classic on a problem of vast proportions, one that will be setting research agendas for decades to come.”
—DANIEL CARPENTER, Allie S. Freed Professor of Government, Harvard University

Bureaucracy, confusing paperwork, and complex regulations—or what public policy scholars Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan call administrative burdens—often introduce delay and frustration into our experiences with government agencies. Administrative burdens diminish the effectiveness of public programs and can even block individuals from fundamental rights like voting. In Administrative Burden, Herd and Moynihan document that the administrative burdens citizens regularly encounter in their interactions with the state are not simply unintended byproducts of governance, but the result of deliberate policy choices. Because burdens affect people’s perceptions of government and often perpetuate long-standing inequalities, understanding why administrative burdens exist and how they can be reduced is essential for maintaining a healthy public sector.

Through in-depth case studies of federal programs and controversial legislation, the authors show that administrative burdens are the nuts-and-bolts of policy design. Regarding controversial issues such as voter enfranchisement or abortion rights, lawmakers often use administrative burdens to limit access to rights or services they oppose. For instance, legislators have implemented administrative burdens such as complicated registration requirements and strict voter-identification laws to suppress turnout of African American voters. Similarly, the right to an abortion is legally protected, but many states require women seeking abortions to comply with burdens such as mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, and scripted counseling. As Herd and Moynihan demonstrate, administrative burdens often disproportionately affect the disadvantaged who lack the resources to deal with the financial and psychological costs of navigating these obstacles.

However, policymakers have sometimes reduced administrative burdens or shifted them away from citizens and onto the government. One example is Social Security, which early administrators of the program implemented in the 1930s with the goal of minimizing burdens for beneficiaries. As a result, the take-up rate is about 100 percent because the Social Security Administration keeps track of peoples’ earnings for them, automatically calculates benefits and eligibility, and simply requires an easy online enrollment or visiting one of 1,200 field offices. Making more programs and public services operate this efficiently, the authors argue, requires adoption of a nonpartisan, evidence-based metric for determining when and how to institute administrative burdens, with a bias toward reducing them. By ensuring that the public’s interaction with government is no more onerous than it need be, policymakers and administrators can reduce inequality, boost civic engagement, and build an efficient state that works for all citizens.

PAMELA HERD is a professor in the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

DONALD MOYNIHAN is the inaugural McCourt Chair in the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.


https://www.amazon.com/Administrative-Burden-Policymaking-Ot...



Quote: Originally posted by Syn the Sizer  
Surprise surprise politics and discussion of bureaucracy turned into an argument.

I have a question, if you don't trust some "random guy" on this forum why the f**k are you even here than.

And calling a contributing member who has been a member almost since the inception of this forum, probably a member while you were still sucking on a bottle (I wanted to be more offensive but this is a public forum, you can decide what bottle was replaced with), a member with not 10x but almost 100x more post contributions than you.

I agree with arkoma, I think you are just a political troll looking to start a political argument, people get banned for that shit around here, trust me it happened to a friend of a friend of mine, one friend less than your lab example, so mine is more true.

[Edited on 3-8-2020 by Syn the Sizer]


It was the experienced poster who made this thread personal with his reply. I have been respectful in this thread while you all are the ones unleashing the personal attacks. If anyone we should hold the experienced posters to a higher standard.

Like I said if you disagree, disagree like adults and post evidence, citations and facts.

Calling people trolls, telling people to FO or to suck it is not how mature debate is done.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 04:11


Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
I think the OP is a troll.........


Really, you are going to call me a troll, when the only direct name I have called someone else on this thread is "my friend" to unionised, while the same can not be said of you.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Herr Haber
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 893
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 05:54


Pues para de comportarte como un troll...

Y ya que estas en ello, si vas a responder a alguien que te ha escrito media pagina con solo una linea no vendria mal editar todo lo que sobra.
Tampoco hace falta multiplicar la publicaciones. Puedes responder a varias personas en un mismo post.

Oh, y a MI, seguro que no me vas a hacer creer que tienes la menor idea o experiencia de lo que hablas si te crees que los empresarios se pasan una cuarta parte del año llenando papeleo.
En horas / hombre quizas...

Pero nada que yo diga te va a convencer. Ponte en trabajador autonomo y ya me diras.




The spirit of adventure was upon me. Having nitric acid and copper, I had only to learn what the words 'act upon' meant. - Ira Remsen
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
****




Posts: 438
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 06:55


You keep proving more that you are just looking to argue. What makes you look like a troll is the fact that when a long time member replied to you with a legit statement you replied in a rude manor characteristic of a troll.

Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
I have no interest in establishing credentials in an internet forum, and neither should you have any interest in another person's credentials. Furthermore I would regard any bait attempt to get posters to demonstrate credentials with suspicion.


If you want to question the veracity of the report, that's fine. What evidence/article do you have that the report is incorrect?


They don't have to prove you are wrong, they are questioning your claims, it is your responsibility to prove you are right, that is how science works. If you did not want the opinion(s) of random strangers on a public forum, then don't f**cking post on a public forum, talk among your friends under the bridge.

So now if you are making claims on a scientific forum, remember we are all scientists here, we will be called out by other scientists asking for proof of our claims because the science is only real when there is proof to back it up. Same goes for claims like yours. People want proof of your numbers, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that until you can prove your claims with actual evidence and can stop arguing about your non-existent evidence you are just a "POLITICAL TROLL", sorry for the yelling. People do get banned for political crap here. The following ruled by Polverone themself.

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=15...

Btw, using "my friend" in an argument is actually meant to be condescending.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
macckone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1761
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline

Mood: Electrical

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 07:02


This thread has become all politics and nothing to do with actual amateur science.
Although the business of science is interesting that really isn't what this forum is about.
And it certainly isn't here to discuss the deregulatory schemes proposed by various political parties.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
arkoma
Forum Redneck
*****




Posts: 1422
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: Red River Bottoms
Member Is Offline

Mood: Iconoclastic

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 09:04


Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  
Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  
I think the OP is a troll.........


Really, you are going to call me a troll, when the only direct name I have called someone else on this thread is "my friend" to unionised, while the same can not be said of you.


piss off troll. i read pretty much every thread here, and you are a troll.




Quote:
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.

Mark Twain


Smash. All. Icons
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Whathappensif
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 53
Registered: 9-7-2020
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 09:11


Quote: Originally posted by Syn the Sizer  
You keep proving more that you are just looking to argue. What makes you look like a troll is the fact that when a long time member replied to you with a legit statement you replied in a rude manor characteristic of a troll.


Unionized being a long time member doesn't excuse rude behavior. In fact he should be more aware of it.

Step back and take a breath for a moment. Here's the sequence of events:
1. I posted an article which claims that the bureaucratic burden in some countries amounts to hundreds of hours per year for start-up enterprises. No one here was targeted by the post.

2. Unionized replies, implying that I am the unsafe one. Where did that personal attack come from? What did I say to invite such an attack?

Quote:
You seem to be proclaiming that you don't have the time / resources/ ability to show that you can do things safely.

Given that , do you think it's unreasonable for society to say that , since you can't show that you can do it safely, you shouldn't put others at risk by doing it at all?




Quote:

They don't have to prove you are wrong, they are questioning your claims, it is your responsibility to prove you are right, that is how science works. If you did not want the opinion(s) of random strangers on a public forum, then don't f**cking post on a public forum, talk among your friends under the bridge.


I provided the article in the OP. If you or anyone else disagrees then provide a citation, evidence or something other than "Doesn't look right" and websites of the inspectors themselves.

I did not say I don't want unionized's opinion, I said I believe the opinion of the OP website over his.

Quote:
So now if you are making claims on a scientific forum, remember we are all scientists here, we will be called out by other scientists asking for proof of our claims because the science is only real when there is proof to back it up. Same goes for claims like yours. People want proof of your numbers, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that until you can prove your claims with actual evidence and can stop arguing about your non-existent evidence you are just a "POLITICAL TROLL", sorry for the yelling. People do get banned for political crap here. The following ruled by Polverone themself.


Exactly. I have provided two citations - one website and one book authored and/or reviewed by Ivy League professors. I have not seen any evidence contrary to my assertion, other than personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

I remind you I have called no names and made no personal attacks here, which is more than I can say for some of the others responding here accusing me of trolling. You claim to be educated, so argue your case like an educated person with facts, citations and evidence.

I read the SM thread you linked below:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=15...

And it seems Bodine was banned for personal attacks which is certainly not what I am doing here (Are you?).

Quote:

Btw, using "my friend" in an argument is actually meant to be condescending.


It wasn't intended to be condescending. It was intended to soften the tone of my post in case offense was misconstrued, which is a lot more than I can say you, unionized, Haber and Arkoma are affording me.

[Edited on 3-8-2020 by Whathappensif]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
****




Posts: 438
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 09:55


He was banned for politics which lead to personal attacks which is why politics is not allowed here. He got banned for refusing to stop posting politically driven posts. That is why Polverone mentioned it in the first post of the thread.

The links you shared in the OP are the same link and it is just a poster like the one in the thread. All it shows is how many hours of bureaucracy the labeled countries deal with. Bureaucracy is more than paper work. Also, yes many decisions are poorly made, but many decisions are also based on real research.

I came here in defense of a legit statement made by a member.

[Edited on 3-8-2020 by Syn the Sizer]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
arkoma
Forum Redneck
*****




Posts: 1422
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: Red River Bottoms
Member Is Offline

Mood: Iconoclastic

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 09:59


OP, do some chemistry and leave the controversy alone...........

*edit* you've been "here" three weeks, get over yourself

[Edited on 8-3-2020 by arkoma]




Quote:
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.

Mark Twain


Smash. All. Icons
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 10:22


There's lots of amusing irony here
"Anyone can claim to be a safety inspector on an anonymous forum."
Sure; anyone could.
I didn't- because I'm not.
But this is still a fair description of what I do for a living.
" experience dealing with safety inspections or the paperwork involved in start-ups or running a business"

and then there's " if all you can quote is the official websites of the inspectors themselves."
I didn't.
Wiki, is not , for example, the official site of the Health and Safety Executive.

And then there's "I really doubt you have had any experience dealing with safety inspections or the paperwork involved in start-ups or running a business, if all you can quote is the official websites of the inspectors themselves."

Well, that's a total non sequitur. It still would be if the allegation was correct.

It's plausible that a H&S consultant- whose job is to help people with that paperwork , would cite a few of the organisations that provide scientific research for the health and safety busybodies- just so he could say " well, I know it's bureaucratic, but it is actually based in science and evidence- which is complicated- so you should pay me to help you do it".

But together with the "anyone can claim to be..." bit, what he's saying is that (1) I'm a liar.
(2) because he says so.

Which is particularly amusing in the context of " I think I will believe them over one random guy on the internet."
Where there are two problems.
Firstly, I didn't think anyone older than about 12 believed "it must be true because it is on the internet" but even more so, web pages are written by some "random guy on the internet."

There's more.
"Unionized being a long time member doesn't excuse rude behavior. In fact he should be more aware of it."
Great time to spell someone's name incorrectly.
And OK, I guess someone in a hurry might not notice the important word in this, so I highlighted it here

"You SEEM to be proclaiming that you don't have the time / resources/ ability to show that you can do things safely."

Now I may be an idiot for thinking that the reason why people complain about safety regulations is that they don't want to comply with them... or I might not.
But I don't think it's an utterly implausible viewpoint.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 10:25


Quote: Originally posted by Syn the Sizer  


I have a question, if you don't trust some "random guy" on this forum why the f**k are you even here .


That seems to be an end to it.
Well done!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4543
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-8-2020 at 10:31


Quote: Originally posted by Whathappensif  

Also, who are these people who set the safety rules? I have yet to meet a physics, chemistry or engineering graduate who says their career dream is to go work in the safety unit at the government side or in a corporation. In my experience, most of the people in the safety units are not scientists or engineers with actual lab experience.



Just imagine that someone who read that was actually one of the scientists employed to ensure that the rules were based in science.
(Don't look at me; I drive a desk- chemistry was my job; it's now my hobby).
What would that do for the OP's claim that he didn't insult anyone?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  

  Go To Top