Richard Saunders Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 "I would expect them to fulfil their mission which does not limit them to issuing recalls but does charge them with "protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products."" That's like expecting the AHJ to find code violations. Turns out it's our job to let the client know about these things. If everybody did what they were supposed to do, we would be sitting home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Who would be harmed by issuing a document that said, in effect, "There is ample evidence that this product is unsafe and we encourage consumers to replace it as soon as possible." Since there's no one to pin a recall on, then surely there must be no one to sue the CPSC for such a statement. It would be leaving a blood trail for the sharks, and they know it. The conservative nature of bureaucracy is such that they learn to avoid that kind of controversy. In order for there to be a suit, someone would have to be harmed. Who would claim to be harmed from such a statement? Why FPE and not also Zinsco? Why stop there? Because there's an abundance of data about FPE. That data is lacking for Zinsco. The CPSC is not a laboratory for testing and evaluating products. They do not have their own objective test data, and they don't attempt to do UL's job of testing breakers to a verifiable standard (which unfortunately wasn't done by UL either for the fraudulently manufactured FPEs). For the most part, all they can do is respond to data that is brought to them. But that's exactly what's happened. There's even a judge's finding that FPE used fraudulant and deceptive practices to obtain their UL listing. The CPSC need not do any testing or rely on any of their own data. They can just cite existing material. There are some exceptions, such as the CPSC creation of an impact standard for safety glass back in the 1970s, a standard that gained wider acceptance than ANSI Z97.1. That one has done a lot of good. And there are notable failures, such as CPSC's absurd endorsement of the "Copalum" system, where they may have ultimately done as much harm as good. The latter does have a direct relation to this current action. Their work with safety glass was great. And I have no doubt that they continue to do good work in establishing recalls of truly dangerous stuff. However, their effect is largely diluted by the silly stuff that they natter on about and by the fact that they seem unwilling to take a bold and effective stance on the FPE issue. - Jim Katen, Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Maybe the guvment simply got too ambitious in choosing a name for the CPSC. Shoulda called it the Office of Product Recalls and scaled back their mission statement too. Guvment IS known for taking on more than they can chew. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Hansen Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Last year, Jess Aronstein presented new (very convincing) material to CPSC in an attempt to get them to revise their original report on the issue, and thanks to Bill we get to see their cautiously worded revision. Douglas Hansen Douglas - Is the material that Jess Aronstein presented available for sharing among our HI world? http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/meetin ... re3_18.pdf Douglas Hansen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.