6 Technologies illegal in US

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by thatoneguy, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. thatoneguy

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    This is a pretty good article. Might need more sourcing, but there are several links for most of the claims. No whacky para-science stuff, just things like safe nuclear power, private space exploration, etc.

    One that caught my eye: carbon nanotubes are classes as Asbestos, and are regulated as such.

    6 Technoligies illegal in the US

    Any corrections or comments? Seems odd.
     
    maxpower097 likes this.
  2. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,887
    1,012
    Most of this due to out of control regulations heap on top of more regulations. You really don't expect the US government to be efficient do you?
     
  3. thatoneguy

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    Comparing the postal service to FedEx is pretty much all somebody needs to do when they need to send something other than a letter. Even then, the number of lost/mangled USPS letters is still atrocious.

    The EPA is the death of us, adding regulations without congressional approval, same for other agencies, those are what effectively make anything illegal unless you want to spend thousands to millions of dollars on impact studies, fees, and permits.
     
  4. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    I wouldn't go that far, the EPA does a lot of good work. I know because I have a family member who worked for them for a few years. Granted like all gov stuff their is some overkill but stuff like this doesn't get stopped by the EPA or Gov. Its stopped by lobbiest they can out pay the lobbiest on the other side. I've dealt with it before and its just rediculous. So as far as these new tech's making it to the US, I'd look at the other corp's that would be hurt by them and see what they're doing lobby wise and politic wise. I think you'd find all these rules are bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
     
  5. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    Mmm. In general I like that article. But those last commends really put a big dent in its general credibility level for me.

    - water can('t) cure dehydration: There is a little more to it than just quoting the final result outside of its context. Like: 1) It was used as health claim on watery product (Commercial advertisement claims going off the deep end) . 2) Dehydration is not a typical disease/state you can easily catch. Is kinda like claiming matched can cure hypothermia (actual claim, I think, was prevent. But ok, I think you get the point). (if you still could use your fingers to hold a match at that point of course.)

    - outlawed incandescent lighting: Jeeze ... what better way to get rid of something that's highly inefficient in producing light out of energy. Anyway, according to wikipedia on Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs the EU is not the first. (But the US is being its slow self again here it seems.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  6. thatoneguy

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    I don't doubt that for a minute. Too many special interests trying to please everybody, and people in positions of power (regulation boards, corporate boards, or congress) wanting to keep it. The number of restrictions that one runs into when trying to do something is simply dumbfounding.

    Today, nobody outside a major aircraft company can design/test a new airframe unless it falls into the restrictions of power/altitude/etc. That is just one area.

    How many other areas are people essentially prevented from researching in a market if they need to front a lot of money for a lawyer to even find out what needs to be done?
     
  7. luvv

    Member

    May 26, 2011
    186
    31
    Since this link is obviously not about technology but about the evils of environmental regulation.

    I guess I can just give my opinion of the EPA.

    The EPA,can't live wealthy with them,can't live long w/o them.

    Or it's all fun and games till heavy metals poison you.

    But hey,no amount of regulations seems to stop the endless list of environmental super disasters.

    Exxon Valdez
    Love Canal
    Deep Water Horizon
    Kingston Fossil Plant
    And on and on....

    Guess the EPA is one of those things that separate us from China,their growth and their environment.
     
    maxpower097 likes this.
  8. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    The E.P.A. has just cracked down on beach water,they are demanding more testing

    for better beach water in Florida. Making local testers to do a better job, most city

    water plants have excellent labs,with the best equipment. You never notice the lab

    tech taking samples to test. When the life guards put the warning signs out,you

    know the labs are doing there work. The samples have a chain of custody,that how

    strict the process is for the E.P.A.
     
  9. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    Growing Medicianal Plants (There are many plants illegal and legal big corps grow for making medicine like Palmeto berries for prostate medicine, some sort of marygold for bloodpressure,etc... , doing research on medical uses of controlled substances, stem cells, high mpg engines, people with colds, people claiming dissablility is a nightmare my deaf friend tells me. He's a good guy but he's deaf. He's gottem 4 jobs this year but as soon as its found out he's deaf they won't hire him. Meanwhile the feds are fighting him as not disabled even though he's 100% deaf.
     
  10. thatoneguy

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    I am in agreement that technologies with the ability to harm others with or without intention may need "ground rules". That is entirely different from banning entire areas of energy exploration due to a problem with one method in exploration of similar type. And is as much different as banning cars due to a DUI accident.

    No number of regulations and bureaucrats will ever be able to stop human error, especially intentional error in the cases of Exxon Valdez and Love Canal.

    Those rare intentional errors are not a valid reason to ban entire areas of science from the public. For an example that is "closer to home", look at model rocketry and/or RC Aircraft. Rocketry is already regulated heavily and simply banned at > 1,000ft in many areas. The same restrictions are now being targeted at people flying RC Aircraft through FPV systems, due to a few idiots posting videos of stupidity on YouTube.

    When one person with an FPV setup buzzed New York City in an RC Aircraft, how is the FEDERAL government justified in banning FPV technology and placing limits on UAV size/range? Wouldn't each State, or better yet, city or county be better able to have their own rules on such craft?

    The problem I have is that most bans in the US are enacted without support, input, or even knowledge of the citizens of the US. I do understand that the air corridors are essentially Federal in nature. Outside those corridors are free flight areas that all aircraft pilots are aware of in their charts. Closing those off, or limiting them will only reduce the interest of flight, not enhance it.
     
  11. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    Marijuana is a technology.
     
  12. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    This is banned as an inappropriate subject for this forum along with politics, overunity, and everything else that might be remotely controversial.
     
  13. vortmax

    Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    103
    18
    There are also things that the article chose not to disclose. For instance, the reason diesel engines are restricted in the states is because of their high particulate emissions which do have direct impacts on human health. The EPA has a good reason for the diesel regulations that exist. The carbon nanotube article also seemed to make a joke about them being carcinogenic. ...it's not a joke. They are much more dangerous than asbestos.
     
  14. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    it's on the website.
     
  15. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    I know I'm just being an idiot. ;)
     
  16. thatoneguy

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    Low sulphur fuel and other enhancements, in addition to bio-diesel, as well as post combustion cleaners in exhaust have pretty much eliminated particulate emissions from diesel vehicles. The exception are those who intentionally disable the systems so they can be "Rolling Coal" and intentionally blowing black smoke out the exhaust.

    The Very High mileage vehicles aren't running US diesel fuel or gasoline, Naptha and similar hydrocarbons are different than either gas or diesel, and there is a supply of it. At the same time, since it isn't gasoline or diesel, it can't be used as a legal road fuel. Propane isn't so good as a road fuel, but allowed, but natural gas isn't allowed. And this whole time, the government is subsidizing industries to turn food into a sub-standard "filler" to gasoline in the form of ethanol.

    On the topic of Carbon Nano Tubes, since they can be carcinogenic if broken a certain way and released into the atmosphere for inhalation (same route asbestos causes irritation or tumors), that means that we must wait for ALL CNT Technology to be developed outside the United States? That makes no sense. Weaponized smallpox is handled in labs across the US. At the same time, research into CNT batteries is forbidden, unless one is a government agency.

    It is amazing how government agencies are exempt from 99.5% of these regulations/bans. Then people will continue to complain that the US hasn't "Created anything NEW" within our borders recently.



    I didn't realize that so many people actually believe the government in both the US and EU knows what is best for everybody. Even when the same governments are blindly blocking companies from exploring new areas of real energy (not the hocus-pocus pseudo-science "energy") and technology. Especially at a time when the government is stating energy is a big problem going forward due to the laws and regulations against natural gas, wind, solar, pipelines, et al.

    As far as EU banning advertising water as not preventing dehydration, round tipped knifes in the UK, those are headlines from the EU news outlets. They aren't sensationalized by the website I linked if you look at the sources. I am not the author of that article. It's just food for thought, found the article and thought I'd share. I actually believed there would be an intelligent conversation about the issues, and perhaps some ideas on ways to work with/around those new ground rules.
     
  17. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    It was rather like: "Marijuana is a technology. Ah. I did not know that until now".

    There is not really a wish or a need to discuss it.

    But yes it could be a health related technology.
     
  18. maxpower097

    Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    795
    388
    Your right, and it is the most tested drug in the pharmacuitcal arsenal. So I guess it would be a technology. All prostate medicine is concentrated palmetto berries. Penecillin came from mold. So if you think about it and its legal status I guess you could easily consider it a technology. (I'd guess alternative medicine) which is gaining a lot of ground.
     
  19. MvGulik

    Member

    Nov 3, 2011
    40
    9
    ... as preventing dehydration ...

    I personally feel that that page you linked is kinda bias and one sided in relation to regulation.

    Kinda get the same feeling when I see commends like:
    Other than that, I guess the save middle road it.
     
  20. takao21203

    Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    The governments never were designed or engineered. They simply envolved. They are not necessarily good or bad. Bureaucracy is highly inefficient.
     
    maxpower097 and MvGulik like this.
Loading...