Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:
>
> Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost
> to the owner.
>
>
>
> Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah,
> right.
>
Why do you find that unbelievable? The fix will be at no cost to present
owners. The cost will be borne by Volkswagen stockholders and by people who
buy new cars from Volkswagen later. These cars will be a little more
expensive than they would have been, to make up for the losses.

In related news, the EPA announced it is changing its test method to ensue
this will not happen again.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

>>Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost to 
>> the owner.

>> 

>> Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah, right.

 

> Why do you find that unbelievable? The fix will be at no cost to present

> owners. The cost will be borne by Volkswagen stockholders and by people

> who buy new cars from Volkswagen later. These cars will be a little more

> expensive than they would have been, to make up for the losses.

 

Poor wording on my part. My sarcasm was meant to imply that, as you pointed 
out, future VW customers and stockholders will bare the brunt of mistakes made 
from past avoidances. I hope you are right that the additional cost will be 
just a little more expensive than what future autos would have cost otherwise. 
The impression I have been getting from the news is that this is a really big 
deal. Whether it is an accurate assumption for me to make or not, I tend to 
interpret a big deal in financial terms. Truth of the matter is that I don't 
know how expensive or costly this matter is going to end up being for VW. 
Hopefully, you are correct. I like the German company. I've owned several bugs 
myself in my earlier years. I'd hate to see VW suffer irreparable financial 
hardship. Over the decades I think they have done a decent job manufacturing 
high quality transportation for the common man.

 

> In related news, the EPA announced it is changing its test method to

> ensue this will not happen again.

 

Good!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> Poor wording on my part. My sarcasm was meant to imply that, as you
> pointed out, future VW customers and stockholders will bare the brunt of
> mistakes made from past avoidances.
>
But not the present owners. HOWEVER, present owners are filing a class
action lawsuit because this defect lowers the resale value of the cars. In
that sense, they have lost money.

It is complicated. I do not know if such lawsuits have succeeded in the
past. With a normal defect, the company does not know about the problem
until it is discovered, so I do not think it can be held responsible for
lowering the resale value. The company's only obligation is to report the
problem with 5 days and then repair it promptly, at no cost to the owners.

(They can "repair" this problem easily, by adjusting the software, but it
will hurt the car's performance and mpg rating, as I said. So that lowers
the resale value.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Terry Blanton]

The letter to VW from the EPA:


http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

EPA announcement:

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm

RE: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

>EPA announcement:

> 

>http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm

 

Excerpt:

 

How much will this cost to fix?

 

Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost to 
the owner.

 

 

Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah, right. 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[MJ]

So, if the problem was the software, why they didn't fix it?

Mark Jordan


On 25-Sep-15 16:29, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but . . .

I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen 
scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what 
happened. I think the reporters do not understand.


The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the 
automobile onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to 
indicate that either the actual performance changes, or that the 
onboard computer begins to generate fake data. It turns out to be the 
former. When you disengage from the onboard computer, NOx emissions 
increase to a level ~40 times above US allowed standards. Furthermore, 
fixing this problem will probably degrade the performance or fuel 
efficiency of the car.


Here is a short but clear explanation:

http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9

Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."

The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection 
system to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to 
mind the saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."



The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could 
get away with this indefinitely.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you David.
However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical
if one is not prepared to pay the price.
Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can almost
guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place. We will
soon hear about that I think.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> This type of deception makes me angry.  Also, how stupid are they to
> assume that this will not be uncovered?   All of those guys in management
> associated with this decision should be terminated.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 3:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A
> while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator
> that a EPA test was underway.
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is somewhat off-topic but . . .
>>
>> I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
>> scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
>> think the reporters do not understand.
>>
>> The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
>> onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
>> either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
>> to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
>> from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
>> above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
>> degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.
>>
>> Here is a short but clear explanation:
>>
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9
>>
>> Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."
>>
>> The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system
>> to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the
>> saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."
>>
>>
>> The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
>> away with this indefinitely.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

>
> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical
> if one is not prepared to pay the price.
>

The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the
leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules that
have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That is
not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries they
regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that regulations are
always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the corporations
being regulated. They reflect the best practices of responsible companies.

In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the
regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by
making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but
effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.

If the government were to try to force through regulations without industry
consent, there would be a hue and cry.

One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking
over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you
can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart
Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible
peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by
salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that
happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It
is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have
to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts.



> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can
> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.
>

I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile
companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will
destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case.  I hope and believe that he did not 
think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any deaths.   I 
suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been around for 
many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the public.

I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during production 
as well.  Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a 
conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.  Does 
anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during that time 
frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?

Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a businessman 
in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too far.  People 
make similar errors in judgement all the time.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details




Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
 

However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical if 
one is not prepared to pay the price.



The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the 
leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies never pass rules that have 
not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That is not to 
suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries they regulate, 
although in some cases they are! I am saying that regulations are always passed 
with cooperation and advance knowledge of the corporations being regulated. 
They reflect the best practices of responsible companies.



In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the regulations. 
In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by making it hard 
for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but effective violation of 
anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.


If the government were to try to force through regulations without industry 
consent, there would be a hue and cry.



One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking over 
an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you can be 
sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart Parnell was 
sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible peanut suppliers do 
not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by salmonella because they 
know that people will stop buying peanuts if that happens. Criminals such as 
Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It is not enough to have general 
laws against poisoning people. You must have to have inspections and standards 
with a host of specifics about peanuts.


 


Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can almost 
guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.



I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile companies 
are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will destroy the 
company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

MJ  wrote:


> So, if the problem was the software, why they didn't fix it?
>

The problem is not software. Software was used to cover up the problem. The
problem is that when they run the motor in a mode that reduces NOx to
levels allowed by the U.S. regulations, fuel efficiency and performance
decrease, and wear and tear on the motor increases. It is an engineering
trade-off. In this case they selected a trade-off option that happens to be
against the law.

They can easily adjust the software now to tell cars to produce less NOx. I
expect they will. However the cars will get lower MPGs and they will have
other problems.

Here is another example of a performance trade-off you are not allowed to
make. You can improve the performance of a motor vehicle by removing the
muffler. That is why fire engines motors make such a loud noise. They are
optimized for high performance. Fire engines are allowed to make lots of
noise, with sirens and with the motor. However, if you do this with an
ordinary car, you violate noise pollution laws.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Axil Axil]

The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A
while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator
that a EPA test was underway.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This is somewhat off-topic but . . .
>
> I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
> scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
> think the reporters do not understand.
>
> The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
> onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
> either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
> to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
> from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
> above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
> degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.
>
> Here is a short but clear explanation:
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9
>
> Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."
>
> The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system
> to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the
> saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."
>
>
> The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
> away with this indefinitely.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

This type of deception makes me angry.  Also, how stupid are they to assume 
that this will not be uncovered?   All of those guys in management associated 
with this decision should be terminated.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details



The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A 
while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator 
that a EPA test was underway.


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is somewhat off-topic but . . .


I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen scandal. 
I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I think the 
reporters do not understand.


The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile 
onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that either 
the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins to generate 
fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage from the onboard 
computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times above US allowed 
standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably degrade the 
performance or fuel efficiency of the car.


Here is a short but clear explanation:


http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9



Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."


The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system to fix 
the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the saying, "If you 
was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."




The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get away 
with this indefinitely.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
difficult analysis.



I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
risks.

I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is a
factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was possible
to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations makes
the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to make
limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close to
reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is too
late to stop the problem.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>
>
> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>
> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
> behavior, what would be?
>
> I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
> it has been the local papers.
>
>
> I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
>> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
>> public.
>>
>
> If so, he is an idiot unaware of what has been common knowledge for over a
> century.
>
>
>
>> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
>> production as well.
>
>
> If that were true, and if the processing or cooking did not fix the
> problem by sterilizing the meat later, thousands of people who get sick or
> killed by chicken, and no one would eat it.
>
> If you go to India or South America you will find lots of food that does
> not meet U.S. standards. If you are foolish enough to eat it, you will
> probably be violently ill for days or weeks. Once you recover, you will
> never, ever, eat that food again. If this contamination were common in
> chickens in the U.S., people would soon find out by getting violently ill.
> Word would get out, and the entire chicken industry would be wiped out.
>
>
>
>>   Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a
>> conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.
>
>
> I am sure he did make a conscious decision to risk people's lives! That's
> why they sent him to prison for 28 years.
>
>
>
>>   Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during
>> that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?
>
>
> The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of
> cucumbers, have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is
> estimated to cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000
> hospitalizations and 380 deaths."
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/
>
> Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is
> contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know
> are likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they
> do not want to hurt others, and also because 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with consent.
>

Everyone with knowledge of industry and the history of commerce is a
defender of regulations. Go back and read how things were before there were
modern regulations, or go live in a Third World country such as India or
China and you will see.

You are incorrect. It is always with consent. If not, the industries would
raise hell with the Congress, and the Congress always listens to people who
have lots of money. Evidently, I know more about regulations, and I have
spoken with more regulators and industry experts than you have. I suggest
you read books about this subject, such as the ones by S. Florman.



> Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market.
>

Not as much as they used to. Regulators got wise to this tactic in the
1970s and they got rid of many regulations that only served that purpose.
That is why, for example, advertisers nowadays are free to name their
competitors, and lawyers can advertise their services.



> I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no
> good.
>

Go back and read how things were before there were federal inspections, and
you will quickly change your mind. Or, as I said, go visit a country where
they do not inspect food, or where the food inspectors are routinely paid
bribes to look the other way.



> As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for all
> involved.
>

Number of people killed by salmonella in the U.S. per year: ~380

People killed by salmonella in third world counties: over 100,000.

Is that a joke? Do you also laugh at infant mortality rates? How about
diarrhea from contaminated water, which kills 2.2 million people in the
Third World, and practically no one in the U.S.? Because we have
regulations. Do you also find that hilarious?

Without regulations, inspections, laws and prisons, criminals such as
Stewart Parnell would kill hundreds of thousands of victims per year,
knowingly, for profit. That is what they did in the 19th century in the
U.S. That is what they do every day in countries such as China. Many people
are evil. If they can make a few dollars by making you sick or killing you,
they will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with
consent. Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market. The
biggest entities often become part of an initial agreement and then the law
is a fact and various parties now negotiate exceptions and some of them not
so kosher.
I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no
good. As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for
all involved. I think David is correct about the peanut scandal. Reality is
that the company probably had dealings (agreements) that gave them OK to
not have the zero tolerance level enforced (zero tolerance is common in the
food industry - but not possible). At some point in time the test probably
became a joke as it was always OK even if it was not. Perhaps they just
abandoned the test. Why spend time on testing when their is no limit. I
think like David that nobody believed the product was dangerous. It was
good for years - of course it is good today also.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case.  I hope and believe that he
> did not think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any
> deaths.   I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has
> been around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to
> the public.
>
> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
> production as well.  Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and
> did not make a conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a
> callous way.  Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was
> dangerous during that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or
> more dangerous?
>
> Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a
> businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too
> far.  People make similar errors in judgement all the time.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is
>> practical if one is not prepared to pay the price.
>>
>
> The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the
> leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules
> that have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That
> is not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries
> they regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that
> regulations are always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the
> corporations being regulated. They reflect the best practices of
> responsible companies.
>
> In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the
> regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by
> making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but
> effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.
>
> If the government were to try to force through regulations without
> industry consent, there would be a hue and cry.
>
> One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking
> over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you
> can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart
> Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible
> peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by
> salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that
> happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It
> is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have
> to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts.
>
>
>
>> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can
>> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.
>>
>
> I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile
> companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will
> destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I have been in those countries.
Yes, the mortality rate from misc. things are higher than in the US.
The factors are not to be found in the regulations. It is mostly other
factors.
Often third world countries adopt US or European regulations. The
possibilities to avoid the legislation is by far more abundant in third
world countries.
Next time you visit any third world country, check with what the locals do.
They usually will tell you where the risks are.

You bring up a number of other things you think are better because of the
regulations. The contaminated water is not unhealthy because they do not
have good regulations. If the water supply is very limited and you have no
funding for or infrastructure to handle purification you will drink less
good water. Take your rules to a village in Kongo and tell them; "here is
what we do in the US - we do not die from bad water" Then you mention the
death rate among newly born. Long time since I checked but ten years ago
approximately the death rate among newly born in the US were ten times
higher than they were in Sweden. This amazed me so I looked upon why and my
conclusion is that it is an attitude question. It certainly has nothing to
do with the rules / laws forced on the mothers or doctors or anyone else
involved as they are more or less identical. .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
> his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
> more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
> followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
> you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
> CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
> sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
> moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
> solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
> and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
> to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
> difficult analysis.
>
>
>
> I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
> of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
> so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
> and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
> risks.
>
> I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is
> a factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was
> possible to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations
> makes the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to
> make limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close
> to reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is
> too late to stop the problem.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
>
> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> David Roberson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
>> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
>> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
>> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
>> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>>
>> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
>> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
>> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
>> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
>> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
>> behavior, what would be?
>>
>> I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
>> it has been the local papers.
>>
>>
>> I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
>>> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
>>> public.
>>>
>>
>> If so, he is an idiot unaware of what 

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
> producing would lead to any deaths.


Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.

There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
behavior, what would be?

I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
it has been the local papers.


I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
> public.
>

If so, he is an idiot unaware of what has been common knowledge for over a
century.



> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
> production as well.


If that were true, and if the processing or cooking did not fix the problem
by sterilizing the meat later, thousands of people who get sick or killed
by chicken, and no one would eat it.

If you go to India or South America you will find lots of food that does
not meet U.S. standards. If you are foolish enough to eat it, you will
probably be violently ill for days or weeks. Once you recover, you will
never, ever, eat that food again. If this contamination were common in
chickens in the U.S., people would soon find out by getting violently ill.
Word would get out, and the entire chicken industry would be wiped out.



>   Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a
> conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.


I am sure he did make a conscious decision to risk people's lives! That's
why they sent him to prison for 28 years.



>   Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during
> that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?


The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of cucumbers,
have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is estimated
to cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000
hospitalizations and 380 deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/

Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is
contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know
are likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they
do not want to hurt others, and also because it is against the law and you
are fined or put out of business even if you do it by accident. However, in
this case, the evidence collected by the police, and the testimony at
trial, proves beyond doubt that Parnell knew what he was doing, and he went
on doing it for a long time.

>


> Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a
> businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too
> far.  People make similar errors in judgement all the time.
>

This was not a mistake in judgement, except insofar as he judged he could
get away with murder.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[David Roberson]

***
The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of cucumbers, 
have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is estimated to 
cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000 hospitalizations 
and 380 deaths."

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/

Obviously, in most cases the food producers do not realize there is 
contamination. Very few people deliberately sell products that they know are 
likely to sicken or kill consumers. People do not do this because they do not 
want to hurt others, and also because it is against the law and you are fined 
or put out of business even if you do it by accident. However, in this case, 
the evidence collected by the police, and the testimony at trial, proves beyond 
doubt that Parnell knew what he was doing, and he went on doing it for a long 
time.

***



Jed,

You must have missed the special on TV about the incidence of salmonella 
discovered in raw chicken in the US.  If I recall correctly it was 
approximately 25% occurrance rate, especially in chicken parts such as breasts. 
 And, the USDA did not even regulate that pathogen since it was assumed present 
and normal.  The program made it clear that these regulators could not force 
the manufacturers to cease production due to that issue during the time this 
incident took place.

Now, if you cook chicken that is soiled in this way, it is likely that you will 
get some of the pathogens on fresh vegetables, etc. that are present within 
your kitchen.   And, cooking is not going to clean up the problem in many cases.

You also should know that the USDA did not regulate or require testing of the 
salmonella levels in the products of Mr. Parnell.   He performed testing on 
some of his products to satisfy his contracts with certain customers and not 
the USDA.  At the moment, I am not aware of exactly what regulation on the 
books he was charged with except perhaps manslaughter, which covers just about 
any purpose the prosecutor wishes.  I suspect that if you were to cut down a 
tree without care and it landed upon your neighbor causing his death, that 
would fall within the same category.   This would be especially true if you 
knew the neighbor frequented that spot and you were warned not to make the cut 
due to the danger to his life.

You mentioned over a million sicknesses due to food poisoning by salmonella 
each year.  Should we lock up every food executive associated with those 
incidents?  Do you believe that no one realized that salmonella was being 
shipped in any of these products?  Keep in mind the chicken special(no pun 
intended) that I referred to above.

For disclosure, I know friends of Mr. Parnell since he lived fairly closeby and 
they all claim he is a decent guy.  Why send him to prison when the chicken 
masters get a free pass?  This does not make sense and needs to be changed.  He 
is certainly no more of a murderer than a driver that has had too much to drink 
and wrecks leading to someone's death.  We all know people that have been 
caught in that trap and most serve little if any time in prison.  (28 years???)

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Some other info:

A lab at West Virginia U. found the problem, working with a $50,000 grant.
They have also tested a BMI, which was fine. That confirmed their method is
correct. See:

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443053672/how-a-little-lab-in-west-virginia-caught-volkswagens-big-cheat

The excess NOx pollution worldwide is roughly as much as 20 U.S. coal fired
plants produce (legally produce). There are 589 coal fired plants in the
U.S., so 20 is a significant number.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383641/volkswagen-scandal-pollution

- Jed