30 Apr 05
Originally posted by Coletti
I think the asbestos hazard in insulation is blown way out of proportion. As for lead-based paints, that seems to be only a problem with children eating paint chips.
Asbestos is only dangerous if you want to remove it. Small particles will spread in the air and when you inhale them the chance is there you develop cancer.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiColetti: The important thing is you are not allowed to KNOWINGLY occupy a house that has lead based paints
True the State is not allowed to go into your house and check for asbestos or lead based paints without reasonable cause - but if you ask them to test your paint or look for asbestos and they find it, they will declare your house unsafe for occupancy, require you and your family to move out, and make you get rid of the environmental hazards.
If you refu ...[text shortened]... ou are not allowed to live in a structure that has been condemned or unfit for human habitation.
Wrong. See this site: http://www.sccar.com/library/ld_paint.html
Section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, the applicable provision of the law passed in 1992, requires disclosure of lead-based paint information in sales and lease transactions of residential properties built before 1978. Regulations mandated by Title X were issued in March of 1996 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). While the requirements of the regulations are imposed on sellers and lessors of pre-1978 housing, Section 1018 also makes real estate agents who are marketing those properties responsible for compliance with those regulations.
The basic requirements of the Section 1018 regulations are:
Sellers and lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing.
Sellers and lessors must provide purchasers and lessees with copies of any available records or reports pertaining to the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards.
Sellers and lessors must provide purchasers and lessees with a federally approved lead hazard information pamphlet.
Sellers must provide purchasers with a period of up to 10 days prior to becoming obligated under the purchase contract during which the purchaser may conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. The purchaser may agree to waive that testing opportunity.
Sales and lease contracts must include specified disclosure and acknowledgment language.
Agents must advise the sellers or lessors whose property they are marketing of these obligations.
ME: It is obvious that so long as a buyer is informed of the presence of lead-based paints pursuant to the regulations, he may buy the house if he so chooses. This is consistent with my view of the issue, but not your's.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou'd have to do a search through state regulations. It may be under the health department, or the environmental and pollution control, or child welfare. That's where the government really makes life difficult, not in the civil and criminal codes, but in the power of the regulator agencies who make their own rules. I spend 75% my time in making sure my designs meet several different agency requirements and responding to their comments because nothing gets done until they approve it. The other 25% of the time I get to do engineering.
Please cite the source of this "information".
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiWrong about asbestos as well. See the US Environmental Protection Agency's site about the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at http://www.epa.gov/region04/air/asbestos/asbqa.htm
True the State is not allowed to go into your house and check for asbestos or lead based paints without reasonable cause - but if you ask them to test your paint or look for asbestos and they find it, they will declare your house unsafe for occupancy, require you and your family to move out, and make you get rid of the environmental hazards.
If you refu ...[text shortened]... ou are not allowed to live in a structure that has been condemned or unfit for human habitation.
Specifically:
Q. Are single-family private residences regulated by the asbestos NESHAP?
A. No.
Fact checking is always a useful exercise before making sweeping assertions, Coletti.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou made the assertion and the Federal regs say differently. It is incumbent upon you to present evidence proving this assertion. I'll take that reply as "I can't".
You'd have to do a search through state regulations. It may be under the health department, or the environmental and pollution control, or child welfare. That's where the government really makes life difficult, not in the civil and criminal codes, but in the power of the regulator agencies who make their own rules. I spend 75% my time in making sure my ...[text shortened]... use nothing gets done until they approve it. The other 25% of the time I get to do engineering.
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have hardly checked all the facts. You have shown that one act does not apply to personal homes - what about all the other state agencies? And the provisions you quoted on lead-based paint only applied to the sales of property - hardly conclusive.
Wrong about asbestos as well. See the US Environmental Protection Agency's site about the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at http://www.epa.gov/region04/air/asbestos/asbqa.htm
...[text shortened]... ways a useful exercise before making sweeping assertions, Coletti.
I know that the EPA does not require a state agency to review stormwater pollution prevention plans - but the one state does review them, and another I work in does not. The EPA does not require a certain class of silt fence - but such-and-such county does.
So I don't know what you think you have proven. The laws you have quoted are very limited in scope and do not address the controls the hundreds of other agencies have.
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYou're kidding. That "limited" law applies to EVERY SINGLE SALE of a home in the US; I have to add an addendum to every sales contract complying with it. I've "proven" that you made an assertion with no evidence to support it. Remember your claim was that no one is allowed to KNOWINGLY occupy a house containing lead paint or asbestos. The Federal laws and regulations say they can IF they are aware such a condition exists. You are wrong unless and until you can present proof otherwise.
You have hardly checked all the facts. You have shown that one act does not apply to personal homes - what about all the other state agencies? And the provisions you quoted on lead-based paint only applied to the sales of property - hardl ...[text shortened]... o not address the controls the hundreds of other agencies have.
EDIT: Your claim: "The important thing is you are not allowed to KNOWINGLY occupy a house that has lead based paints or asbestos,"
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've shown that you can buy the house - not occupy it.
You're kidding. That "limited" law applies to EVERY SINGLE SALE of a home in the US; I have to add an addendum to every sales contract complying with it. I've "proven" that you made an assertion with no evidence to support it. Remember your claim was that no one is allowed to KNOWINGLY occupy a house containing lead paint or asbestos. The ...[text shortened]... ing is you are not allowed to KNOWINGLY occupy a house that has lead based paints or asbestos,"
01 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiAnd you haven't shown anything, Coletti. You're the one saying there's some law that tells people what they can't do. You've been asked to produce it and you haven't. On what basis did you make this claim of yours? Some vague memory of sometime somewhere having heard of such a law?
You've shown that you can buy the house - not occupy it.
01 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat does it matter unless you want the chimp fight with No1 to continue ?
And you haven't shown anything, Coletti. You're the one saying there's some law that tells people what they can't do. You've been asked to produce it and you haven't. On what basis did you make this claim of yours? Some vague memory of sometime somewhere having heard of such a law?
We are talking about pregnant women drinking and smoking. They shouldn't do that. A punishment is not necessary nor desirable. Giving relevant and correct information and good care to the mother and unborn child is.
01 May 05
My Mom worked for a doctor for several years. She said that several children were brought in over the course of her employment. These children had FAS: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, meaning that the mother drank heavily during pregnancy. The children were termed FLKs: Funny Looking Kids. This is actually a medical term. They were funny looking because their eyes were wide apart, as well as several other odd appearances facially.
Beyond the odd appearance of FAS kids, they are several emotional and learning disabilities that go with the syndrome. FAS children are often amoral, or sociopathic, meaning that they are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. They have a great deal of difficulty learning.
02 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd if women choose to ignore the information, or deny its validity?
We are talking about pregnant women drinking and smoking. They shouldn't do that. A punishment is not necessary nor desirable. Giving relevant and correct information and good care to the mother and unborn child is.
Nemesio