Comments by "bruzote" (@bruzote) on "CBC News" channel.

  1.  @MrTurdFurgeson  - That is different than willfully selling a future problem to make profit.
    22
  2. Look out, folks! Don't use the foam contraceptives or lubricants!
    10
  3.  @jessicah3450  - No need to worry about those conditions. Soon books like that will be banned and any media discussions about food safety will be blocked. The Anti-regulator's Motto: Ignorance is bliss, especially when you must work hard to achieve it!
    9
  4.  @seedplanter7173  - People like you used to oppose seat belts because some people survived "unsurvivable" crashes after being ejected. The numbers don't lie - vaccines save lives overall.
    5
  5.  @NanaNaima1  - Why not? Punish the rule breakers, benefit those who don't. This person will only have MORE work to do if you shop there, so it is real generosity on his part to mention BJs. Plus, he worked their in the PAST, not now.
    4
  6. Do you realize the industry lawyers would tie you up in court for years and years? The guy who invented intermittent windshield sued for *decades* before he got a final resolution of his case. Then you have to sue to collect payments the companies won't make after they ignore the court order.
    4
  7. This is life in the business world. Hire a consulting company some day for analysis and recommendations. Unless you follow everything they do, you end up just hoping results are not bogus.
    2
  8. Meat cutting paid for you to...study how to cut human meat? :-)
    2
  9. Well, Eddie Lampert just about destroyed Sears, so don't expect those problems to be around much longer.
    1
  10. Solid state electronics are crap today. It's definitely a choice of a meager savings resulting in rapid failure.
    1
  11. The business claims it was one percent. How would they know? The testing of the product requires destruction of the foam. They didn't destroy 100% of the foam in the attic during testing, so clearly there is ALWAYS a risk more foam is badly done. Given that the victims were chemically sensitized, which is a very serious matter, the home owners need full certainty they are safe in the home and the foam must be removed. Until you are sensitized to common chemicals, don't even think of writing off that problem as inconsequential when considering imperfect testing. Also, as I first said, the business claimed it was only one percent. Would you trust them if it was your home? More than 1% of the samples returned by the tester showed contamination, so how do you resolve that? You must test 100% of the foam in the home, or else you must make assumptions about the quality and determine your assumptions outweigh the importance of protecting the health of sensitized individuals with damagingly-overreactive immune systems.
    1
  12. Retopping tarts might take more labor than just properly creating new tarts.
    1
  13.  @genejeffries2888  - Your answer is basically positing that using the foam is a gamble with your whole health and home, but that's OK because the odds are highly in your favor. The fact is, one should not gamble with costs one cannot afford to pay. If you can't afford to lose your health or your home, don't risk it. Consider that scientific studies have proven that humans make terribly poor judgments when it comes to accepting a low risk of a disastrous event. Using Expectancy Value Theorem would show a decision to get foam is a bad one, but people choose the foam because they think a low risk means they have controlled the risk. They have not. They can be burned, and the cost of the risk is not worth from a pure analysis standpoint. Arguing its people right to make a choice is like arguing Russian roulette is acceptable. It is not. High odds in your favor do not make a gamble a worthy choice. The cost of failure must be considered. If your home has a in 1/30 chance of being done poorly and affecting your health and ruining your homes livabilibty, then for a $300,000 home, the choice to install foam is basically a decision that will cost you $10,000 AND 1/30 of the remaining healthy years of your life. Think about that! That is for odds of 1/30. With a low-cost contractor, that chance might increase to 5/10!
    1
  14. Was this originally a US production? It says CBC News under the video.
    1
  15. Don't make persistent health complaints to a business by claiming the cause of the health problems is proven by a smell associated with the product. If the business won't agree with you, promptly hire a knowledgable and rigorous testing contractor. (This video suggests the owners did not that. However, these types of TV shows often use very biased editing in order to get viewers interested, so maybe the owners already had done testing.)
    1
  16.  @Tythrak  - More like welcome to weekly shows that do investigative reporting on television. The worst is that one show that reviews crimes that were solved about ten years ago and they edit the show to make it seem like they solved the crime during the investigation! They don't make false claims, and the entertainment is valuable if you like the suspense, but the fact is after five minutes you go do an internet search and find the information you want (and read it) in five minutes.
    1
  17.  Glyn  - How is it funded by the taxpayer, besides allowing the broadcasting industry to be an oligopoly on public airwaves that are auctioned off at perhaps unfairly low prices?
    1
  18.  @boggy7665  - The results are the problem. Unhealthy chemicals were left remaining. The job was probably done too thickly and perhaps in too hot a temperature. Maybe even the spray gun was not shooting out the chemicals in exactly the right mix.
    1
  19.  Glyn  - Was this really CBC, or was it a rebroadcast of US TV?
    1
  20. One should not gamble with costs one cannot afford to pay. If you can't afford to lose your health or your home, don't risk it. Consider that scientific studies have proven that humans make terribly poor judgments when it comes to accepting a low risk of a disastrous event. Using Expectancy Value Theorem would show a decision to get foam is a bad one, but people choose the foam because they think a low risk means they have controlled the risk. They have not - the risk is the risk, period - full stop. The cost of the risk is not worth from a pure analysis standpoint. Arguing its the peoples right to make a choice is like arguing that playing Russian roulette is a good choice if you really enjoy the "game". The reality is that high odds in your favor do not necessarily make a gamble a worthy choice. *The cost of failure must be considered independently of the reward of success**. If your foam installation has only a in 1/30 chance of affecting your health and ruining your homes livability, then for a $300,000 home, the choice to install foam is basically a decision that will average you a $10,000 cost *AND 1/30 of the remaining healthy years of your life! Those are awful costs for a "cost-saving" choice! If your home is worth $900,000, the effective dollar cost goes up to $30,000, plus you are still forfeiting 1/30 of your healthy years of your life! Think about that! That is just for the excellent odds of 1/30. With a low-cost contractor, that chance might increase to 1/5 or more!
    1