<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wagner Street, Talent Oregon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/</link>
	<description>Have Blog. Will Travel.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:54:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeDuck</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-31345</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JoeDuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 02:18:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-31345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I appreciate your 3rd comment the most, though my point is that it&#039;s NOT rationality that guides the process, and agree that codes and inspection process is driven more by the interest in revenue than interest in public safety.  

I think we need to rethink the way we fund public stuff.   An interesting *first step* would be some reviews of public spending items using a cost and benefit approach.  Who would pay for that?  Hmmmm, not MY taxes!?!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate your 3rd comment the most, though my point is that it&#8217;s NOT rationality that guides the process, and agree that codes and inspection process is driven more by the interest in revenue than interest in public safety.  </p>
<p>I think we need to rethink the way we fund public stuff.   An interesting *first step* would be some reviews of public spending items using a cost and benefit approach.  Who would pay for that?  Hmmmm, not MY taxes!?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fools Gold</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30916</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fools Gold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 15:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think your primary assumption is that of rationality: you are viewing the code regulation as a safety matter that can be analyzed in terms of dollars spent and lives saved. Well, thats similar to assuming that parking regulations are to regulate traffic flow and safety. They are not. Parking regulations and traffic cameras exist to generate revenue. 
The code provisions are mainly to benefit installers and insurers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think your primary assumption is that of rationality: you are viewing the code regulation as a safety matter that can be analyzed in terms of dollars spent and lives saved. Well, thats similar to assuming that parking regulations are to regulate traffic flow and safety. They are not. Parking regulations and traffic cameras exist to generate revenue.<br />
The code provisions are mainly to benefit installers and insurers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FoolsGold</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30352</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FoolsGold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 06:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The supplemental grounding rod will be a godsend when the local utilities start replacing their metal water pipes with plastic pipes and destroy residential grounding systems. The real reason for all this though is that it would be $1500 worth of heavy and time consuming test equipment for the inspectors to actually measure the impedance at just one grounding rod to see if it exceeded the 25ohm level. So its cheaper and easier (for them) to insist on a supplemental grounding rod although there are some disputes as to six feet or ten feet separation being required.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The supplemental grounding rod will be a godsend when the local utilities start replacing their metal water pipes with plastic pipes and destroy residential grounding systems. The real reason for all this though is that it would be $1500 worth of heavy and time consuming test equipment for the inspectors to actually measure the impedance at just one grounding rod to see if it exceeded the 25ohm level. So its cheaper and easier (for them) to insist on a supplemental grounding rod although there are some disputes as to six feet or ten feet separation being required.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FoolsGold</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30351</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FoolsGold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 06:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/wagner-street-talent-oregon/#comment-30351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your cost/benefit analysis would have to include not just electrical fire deaths but also lightening strike deaths (even rarer) and deaths to utility workers through feedback. East of the Mississipi the relevant code would be, as I understand it, ONE ground rod and most states make this an expense of the utility bringing in the power. You would also have to include the costs associated with improperly installed satellite dishes that have a wind-related charge buildup or lightening strikes that are not properly dissipated to ground. Also all interior electrical malfunctions due to improper functioning of a ground fault protector at outlets or equipment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your cost/benefit analysis would have to include not just electrical fire deaths but also lightening strike deaths (even rarer) and deaths to utility workers through feedback. East of the Mississipi the relevant code would be, as I understand it, ONE ground rod and most states make this an expense of the utility bringing in the power. You would also have to include the costs associated with improperly installed satellite dishes that have a wind-related charge buildup or lightening strikes that are not properly dissipated to ground. Also all interior electrical malfunctions due to improper functioning of a ground fault protector at outlets or equipment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

