Trial lawyers are part of making case law. Legislators make statutory law. Case law is *usually* very narrowly targeted. Statutory law tends to be where you find the overbroad, overreaching and uninformed regulation of how we live our lives and do our business. Stakeholders are... us. I'm part of an advocacy group for a particular area of interest that has been very effective in our efforts to educate our legislators regarding our issues. We've been able to get good legislation introduced, heard and passed, and bad legislation killed. Next week, I am meeting (by invitation) with the head of one of the state regulatory agencies that impacts my interest area. She wants to know what I think. I know because she's asked before, and evidently included my input (on behalf of the stakeholder community) in her decision process. If you include in the concept of 'lobbyists' citizens who show up, unpaid, and speak to the issues with data, not just impassioned rhetoric (although we have some of that, too), then you are not incorrect. But I suspect you are repeating the oft-stated belief that only paid, high-powered lobbyists are really making a difference. My small, not-for-profit advocacy group has beat those people at their own game on more than one occasion. I don't get paid for the time I spend in the state capital, and I pay my own way when I visit D.C. I'm paid back when stupid things don't happen, and even more richly when good things DO happen. In my experience, at least at the state level, they're listening to the people who are talking: the decisions are made by the people who show up. Yes, sometimes the dragon wins, but in my experience the dragon loses often enough to well-informed and passionate citizen stakeholders that I keep going back. -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ken Seefried [ken at seefried.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:18 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Asbestos: (was: RE: Tubes & Computers of Olden Days) Dad was an executive and principle engineer at a hazardous waste abatement firm. Lots of asbestos and superfund site cleanups. I got a lot of collateral knowledge. From: Ian King <IanK at vulcan.com>>The primary metric is the 'friability' of the asbestosPrecisely. Not all asbestos is created equal; much is completely harmless, some is frighteningly damaging. Friability is a fancy way of saying how finely do the asbestos fiber shatter under stress. The finer the particles, the more dangerous. Well...not exactly (IMO). The legislation followed the trial lawyers making "asbestos" the equivalent of "plutonium" or "cyanide" in the minds of the public and therefore the jury pool. It's really tough to convince a jury that this asbestos is potentially lethal, but that form is harmless, especially when platiff is coughing his lungs up in the corner. P.S. - I am *not* saying there wasn't a cavalier attitude toward the stuff, and a lot of people were hurt without cause. KJ