Editing 76-15-B1 (section)

= OSHA =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Summing up government's purpose or responsibility in a single sentence
risks over-simplification, but if I had to do it, I'd settle for this sentence:
Government exists to protect us from each other. Brief as it is, it recognizes
government's responsibility to provide police protection against law breakers;
to maintain armed forces to keep our land from being invaded and our liberties
lost.

The sentence also covers government's involvement in seeing we aren't
sold poisoned or contaminated food or dangerous drugs falsely advertised as
healthful medicines, In other words, government's function is to protect
us from all those harmful things that could be done to us by someone else.

I have, however, criticized government for not stopping there, for
deciding it knows what is best for us and trying to keep us from hurting
ourselves, I'm sure many in the various agencies and bureaus of government
are well intentioned when they do this, but what they do can lead to tyranny.
An example is the continued effort by government to force motorcycle riders
to wear helmets. I happen to believe it's foolish to ride a motorcycle without
one, but doing so does not endanger others who are on the highway , The helmet
protects only the rider and it's his right to risk not wearing one no matter
how foolish we think he is.

Still, much of the costly growth of bureaucracy and the subsequent
harassment and interference in our lives is the result of well intentioned
public servants trying to eliminate all the hazards of living.

I've been most critical of the Occupational, Safety and Health Administration,
commonly called O.S.H.A., now in existence for six years. It came into being
to reduce or eliminate job hazards in every kind of business. And while it has
inspected, filed charges against employers, and written tens of thousands of
regulations there has been no reduction in work related injuries or deaths.
There has, however, been costly reduction of productivity.

One of O.S.H.A.'s latest targets, which might explain why I've been
critical, is the admittedly hazardous field of deep sea diving. According to
the companies in this field there are about 600 commercial deep sea divers in the
whole United States. The hazardous nature of the occupation is indicated
by a diver's earnings which run from $50,000 to $100,000 a year.

O.S.H.A. is attempting to set standards for practices and equipment that
would be required in deep sea diving. O.S.H.A. is meeting resistance. For
one thing the cost of what O.S.H.A. is demanding is greater than the total
gross revenue of all the companies in that business.

The companies and the divers do not minimize the hazards of their craft,
but they present figures showing that injury and death is not commonplace.
When it does occur it is unlikely that a regulation or safety precaution could
prevent it; A man hit in the head by a tree carried down stream by the current,
another entangled in wire who tore off his helmet in panic and tried to reach
the surface.

They are brave men, a breed apart, and well aware of the precautions they
must take. They have looked at O.S.H.A.'s proposed standards and, to a
man, say "no thanks". It's easy to see why. The U.S. Navy in its Magazine
FACEPLATE has said that to comply with the O.S.H.A. standards would mean
sending the diver underwater weighing 1000 pounds! 

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/15/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-288]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>