please check syntax error (grammar mistakes) for me

[else24]

As a former QC tech for a US factory, one of my tasks was to inspect incoming shipments using random samples to determine if they did indeed meet specifications. The shipments came from more than 3500 miles away, with many degrees of separation. One of the things we checked was chemical content of the paint. (More specifically, we checked for certain banned compounds and elements.)

That's not idiocy. It's responsible standard operating procedure. Or at least it was, fifteen years ago.

Are you telling me that factories today aren't inspecting their parts any more?

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:f3bb8ec1-29c4-41cb- [e-mail]:

Apparently, the US toy distributors were not inspecting their imports too much, until somebody found lead in the paint.

[Dave Hinz]

Yes, in manufacturing, that's only logical.

Of course not. It's also not the topic of discussion in this case.

The factories, are in China. And if they're inspecting 'em, the same people putting lead paint on the toys are the ones "inspecting" for it. Mattel or whomever then imports it, obviously without checking it. Yeah, they share the blame and are the only entity we can actually legally do anything about, but the ultimate blame belongs to the people putting banned substances in the products in the first place.

We're not importing toy parts, we're importing toys, packaged and ready for the store shelf.

[else24]

As has been pointed out, the distributors should be inspecting those toys even if they're "ready for the store shelf"

You can blame the Chinese factories all you want. They deserve it. But unless I misunderstand you, it seems you want to place no blame at all on the parent companies who are taking them, without any inspection, and placing them on the store shelves.

In my factory, we shipped out many things "Ready for the shelves" and we sometimes got shipments returned because of something somebody found in an inspection. Sometimes it was our fault, sometimes it was a mistake.

My point is that those toys should have had a better final inspection from the people that bought them. Part of the blame goes to the customer. Not all, but dammit, our people got sloppy too. You're supposed to keep better tabs on your suppliers than that.

[else24]

Metalworking is not my first skill, and many of the questionable sections of your article are probably technical in nature, not grammatical. Also, the lack of paragraphing in your text makes it more difficult to read. I'll go through it sentence by sentence and tell you where I think it's rough.

(Many of the "rough spots" are the sort of thing I used to find in my classmate's papers, by the way. They aren't really indicative that English is the second language of the writer.)

First is the original sentence, then my version of syntax and grammar. This is a rough draft, requiring further review. Paragraphing can be discussed later. :-)

Also note this was done as an excuse to delay going outside to shovel snow. Which I am now about to go and do.

--------------------------------------

Different microstructures and mechanical properties can be developed in a variety of annealing temperature.

---Possibly change "in" to "at": Different microstructures and mechanical properties can be developed at a variety of annealing temperatures.

An investigation was undertaken to examine effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and mechanical of dual phase steel under simulated hot-dipped galvanizing.

------ An investigation was undertaken to examine the effects of annealing temperature on microstructure and mechanical properties of dual phase steel, under simulated hot-dipped galvanizing conditions.

The steel (of composition 0.15wt%C 0.1wt%Si 1.7wt%Mn) was obtained at three different heating temperatures (790?, 820?, 850?) by continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator.

---- here, I fall down. I'm okay with this part: The steel (of composition 0.15wt%C 0.1wt%Si 1.7wt%Mn) was obtained at three different heating temperatures (790?, 820?, 850?)

----- but when I get here, I'm a little confused. by continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator.

----Do we mean, we used a "continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator"?

-- or did we use continuous annealing in a thermal simulator as an experiment?

--- a little more explanation is in order, I think.

The microstructures were observed by the optical microscope and transmission electron microscopy, and the mechanical properties were tested.

The microstructures were observed using an optical microscope and transmission electron microscopy, and the mechanical properties were tested.

Under hot-dip galvanizing condition, the effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and the relationship of microstructure and mechanical properties have been investigated.

Under hot-dip galvanizing conditions, the effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and the relationship of microstructure to mechanical properties were investigated.

Increasing the annealing temperature, martensite volume fraction increases, and intergranular carbide reduces and ferrite intragranular carbide becomes small.

------ Again, I'm not sure. I think this is what it means: When the annealing temperature is increased, martensite volume fraction increases, intergranular carbide reduces, and ferrite intragranular carbide becomes small.

When the annealing temperature is 790?, most of martensite distributes intergranular region.

--- a little problem with the degree symbol. Mac, Windows, and Unix

-- often disagree about it. I am also stumped about what's happening

-- with the martensite. I know it's a displacive rather than diffusive

-- crystaline structure but don't know if it's being transformed

-- or whether it's redistributing itself, or whether it's doing something

-- to the intergranular region.

When the annealing temperature is 790 degrees, most of the martensite distributes to the intergranular region.

[Dave Hinz]

Yes. As I've said several times, both here and on the website I built to show how bad the problem is, productrecallwatch.com . It downloads RSS feeds from the CPSC, FDA, DOT, and several other government sources. I haven't done this week's rundown yet but, dozens of products just last week with lead paint. From China.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me horribly. I've been quite clear that the importer is the only one who we can legally do anything with and they share some of the blame. I have also been quite clear and consistent that the factories choosing to use toxins in products made for the US, are doing so intentionally and are ultimately to blame.

Mistakes are also your fault. Whose else would you pretend they are? Seems to me, the culture is "profit at any cost to the customers, and apologize if we get caught". That is disgusting, but dozens of items a week? It is hard to come to any other conclusion.

BULLSHIT. The lead shouldn't be in there in the first place. This isn't a surprise to the factories deciding to use it.

BULLSHIT.

You disgust me.

[else24]

By "mistake", I meant that the inspector misinterpreted the specifications or used the wrong set of specs.

Well, we have something in common. You disgust me too. :-)

[Dave Hinz]

That is not an excuse for using lead paint. That is not an excuse for using 1,4-butanediol (metabolizes into coma-inducing drugs if swallowed) in a childrens toy, instead of the 1,5-butanediol that was specified. A Chinese factory decided to use the cheaper chemical, despite the fact that it's not safe.

A factory in China decided to use lead paint on decorations:

spec do you pretend could possibly be "misinterpreted" which could lead to someone thinking putting lead paint in direct contact with food is a good idea?

It's time that the US revokes China's "most favored trade nation status". Trade _partners_ do not intentionally poison the children of their customers. Pretending it's a mistake or anything other than a consious decision based on greed and malice. Which motivation is it? Are you trying to save a few pennies, or is your primary motivation in trying, intentionally, to harm the generation of Americans which may very well go to war with China?

[J. Clarke]

Two of the major recalls were of toys sold by Mattel. They are not a retailer and yes they bloody well _are_ supposed to act as the QA.

Several were from Toys R Us, which is not some neighborhood shop, they're a very large franchise operation with centralized purchasing and they also should bloody well be making sure that what they are selling in their stores does not violate the safety laws. Jo-Ann fabrics the same way.

Put it this way, if you bought a saw from Sears and it threw the blade at you, would you be angry at Sears or would you be angry at the Chinese because in your opinion it wasn't Sears' responsibility to perform quality control on the products they sold?

No, idiocy was Mattel failing to ensure that what was sent to them was what was ordered.

[Tanus]

Amen. Buffoon indeed. 35 miles away or

3500 miles away. Makes no difference. Importers are responsible for QC. But as I indicated in another post, I had used the term retailer when I should have used importer.

[Dave Hinz]

Two? There were 30+ last week.

Yup, Jo-Ann Fabrics is another prime importer of lead-painted Chinese stuff. I blame them as well as the manufacturers.

Both. But Sears is the only entity with a USA'n presense that I could have any recourse with.

What was worse was the chairman of Mattel apologizing TO THE CHINESE for the lead paint recalls. W. T. F.

[Dave Hinz]

How so? If they're 35 miles away, they follow USA'n laws. In China, obviously, not.

NO. Manufacturers are responsible to follow the damn spec and not just apologize if caught.

Backpedal noted.

[Tom Veatch]

If I buy something for resale, then resell it to someone who is injured because of something intrinsic to the product, whose fault is it?

Mine!

If the product met my specifications, it's my fault because it was manufactured to my specification.

If the product didn't meet my specifications, it's my fault because I didn't insure that what I received was what I ordered before I resold it. True, I may have recourse to the supplier, but that's not my customer's problem. His beef is with me.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not when the manufacturer is paid to do it.

[J. Clarke]

Yes when the manufacturer is paid to do it. Boeing is paid to provide the airlines with quality airplanes. You think the airline taking delivery just puts the plane in service without having their mechanics go over it?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Do you thionk that comapres to a cheap toy?

[Tom Veatch]

As far as the principle involved is concerned, yes, I believe it is comparable.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[Songsmith]

Just a quick question: How is metallurgy relevant to a lap steel newsgroup, other than possibly in the resonant qualities of the bridge/tailpiece or the steel bar itself? Why ask about tech-note grammar HERE?

As for China as a nation, many U.S. manufacturing jobs were eliminated here and sent to China by greedy corporations whose only interest was in putting more money in their own pockets. It left many Americans either jobless or working for less pay at Walmart selling the very goods they used to make. Forgive the sour grapes, but I don't feel the need to like the current situation. Also, if some Chinese goods are shoddy or dangerous, that's kind of an important point. If you disagree, give YOUR child a Thomas the Tank Engine to suck on. Oh, and, please note that if the original post is truly from China, there's an excellent chance that this thread is being monitored. Think about that.---->JMS

[Gunner]

Isnt the job of corporations to make money, for both the stockholders and managment?

When your competitor off shores his work, and then undercuts your prices, you have two choices.

1. Offshore your manufacturing
2. Have a big auction and go out of business.

Do you see a viable 3rd alternative?

Gunner

[J. Clarke]

Convince your customers that despite the higher price your product is better value.

Seems to be working for Sears with hand tools. Look closely and you'll see their Craftsman (but not necessarily Companion or non-Sears-brand) wrenches, sockets, etc marked "made in USA" in the metal. You can get what seems to be equal quality from Harbor Freight for much less money but Sears seems to still do a good business in them.

The longies I'm wearing right now are made of Polartec, from Malden Mills, in MA. Sewn in Qatar or some such but the fabric is American made. I've had cheaper ones--the Polartec is warmer. I don't know what magic Malden does to it, but they do _something_. Chinese fleece just isn't the same.