Re: Well, no, it wasn't..........

I can't help but wonder WHAT the original context of the Michigan people's concerns were? Could there have been some proposed Mich legislation similar to that of our beloved Mr. John Payton (name sound familiar?)who wanted ultrasound readings for PA boilers to be an arbitrary number that many engines probably could not have passed when brand new. (Ever heard of a thing called a "factor of safety"? That's the EXTRA thikness of metal built into boiler calculations that provides extra metal thikness (strength) for things like corrosion and metal fatigue. Most vintage boilers were built with a factor of between 4.5 to about 7 -- equivilant to being able to hold 4.5 to 7 TIMES operating pressure -- for new construction I believe the minimum factor is now either 5 or 6....) BUT anyway, what IS a reasonable factor of safety requirement when allowing for wastage and aging while still maintaining integrity and a margin for safety? IMO a 4 or even 3.5 is quite probably adequate...but I'm not a politician or an insurance underwriter.
As for Mr Payton, his politics have already been explained elsewhere.