Yes it has been talked about before, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it. People were freaking out when sony were playing about with raw noise reduction in camera, ok this is not as severe as this. But surely the point of raw, is to do your own processing? And that includes noise reduction.
Exactly what do you think raw is? The very act of the camera's analog to digital converter "processes" images. Even opening native raw files in Camera Raw essentially converts them to DNG so Camera Raw can read them. Then, you see the result of the baseline demosiacing, noise reduction and some other stuff like color interpretation and default tone curves...and that all is happening before you get to see the preview in Camera Raw. So, you tell me, exactly what you think raw should be?
There are utilities you can use to parse the raw file without doing the stuff Camera Raw does. If you want really raw files, why even bother convert to a color space...keep it linear. Or, better yet, use Rawanalyze (written by a fellow LuLa member) which doesn't even do demosiacing...
The reason your "moaning" hasn't gotten much traction is, well, it's pretty much wrong. Sorry, but there it is in a nutshell. Again, if you view your image at 1:1 or above, you're looking at SciFi stuff that ain't real. What you think is micro-detail is simply unusable noise. Yes, there is a very fine line between noise and micro-detail...in order to step on noise, some micro-detail also gets stepped on. But it's stuff that isn't really usable detail and it's of a size and scale that it would never print.
So, you need to move on beyond this if you want to move the Camera Raw team. I know for a fact that each and every engineer has one singular goal in mind for Camera Raw–o do the best possible conversion from raw to encoded image file. They welcome and encourage feedback and direction (properly given without a lot of 'tude) from everybody but there's a kinda minimum level to which they pay attention to and that's the REAL and legitimate aspects of image quality that Camera Raw can do something about. There is talk about way of improving image quality on a variety of levels...the update to the resample code in 5.2 is a good example of if you prove there is a problem and there's a "better way" to do what Camera Raw is doing, the engineers will move heaven and earth to make that happen.
But you really, really need to know what you are talking about and be able to prove that the "current way" that Camera Raw works is leaving image quality on the table...and the Camera Raw noise reduction simply is not the "really bad problem" some people make it out to be–not for real life situations and uses of digital raw capture.