SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mephisto who wrote (2107)4/2/2001 10:47:29 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (3) of 93284
 
Bush ignored a 1999 National Academy of Sciences report concluding that the old arsenic standard is no longer adequate for public health protection.
Sunday April 1 7:35 AM ET

The other point I've seen is that particular Academy of Sciences report led to an EPA out of court settlement to reduce the arsenic levels. Originally, the EPA and other groups had asked the level to be reduced to 5 parts rather than the 10 parts that Clinton had approved. My impression was that the parties were generally satisfied with the compromise. I suppose with Bush reversing that agreed to standard, the EPA should find itself back in court.

Continuing with the environmental theme....and Kyoto. I've been a bit amazed at the Administration's public statements. On the one hand Bush is telling Europe that "things are different" since he was campaigning, energy crisis, etc.., which strongly suggests that he was for Kyoto before things changed. But he tells the US press that he was never for Kyoto. Do you suppose he doesn't realize that Europeans can access US press stories?

Have they started the rhetoric that the National Academy of Sciences is a front demo-lib organizations for elitist liberals pandering to socialist interests?

Ignoring the fact that the energy crisis is a contrived crisis. How is it that the President couldn't even think that an energy crisis could occur only four months after the election and at the same time feel certain about a budget surplus 10 years out and then go through the Three Bears analogy ending with $1.6T is just right?

Regards,
jttmab
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News