And the big headache is what?
Bush tries to base the environmental policy in this area on solid science but he takes a big political hit. Clinton didn't take a hit for not implementing and enforcing the 10ppb standard because he wasn't rolling anything back, but he apparently though the standard wasn't necessary enough for him to enforce during his administration.
What solid science? His corporate cronies didn't like the new standard. As for Clinton, did you miss the part where I said there was 4 years of research on the subject. Of course, that research was done by scientists and not GOP pundits.
It came at the conclusion of 4 years of research. Damn the scientists for not being more timely.
There have been more then 4 years of research in this area and research continues. There was nothing special about the time when Clinton pushed the new regulation other then it being the end of his term.
I see. Did you make that up on the spur of the moment, or are you dealing from cold, hard facts?
Just like there is no evidence of global warming?
No there is evidence of global warming. What there is not is sold evidence of a large amount of man caused global warming that will lead to a horrible disaster.
Stupid is as stupid does!
Recently, a group of scientists.......they actually formed a union of sorts ........pleaded with Bush to reconsider his position on global warming. The evidence is clear; however, the WH CHOOSES to interpret the data differently. Another reason to kick their lying butts out on the street come November.
GO KERRY!!!
That there is no evidence that the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq prior to 9/11?
Sort of like that, if you define "the Bush administration was planning" to mean not that some people within the administration where pushing the idea and that contingency plans where drawn up but rather that Bush himself had decided to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq before 9/11.
No, I mean the administration was planning to invade Iraq. I don't care if it was two, three or twenty of them.
The truth is you don't care if 50 parts of arsenic is dangerous or not. You just don't want gov't interfering with your drinking water whether it hurts you or not.
Nope, if 50 ppb can solidly be shown to be dangerous then its probably best to reduce it.
You haven't read the studies......how could you possibly know? Even then, you are hardly a scientist.
Better yet....take a trip to Bangladesh......you can see first hand people who have been poisoned by 50 parts of arsenic in their water.
50ppb of arsenic in the water is the least of the Bangladeshis problems.
Really.....ask the residents of Bangladesh. Wells are being shut down left and right. Their alternative is the surface water and that gives them dysentery and a host of other often fatal diseases. Bangladesh is between a rock and a hard place. But then, in your humble opinion, its a minor problem.
I would imagine that despite the standard many of them get more arsenic then that, plus they get many other pollutants at more dangerous levels and in general they face grinding poverty. Even if 50ppb is dangerous it is not dangerous in ways that would be obvious by viewing the general population. It was the standard in the US for a long time and before that we had even higher amounts without obviously visible bad results. If it is unhealthy it would only be noticeable by long studies not by immediate observation.
Tim, you don't know about what you are talking. The problem with Bangladesh's water is very evident. Many people, including the children, have become very sick from it.
ted |
