Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (183438)	2/23/2004 10:39:50 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574304

Ted Re..Yes, after 4 years of research, the new law was implemented. What does it matter when it was implemented? The reasons behind the implementation still stand. I do not remember the lowering of the arsenic standards being discussed. Certainly not as a bill put out by congress, so by what reasoning did Bill decide to lower it, without soliciting anyone elses opinion, especially people living in affected districts. Isn't water too important, to be decided by one lame duck president.

To: tejek who wrote (183438)	2/24/2004 4:00:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574304

The reasons behind the implementation still stand. Yes Clinton improving his "legacy" among "environmentally conscious" voters while giving the Bush administration a headache to deal with. Clinton push the regulation in the final hours of his administration. There was no dramatic new scientific findings just before he did this. If he thought it was important he should have implemented the policy long before the end. There is no solid evidence that strongly shows that 50 parts per billion is harmful while 10 parts per billion is just fine. Show me such evidence. It doesn't exist. 50ppb might be fine or 10ppb might still be harmful. The 10ppb, like many limits in environmental regulation, is rather arbitrary. Tim