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 (183552)	2/24/2004 7:13:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574256

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. If 10ppb can be shown to be dangerous (and it might be just as 50ppb might be) then perhaps the standard should be slowly lowered from 10 and people who don't have less then 5ppb or 1ppb in their water should probably use bottled water or their own filters until every place in the US can be bought in to compliance. (depending on how dangerous it really is, and additional one caner per million water drinkers probably isn't enough to push everyone to go out and drink bottled water, one more cancer per lifetime per 10 water drinkers would be, at least if the bottled water can meet the standards) "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." Do a google search... I did a google search and found not solid evidence that backed both the ideas that 50ppb is dangerous and 10ppb is ok. Since you assert that such evidence exists why don't you do the google search. 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. 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