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 (183566)	2/24/2004 8:01:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574577

Following your link I found nap.edu "The report's findings are consistent with those of the 1999 report that found high risks of cancer at the previous federal standard of 50 parts per billion. In fact, the new report concludes that men and women who consume water containing 3 parts per billion of arsenic daily have about a 1 in 1,000 increased risk of developing bladder or lung cancer during their lifetime." Which would then show a danger at even 3 ppb so 10 would still be unsafe. Other studies I've seen summaries of in the past would indicate that 50 isn't so dangerous so there is conflicting information and uncertainty but if we for the sake of argument assume 3ppb does indeed cause a 1 in 1000 risk of developing bladder or lung cancer in a lifetime then should we lower the standard to 2ppb, 1ppb, maybe .1ppb? It would become prohibitively expensive. I'm not saying that 10ppb is unreasonable just that there is no solid reason to conclude that a standard of 50ppb is exceedingly dangerous and irresponsible. It might well be that at any measurable level there is some risk. 10ppb probably has less risk then 50ppb. It might even have enough less to be a reasonable standard, or it might not. Either way its an arbitrary standard. Its not completely safe nor is 50ppb devastatingly risky. Arbitrary doesn't mean wrong if there is no sudden threshold level you still can benefit from setting a standard. I'm not so much arguing against 10ppb as I am the idea that 10ppb is safe and the idea that 50ppb is irresponsible. You still haven't come up with anything that suggest that combination of things is actually true. Tim