# Drinking arsenic is OK ??? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913 "2001-03-21T20:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/1 "2001-03-21T20:12:17Z")
The latest from the White House is Bush’s plan to raise the limit on allowable levels of arsenic in ground water from 10 to 50 ppm (or is that ppb? same point, rhetorically). I had finally gotten used to the FDA allowing a certain maximum level of rodent droppings in my food. I have cooking processes and digestive bacteria to take care of that. But I do not know of a process that allows me to tolerate any particular level of a chemical poison, and I am not aware of any study that the anti-regulation crowd would consider “scientific” that says there is. During the campaign, there was reason to worry, expressed by many including me, over what Bush owed to whom in return for his $200 million campaign fund. We’re now seeing that, in such things as this favor to the mining industry, the elimination of the ergonomics regulations as a favor to many other industries, the support for Arctic oil drilling, etc. And it’s only been 2 months since people were still convinced he was “compassionate” and a “uniter”. Consider the level of public revulsion and fury against the food industry that Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” caused, and consider how much risk Bush is taking by similarly expecting people to ingest poisons willingly to help him pay off his supporters. Or perhaps it’s out of genuine principle, but that’s hard to imagine. Is anyone willing to disagree that Bush’s return of favors is getting so blatantly against the public’s perception of its own interest that he’s dooming GOP chances in 2002 and 2004? ---
**Author:** ![dublos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f08c70/32.png) [@dublos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dublos)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/2 "2001-03-21T21:08:06Z")
Just as an FYI, [here’s **Need2Know’s** thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64393) asking about the safety or lack of (i.e. the scientific side of this same issue) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/3 "2001-03-21T21:17:07Z")
This disgusts and frightens me. Can he DO that? I mean, isn’t that very very dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/4 "2001-03-21T21:26:16Z")
**And a correction** What he did was actually block enforcement of a rule which would have reduced allowable arsenic levels from 50ppb to 10ppb. the fifty was based on a 60 year old law. Arsenic has been proved to be a cause of cancer btw. Still sucks though. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/5 "2001-03-21T21:45:28Z")
I started a thread a while back that my dad was suffering from arsenic poisoning (in his case from eating shellfish from Tampa Bay). I find this additional information terrifying. Where are all the conservatives here helping us understand that Mr. Bush really is doing this out of concern for us? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/6 "2001-03-21T21:59:29Z")
We are drinking water with the same level of arsenic as we have been drinking since 1942. Evidently the study by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 was deemed insufficient to justify the millions of dollars of compliance expenses water suppliers would have had to shoulder. I never thought I would say this, but I feel sorry for Christie Todd Whitman. She has had to bear the brunt of the CO2 reversal _and_ announce this likely unpopular decision. By the time this administration’s up, I wonder if anyone would hire her to take Ph readings in private pools. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/7 "2001-03-21T22:16:54Z")
**Maeglin** , yes we are drinking the same water we have, but as [this](http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/03/20/epa.arsenic/index.html) explains, > [@](#): > > the current standard, adopted in 1975 based on 1942 data, was supposed to be an interim measure that was to be replaced as soon as better information was available. Better information is available. Ms. Whitman’s states that she’s ‘delaying’ it for an additional 60 days while “more study is done”. Exactly what studies can be completed in 60 days? Then she goes on to explain that the states and communities involved were not aware 30 years ago, what the costs would be. Well. And 60 days will give them time that the prior 30 years didn’t? Hmm. Her stated rationales for delay do not seem to be supportable. However, even she admits that the current standard is risky, as [this](http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp#health) shows (repeating a cite from other thread) I’m still waiting for the justification of delaying new standards, allowing for a known cancer risk to continue affecting our citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/8 "2001-03-21T22:41:31Z")
**To add to wring’s post** Arsenic was not recognized as a carcinogen in 1942. You may also wish to view this [FAQ sheet](http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp#health) from the Natural Resources Defense Coucil. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/9 "2001-03-21T23:02:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **During the campaign, there was reason to worry, expressed by many including me, over what Bush owed to whom in return for his $200 million campaign fund. We’re now seeing that, in such things as this favor to the mining industry, the elimination of the ergonomics regulations as a favor to many other industries, the support for Arctic oil drilling, etc.** Please provide proof to your accusation that it is a favor to them. > [@](#): > > **Consider the level of public revulsion and fury against the food industry that Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” caused, and consider how much risk Bush is taking by similarly expecting people to ingest poisons willingly to help him pay off his supporters.** Please provide proof that Bush is paying off his supporters in doing this. > [@](#): > > \*\*Is anyone willing to disagree that Bush’s return of favors is getting so blatantly against the public’s perception of its own interest that he’s dooming GOP chances in 2002 and 2004? \*\* Please provide proof that he is “returning favors”. Hey - you asked the same of me with Clinton, and then called me a partisan liar. Now it’s put up or shut up time for you. In case you forgot, let me provide a choice quote from yourself. No, wait, I’ll paraphrase it to apply to yourself: > [@](#): > > ElvisL1ves, when you’re ready to recognize that a technical/economic analysis of arsenic emissions on the one hand, and tossing allegations of payoffs and returning favors on the other, are 2 entirely different subjects with a large leap in between, instead of willfully mixing them for some reason, then you can be considered ready to engage in a serious discussion on either topic. You might even be able to address the significance of the environmental consequences of mining with us, not to mention whether or not a burden of proof lies with the accuser. Prove, or retract. Two choices, pick one. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/10 "2001-03-21T23:23:47Z")
Ok, **Anthracite** I, for one am not claiming that Mr. Bush is doing this to ‘payback’ his benefactors and contributors, but as I pointed out with Ms. Whitmans’ statements, I can’t for the life of me see **why** he is. Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why we need to wait an additional 60 days to require a reduction of toxic levels of arsenic in our drinking water? ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/11 "2001-03-21T23:36:51Z")
Go Anth … go Anth … it’s your party … It’s rather amusing to see this painted in the general tenor of, “Bush is pouring poisoned water down your baby’s mouth!” The standards being referenced have _never been in place_. Clinton approved them three days before he left office. I hope Bush scrutinizes every little thing Clinton did in his last days in office. My read of the Bush administration’s position is, “We’re not going to impose these unless and until we see science backing up that the level needs to be dropped that dramatically down (80 %); and that forcing such a drop won’t be devastatingly costly for the communities in which it’s imposed.” How shocking! How unreasonable! I see a study indicating arsenic can be cancer-causing. I don’t, however, see anything indicating at what level it’s unsafe (arsenic is naturally occurring, too), or how current levels have led to increased incidences of cancer. I’m not saying that isn’t so, it just isn’t clear. Which might tend to make one think that more study is needed …? And as for your other rantings, some of us don’t see the people who provide us with employment and energy as the enemy in knee-jerk fashion like you, Elvis. ---
**Author:** ![Falcon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/49beb7/32.png) [@Falcon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falcon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/12 "2001-03-22T00:00:36Z")
There have BEEN studies done on this. This rule was in planning for over a year! The rule needs to go in place. EVERY EPA region agrees on this. (And before you ask, I worked for the company that helped write the new rule. That’s how I know.) I will check, but I believe most of the studies (plural, Milo. Happy?) that went into this rule are on EPA’s website. (Found it: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html](http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html)) Admittedly, I’d rather see Congress reauthorize Superfund than see this rule passed, but hey. Neither one’s gonna happen under Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/13 "2001-03-22T00:28:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I will check, but I believe most of the studies (plural, Milo. Happy?) that went into this rule are on EPA’s website. \*\* You are incorrect, my dear Falcon. It does say the following, though: > [@](#): > > On June 22, 2000, EPA proposed a new drinking water standard of 5 ppb for arsenic and requested comment on options of 3 ppb, 10 ppb and 20 ppb. EPA evaluated over 6,500 pages of comments from 1,100 commenters. and: > [@](#): > > The rule will protect approximately 13 million Americans served by CWSs and NTNCWSs (this number is based on reducing arsenic from 50 to 10 µg/L) . Reducing arsenic from 50 to 10 µg/L will prevent ~ 19-31 cases of bladder cancer and ~ 5-8 deaths due to bladder cancer per year. EPA estimates that reducing arsenic from 50 to 10 µg/L will prevent ~ 19-25 cases of lung cancer and ~ 16-22 deaths due to lung cancer per year. In addition to these quantified benefits, there are substantial non-quantified benefits of this rule, including reducing the incidences of non-cancerous effects The estimated cost of such an arsenic reduction is $181 million a year (1999 numbers), according to the site. And from EPA Administrator Whitman’s press release, quoted at the site: > [@](#): > > While scientists agree that the previous standard of 50 parts per billion should be lowered, there is no consensus on a particular safe level. Independent review of the science behind the final standard will help clear up uncertainties that have been raised about the health benefits of reducing arsenic to 10 parts per billion in drinking water. > > “It is clear that arsenic, while naturally occurring, is something that needs to be regulated. Certainly the standard should be less than 50 ppb, but the scientific indicators are unclear as to whether the standard needs to go as low as 10 ppb,” said Whitman. > > “This decision will not lessen any existing protections for drinking water. The standards would remain the same, whether the rule went through or not, until it was time to enforce it under the compliance schedule five to nine years from now,” said Whitman. “But, in the interim, EPA will examine what may have been a rushed decision.” > > Some cities and states that will have to comply with the arsenic rule have raised serious questions about whether the costs of the rule were fully understood when the rule was signed in early January. PA estimates the cost to be about $200 million per year. Many small communities will be affected by the drinking water standard for arsenic, making it especially important to ensure that the Safe Drinking Water Act provision allowing balancing of costs is based on accurate information. It seems commonly accepted that 50 ppb is considered too high. It is nowhere clear, however, how 10 ppb was ultimately arrived upon. ---
**Author:** ![Falcon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/49beb7/32.png) [@Falcon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falcon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/14 "2001-03-22T00:49:54Z")
Digging further into EPA’s site: Study done for the Arsenic Stakeholder meeting: [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063337/html/index.html](http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063337/html/index.html) Proposed Rule on the New Standard: > **[govinfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/FR/)** > > Official Publications from the U.S. Government Publishing Office. There have been indpendent studies done. Unfortunately, no one is going to go out and try to see how arsenic affects humans. The best we can do is animals and/or use data from areas where arsenic in water is a bigger problem. Also, FTR, EPA is required BY LAW to have a new arsenic rule out by June 22 of this year, under the terms set out by the Safe Drinking Water Act. It’ll be very interesting to see if they make that deadline. Can we all at least agree that the current regulatory level is too high? Is what we’re arguing on the fact that it was set to 10 ppb instead of 20? One other thing that I can’t find a cite on…grr. If someone can find the current level that California allows in their water, I’d bet it’s 10 ppb. California has some of the most stringent pollution requirements in the US, and EPA is increasingly matching their levels to California’s. Unfortunately, I can’t find a cite for that in the Region 9 EPA website. (And as an aside: DAMN ALL OF YOU for making me relive the hell of my last job by looking this up! :)) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/15 "2001-03-22T01:13:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*Ok, **Anthracite** I, for one am not claiming that Mr. Bush is doing this to ‘payback’ his benefactors and contributors, but as I pointed out with Ms. Whitmans’ statements, I can’t for the life of me see **why** he is. Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why we need to wait an additional 60 days to require a reduction of toxic levels of arsenic in our drinking water? \*\* Sorry, **wring**. My beef is not with you. In fact, I’m sorta on your side. FTR - **IMO** _I would not be surprised_ if it is indeed a payoff, or reward to contributors, by the Administration. I do not claim to know one way or the other. It is my unsubstantiated opinion, however, that both parties do this. With roughly equal intensity and level of sleaze. So the OP _may_ be correct. It is also my opinion that we should consider lowering the allowable levels of Arsenic in water. Arsenic is not a Good Thing - in water, air, soil, or anything. IMPO. How much it should be lowered, and what are the ramifications are what I feel should be debated. All I want to know is why are the rules that Elvis follows suddenly different when one is attacking Bush? I claimed that the Lippo deal was a payoff by the Clinton Administration - that was my researched opinion and that of others on the Paiton project I worked with - who did a lot of research into why we suddenly could no longer consider the Utah coal. Elvis says I cannot claim a payoff or quid pro quo without absolute proof. OK…so here he does the same thing. Not very mature at all, right? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/16 "2001-03-22T13:18:18Z")
**Anthracite** I didn’t think you had a beef with me. I agree that : person A makes donations to political campaigns Politician B makes a decision that is benefitial to person A. **does not equal** conclusive proof that A offered a bribe, B took said bribe and made decision based on same. And I deplore it in this case just as much as I deplored it in other cases (where I was accused of being an ‘apologist’) I was seriously asking the question - as in what possible justification is there for this action? Delaying the regs means that people are still drinking unsafe water. water that **all parties** are admitting is unsafe. But one side is saying (in essence) ‘before we make any attempt to make the water any safer than the current unsafe conditions, we want to make sure that we’re not going to go overboard. we’d rather test out to get the minimal safe level established before taking the step to reduce a public danger.’ And I’m wondering what the possable justification for that is. ---
**Author:** ![robinh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@robinh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robinh)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/17 "2001-03-22T13:55:43Z")
I listened to a discussion of this issue last night on NPR. The reason given for holding off on these regulations was a fear of causing undue hardship on towns that happen to have naturally occurring levels of arsenic that are just slightly above the suggested cutoff. A scenario was offered where a small, rural town with a small tax base might be forced to build a hugely expensive treatment plant because they had naturally occurring levels of, say, 12ppb. The question was whether forcing such a town to spend money on arsenic abatement would mean that they would be unable to spend money on other, more serious, public health issues. My question: are we really this rigid in our thinking? Can we not figure out a way to work around this problem? How about (just off the top of my head) a case-by-case approach for towns with naturally occurring levels of up to 20ppb? It’s so frustrating to hear presumably intelligent people saying, “well, this might be unreasonably restrictive to _some_ people, so we’ll just have to throw the whole thing out.” ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/18 "2001-03-22T13:59:22Z")
See my post in GQ where there is a map of sites and levels across the country. Not completely accurate but gives a good general idea. wring…California seems to be one of the most toxic of states. The other articles also state that the new standards were put into place last year and were due to take effect the day before Clinton left office. This was not one of Bill’s last minute plays. There has been an iniciative to reduce the level of arsenic in drinking water since the 70s. I will not venture a guess as to why this administration has done a turn around on this issue, but most articles I have read seem to link it with objections from the mining industry. I have to admit that it doesn’t look completely innocent given that just this week another iniciative was recinded in favor of mining concerns. Something about clean up bonds I believe. needs2know ---
**Author:** ![LateComer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5ac83/32.png) [@LateComer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LateComer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/19 "2001-03-22T14:38:27Z")
So, once they take this arsenic out of the water supply, what do they do with it? Is arsenic used industrially? Maybe some money can be made from this extra arsenic collected. May I suggest donating it to communities of Snake Handlers who actually have low levels of poison in their water supply? These poor folks actually have to _pay_ for the poison they drink. Oh, wait, they drink Strychnine, not arsenic. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913/20 "2001-03-22T14:42:08Z")
wring: > [@](#): > > **I was seriously asking the question - as in what possible justification is there for this action?** EPA Administrator Whitman offered an explanation. I quoted it above. I assume that you reject it, then? Because you’re asking what possible justification there is, and one is offered about eight inches away. > [@](#): > > **Delaying the regs means that people are still drinking unsafe water. water that all parties are admitting is unsafe.** Let’s try again. Sometimes repetition can be helpful. > [@](#): > > “This decision will not lessen any existing protections for drinking water. The standards would remain the same, whether the rule went through or not, until it was time to enforce it under the compliance schedule five to nine years from now,” said Whitman. > [@](#): > > \*\*But one side is saying (in essence) ‘before we make any attempt to make the water any safer than the current unsafe conditions, we want to make sure that we’re not going to go overboard. we’d rather test out to get the minimal safe level established before taking the step to reduce a public danger.’ > > And I’m wondering what the possable justification for that is. \*\* See above. Considering it will take years to implement anyway, why shouldn’t they? Let’s try again, again: > [@](#): > > “It is clear that arsenic, while naturally occurring, is something that needs to be regulated. Certainly the standard should be less than 50 ppb, but the scientific indicators are unclear as to whether the standard needs to go as low as 10 ppb,” said Whitman. > \ > “in the interim, EPA will examine what may have been a rushed decision.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-arsenic-is-ok/58913.md?page=2)