Arsenic in water (at homeopathic levels) is a GOOD thing! Think of how many dideases that Americans are being cured of While we speak!
I know this is GD, but IMHO politics = hypocrisy + payola. There is this current thread re arsenic in the water. In addition, Bush reneged on his promise to cap CO2 emissions. The former was to placate those mining industries and big industries that contributed so much to his political campaign. The latter was for his Texas oil buddies and other big businesses. The rationale that this prevents small towns from huge expenses doesn’t hold water. As a prior post said, exeptions could have been made. I don’t think Bush or Ms. Whitman even thought of that. Ms. Whitman said you have to balance the interests. Sure, protect the big industries from expenses at the cost of thousands, or even millions, of lives. Quite a balancing act.
I know Barb…it does sound a little suspect given that Bush has promised to adhere to new regulations governing pesticides that had been negociated with the farming industry. Am I wrong in thinking that the farming industry isn’t structured to be the same kind of behemoth as the mining and oil concerns? I’ve always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that farming was more a cooperative of a lot of little guys, family farmers doing their best to hang onto tradition and make a living. And yes, I am aware that this too is changing. (Please forgive me if I just cynical enough to entertain the idea that barring a lack of politcal power from the farm community this might then be nothing more than a tiny bone for the Greenies.)
Needs2know
Milo since I linked to the cite in question and had read her statements, and listed my objections to her ‘rationale’, saying the quesiong had still not been answered to my satisfaction, all of this happening in this same thread, why, please did you find it necessary to repeat her justifications?
If the standards aren’t to go into effect for 5 years, what possible good would it do to delay for 60 days the enactment of the law? What on earth would this accomplish?
There have been studies upon studies for the past 20 years. the law gives these communities an additional 5 years(in addition to the past 30 plus that they’ve been aware of the problem) to plan for a reasoned approach.
Exactly what can even happen in 60 days to justify the delay? 35 years was insufficient, but these next 2 months will make the difference?
Since you seem to be so fond of repitition, I’ll ask again:
Exactly what can even happen in 60 days to justify the delay? 35 years was insufficient, but these next 2 months will make the difference?
OK, wring … you still haven’t said so. But I now can conlcude you reject Whitman’s explanation. (Would have been a much clearer way to say it than to say “What possible explanation can there be for this?” When one is offered.)
**
And I’m looking for one that shows that 10 ppb must be the standard, that at 15 ppb or 20 ppb or 25 ppb (which would be a 50% reduction of the current standard) the health toll would be much worse, and the cost little different.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is looking for that study, too.
**
I’m assuming they’ll look for data within those numerous studies to answer the question I’ve posed above. If none exists, I assume they’ll ask the researchers for those answers.
Next question?
As a person who lives in a small town and can relate to how economically hurtful an expensive federal mandate could be, I can support the harder look the EPA is taking.
Who said a lower arsenic standard won’t or shouldn’t happen? I could have sworn I read Whitman saying it was necessary, and would happen.
** Milo** I referred you again to my original post in this thread where I stated regarding Ms. Whitmans’ rational:
So, perhaps you were a bit, shall we say, hasty? in your incorrect assesment that I had not been clear.
The proposed implimentation means that communities should begin work now to reduce toxic levels in their water supplies. This is a bad idea?? If yours is one of them, my question to you is : Exactly what are they going to do differently in the next 2 months? I mean, the studies have been done, reviewed, digested, assessed etc. what will this 60 days period be able to accomplish that hasn’t been done in the prior several decades?
If the legislation hadn’t been stopped, there would have been an additional 5 - 9 years to work on, look at, review, digest, internalize, agonize etc. the data before the communities need to comply.
Are you attempting to say that if we enact this legislation now, there is no chance in the next 5 -9 years to discover that we don’t need to drop it down to 10 ppb, but only to 15 ppb, and readdress the standard?
Regarding your question, I believe the links already demonstrate what the different levels do. the current level gives the extremely high risk of cancer at 1 in 100. Reducing the level to 10, would drop the risk of cancer to 1 in 500, which is still higher than the typical risk allowed by the EPA. here, I know how much you appreciate repeated information
So, the 34 million people drinking this unsafe water. that’s currently 350,000 cases of cancer attributed to the arsenic in their drinking water, vs. the proposed level which would still mean 70,000 people at risk. Please assign for us, the proper cost, according to you, for those 280,000 additional folks. Ok?
<sarcasm>
Why’s everyone so worried about arsenic in the water supply? It’s completely obvious that there’s no danger! All we have to do is follow “President” Dubya’s lead and get everyone to drink beer instead, just like they do in that grand ol’ state o’ Texas!
Yee-haw!
</sarcasm>
[SUB](Tell me why we elected this guy again?
Oh, wait, we didn’t…)[/SUB]
according to this site the numbers I used above may be incorrect in terms of how many people may be affected. In it, it speaks of some 3000 communities across the nation, serving some 13, 000,000 people would have to upgrade. (so the newer #s’ would be a total of 130,000 cancers victims vs. 26,000, a reduction of 104,000)
It notes, too, that the proposed standard of 10 ppb matches the World Health Organization recommondations adopted several years ago (gee, one wonders what studies they relied on), that the cost would have been 5 billion $$, that the mining industry had donated some 5.6 million to the republicans (900,000 to the dems), [sub]hey, they reported it, I didn’t ask, and am making no inferences[/sub], and that the newer standards would have an estimated cost of $60 per household per year, with a possability of Congressional assistance to lower that figure.
It’s interesting to me that the focus is “gee, the EPA has been unable to establish a safe standard” while ignoring the basic fact that all agree the current standard of 50 ppb is unsafe, so obviously, the plan is to keep an unsafe standard for as long as possible so we can try and find the magic ‘safe’ number.
this site agrees with the estimation that about 3000 communities would be affected, most being located in the Western states near mining operations.
This later site also notes an additional and less publicized move by the Bush administration to lessen the amount of $$ that mining companies would have to pay towards cleaning up after their projects.[sub] I’m sure it’s totally unrelated[/sub]
wring…I mentioned this very thing a little farther up in one of my posts. Came to this conclusion on my own though, hadn’t seen your site. I found it a little suspect that both decisions were handed down in the same week. You are referring to what they called a bond iniciative where mining companies would sign off to be responsible for up to 100% of the clean up from their operations. Gotta admit it looks as though the mining interests have gotten been given a boon. (or paid for one if you want to go there)
Needs2know
So ya did Needs. ::tipo’ the hat::
The way that nostalgia for Reagan is driving the right wing these days, I half expected W to declare arsenic a vegetable.
I heard an interview with Whitman on NPR last night. They, of course discussed this subject.
On this decision, she said, and I am not making this up, “I spent **an hour or two **studying the EPA’s report before making this decision.”
I’m glad she at least made an effort.
Bush is insane for not lowering the arsenic levels. The millions of people dropping dead in the street from arsenic poisoning can not be ignored. In addition, millions are drinking beverages that contain known toxins and he is doing nothing about it-- VOdka, whiskey, beer–all contain poison! Millions die from alcohol every year and yet he wont do ANYTHING about this plague.
And if there are no solid studies proving any connection between Arsenic at 50 ppb vs. 10 ppb, well who cares. It might, maybe, possibly be a problem, so we had better bankrupt thousands of water treatment facilities and do SOMETHING about it.
Forget scientific method! Damn economic utility! Screw benefit loss analysis! The gov’t has got to do something about the problems we imagine!
And how dara anyone suggest that individuals take responsibility for buying a water filter, or drinking distilled water. We all know that individuals have no responsibility for themselves. Government is responsible for us!
[/sarcasm]
Mr. Z. you don’t go far enough - Why should the government have any standards on clean water? why gosh darn, those poor corporations have had to spend scads of money (money that would be better served in portfolios, and beefing up the stock market) cleaning up after themselves. Why the audacity of the government telling us that we have to treat wastewater before it’s put back into the streams, lakes, groundwater. Damn those bureaucrats.
Feel better now?
Except that anyone who drinks alcohol is doing so voluntarily, and with reasonable understanding of the negative effects. Drinking water is not optional, for most people, and there is no good way to know what’s in it or what it does.
Thanks for all the enlightening comments, from most of you. I was expecting a discussion about the risks Bush is taking by backing off enforcement of public health measures with no public discussion or apparently private objective weighing of costs and benefits. That’s not to say there are no costs related to compliance, of course, as some have pointed out, but those costs don’t appear to have been weighed against the benefits at all in Bush’s actions. If that is not a correct assessment, I’d really like to know - and assertions that it “might” not be correct won’t do, of course.
If there are reasonable explanations of this action that better fit the facts of the decision and the way it was arrived at, also considering other Bush environmental and public health actions in context, than to see a payoff for contributors, anyone with such an explanation would be doing us all a favor by enlightening us.
Reminder about the nature of these boards: Being that this is Great Debates, where political and religious discussions are welcomed, “providing proof” of an assertion or interpretation of facts is not required; but, if one disagrees, contributing an alternative interpretations certainly is.
Fortunately or unfornutately, Corporations do not pay to treat our water. We do.
NAd stating that the 10ppb standard is unsupportable is not at all the same as stating that corporations should be able dump toxins into the water with impunity. That is really a false and misleading argument.
Of course 10ppb sounds better than 50 ppb. Along the same lines of thinking, dropping the speed limit to 10 mph will save many, many lives. If it saves even one life, it is worth it, right? But what about the cost? What if you live in a poor, rural area and the water treatment center cnan’t afford to meet the guidlines? Well, legally, they have to turn off the water. I do not think that this would be much different than the power situation in California.
No one has proven a cood cost to benefit analysis of the new standards. Before we are forced to spend a few hundresd million, it would be nice to show proof that the change will have an effect. I know for a fact that no study has or can be done that isolates a test group of humans and exposes them to arsenic to test for cancer.
Are we operating on the “if it sounds good, do it” system of decision making?
the “we” in “we do” includes corporations, since they, too, pay for water usage, taxes etc. In addition, at least sometimes, corporations are required to clean up the problems they creat{ed) (see however, new rules set forth above by Mr. Bush).
the standard that is proposed matches (as shown above) those set by the World Health Organization. Are you suggesting they pulled this number out of the un polluted air 'cause it sounded good? Please support your contention that the 10ppb is an unreasonable standard, then we can proceed.
** the costs were listed above, estimated at $60 per year per consumer. This is unreasonable? to potentially reduce the number of people getting cancer from 130,000 to 26,000?
**So, you’re unwilling to spend the $60 per year until you’ve seen several years worth of studies on humans testing out the effects of arsenic poisoning? interesting. And of course, there’s not been testing of this nature - in general, unless you own a mining corporation apparently, it’s considered unethical to intentionally poison someone with arsenic.
There are studies (linked above) showing cancer risks to humans by ppb.
Frankly it sounds better to me than the ‘let them drink bottled water’ type, Marie.
130,000 people a year get cancer solely from the extra 40 ppb of arsenic in drinking water? And how can this possibly be known. Are all 130,000 is a controlled environment where all other carcinogens are removed? No radon, cigarette smoke, gerilled meat, tobacco, radiation…?
Electro magnetic fields Might cause cancer. Cell phones might cause cancer. Auto emissions might cause cancer. Cockroaches might cause asthma. Audis might mysteriously accelerate without any human intervention. Electricity migh leak out of lightbulbs. Alar might be poisoning our children. Innoculations might cause autism. Carbonless paper might cause chronic fatigue syndrome. Soy may cause suicidal depression. TV might cause violence.
We often see this argument: “we don’t know if there is a correlation. On the off chance that there might be, we need to ban the alleged cause. It is not worth risking it.”
By that logic, we should ban cell phiones, electrical lines, cars, Audis, buildings with cockroaches, alar and childhood innoculations, Carbonless paper, TV’s, etc.
I prefer to take action after there has been solid proof to the contrary. I also prefer individual action over government fiat. Most impotantly, I do not believe that the phrase “at any cost” should ever be employed."
Am I willing to pay $60 to make sure my water is safer? I already do. My water filters cost about $100 a year. Should I be forced to pay an extra $200 (since many do not pay taxes, I have to pick up the tab for others) a year because your slack ass doesn’t care enough to go buy a filter? no.
**. I really hate to have to repeat information already posted. The numbers that I gave were taken from the sites provided. x number of people in the areas affected (most areas are already way below the 50ppb figure), the current ppb figure increases risk of cancer by a certain factor, the reduction level by a different factor. Do the math yourself please.
**. First of all no one is saying “at any cost”. The cost has been explained (and, as an interesting exercise, the entire cost was thought to be 5 billion, whereas the mining industry found it prudent and a good ‘investment’ to spend 5 million in donations to Republican campaigns). Nice that you prefer individual action vs. governmental fiat, which is a fine thing when the issue is, say, how you pave your personal driveway. However, when the issue is (as is here) a public concern, it becomes a public responsability. The difference between paving your driveway vs. paving the public road. See?
Again, it isn’t a question of ‘slack ass’ and buying a water filter. It’s a public utility. Public. as in ‘the people’??? I live out in the country, we have well water. I, am therefore, responsable for purchasing the water filter, should I so choose. However, when I lived in the city and used a public system, that’s a different situation.
What you seem to be saying is that since you, personally have the financial means to be able to insure your own personal safety, the rest of the public should be individually responsible as well. Then, you should also be responsible for paving the road in front of your personal property. Of course, your neighbor might prefer a dirt road and not have the funds for paving, so, be prepared for that eventuality.
Actually, in the case where the arsenic can be traced to an individual pollution source (such as the mining companies for example), I’d really prefer that they alone bear the brunt. But the proposed legislation had spread the costs out to the communities involved, so as to not have a major effect on what could have been a primary source of income for those affected. Of course, Mr. Bush has thoughtfully taken care of that, too (see above mentioned link).
wring…I’m glad you threw in that little paragraph about the city water and the well…sure you’d be responsible until someone else polluted your well then I’d say it’s their responsiblity.
Just read a few minutes ago in Mojo about a little town in Utah (mining town) where a large percentage of the children have leukemia…they have the highest concentration of arsenic in the country. Of course I’d link but I think Zambezi and his sort would take issue with anything coming from Mother Jones. (It was an accident I found it anyway. I was farting around in Drudge.)
Needs2know