Drinking arsenic is OK ???

Great Debates
41

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

42

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 would take issue with anything coming from Mother Jones. (It was an accident I found it anyway. I was farting around in Drudge.)

Needs2know

43

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 would take issue with anything coming from Mother Jones. (It was an accident I found it anyway. I was farting around in Drudge.)

I also have a question…Do people really know about such things? Didn’t anyone see “Erin Brockovich”? I know it was only a movie but wasn’t it based on a real case? I didn’t know there were high levels of arsenic in our drinking water until now. But the government knew didn’t they? So then who is responsible? So I need to buy a filter but for God’s sake TELL ME! According to what I’ve been reading they’ve known pretty conclusively since the 70s that arsenic causes cancer, and other health problems remember. Have people been made aware who live in high risk areas? They’ve known that industrial run-off is largely responsible in many instances. So tell these people! Don’t wait until people get sick! Oh that’s right we can’t tell them because we just aren’t sure how much poison it will take to make you sick.

Needs2know
Needs2know

44

Neither culligan filters nor pur filters (www.culligan.com http://www.purwater.com) claim that their devices remove arsenic. Neither site is the definitive word, mind you, but they’ve a pretty big market share.

Of course, a person can die in as little as two minutes if his/her head is submerged in a bucket of water. And they store millions of buckets worth in open reservoirs throughout the country!

45

I am not calling for a full on libertarian system. What I am saying is that policy should be dictated by solid evidence and not fear mongering. We have been drinking this water for many years. I do not think that Bush calling off the new standards is the same as him poisoning the water.

NPR had a segment on this issue yesterday. They interviewed some heads of water treatment programs in small towns. Their point was that they simply could not afford to meet the 10 ppb standard. It is fine to say that the cost is worth it. But what if a community simply does not have the money? One can’t assume an endless supply of money.

I think that there is a separate issue here, which you have alluded to. That is the issue of pollution by mining companies. Tehre we will agree. IF there is arsenic attributable to a company, they should be forced to pay for the water purification necessitated by their negligent acts.

46

** and some twenty/thirty years of studies are insufficient in your eyes?

I have some sympathy for the communities, except they’ve had the same 20 -30 years to save towards the solution, prepare for alternatives or make plans in some way. AND this regulation would give them an additional FIVE YEARS to continue to try and raise the $$. My community had to deal with sewage separation. It’s costly, but it must be done. Delaying the process only continues the horrible health risks to the people there.

The ‘fear mongering’ that I am concerned about is coming from the communities and corporations (the latter who often are the cause of the pollution, and had no problem anteing up big bucks for political donations) “the sky will fall if you force us to take care of our responsabilities.”

Good, please let Mr. Bush know that you disapprove of his recent actions to not require these companies to clean up after their projects. Thank you.

47

Let’s say for a minute that people are dying from arsenic levels in certain communities. Why are teh local and/or state governments making these changes. Why is washington responsible? There was some radioactive waste near my neighborhood. The residents threw a fit and got the local government to clean it up.

I am unclear as to why this is a Washington problem. If I believed that my water was unsafe I would a) not drink it and b) make a stink about it and c) vote for those that would do something about it or d) move.

I am also curious as to why the clinton whitehouse didn’t do anything about it 8 years ago. I mean, 130,000 people getting cancer solely because of drinking water would seem to be a little more important than say, Mark Rich.

48

wring:

**
Oooh! Oooh! Let me play Bossy, Smug, Debate Rule-Setter, too!

As was already asked long, long ago of you, show me one - ONE of those countless studies that you mention incessantly that shows 10 ppb must be the standard, that at 15 ppb or 20 ppb or 25 ppb the health toll would be much worse, and the cost little different.

Show EPA Administrator Whitman, while you’re at it. She’s looking, too.

Then we can proceed.

The way I read it, the EPA is looking for justification for the 10 ppb standard that was arrived upon. If they get it, the standard may very well stay in place. All with no delay whatsoever in when it would have been implemented, anyway.

**
You’ve made statements like this throughout this thread. It doesn’t make any sense. The decision upon what the reduced standard would be was reached in mid-to-late 2000, passed in January 2001.

Unless you’re saying local government officials should have had the viewpoint of, “Someday they’re going to require lower arsenic levels. We don’t know how much lower, or what exactly we’ll have to do. The technology might change over these next 20 to 30 years as to how best accomplish this. But we should save for it now.”

Yeah, public works departments in small towns throughout the country do that all the time. :rolleyes:

I need a cite, please, on how the implementation process of arsenic reduction is being delayed. Or how this 60-day delay is going to effect implementation at the time when it will begin to be enforced under the EPA’s compliance schedule five to nine years from now.
(I’m sure CNN or ABC have to have something for you. Salon.com, maybe?)

ElvisL1ves:

**

An explanation that makes sense has been offered. But ignore away, if it suits you.

The idea that a 60 day delay or a change in the standard to something other than 10 ppb helps out Bush’s campaign contributors doesn’t seem to make sense. This isn’t targeting reducing arsenic levels in water, it’s targeting treating water to reduce the arsenic levels.

Are you saying local governments throughout the country are Bush supporters/contributors? Hmmm … judging by that famous Blue-Red national map following this year’s election regarding who voted for whom, for the most part, you may be right.

49

Milo, Mr. Z the communities in question have been aware (as has been the EPA) about the dangers of arsenic since 1975, when the current ‘interim’ regs were posted (see the link posted in this thread, and referenced now 3 different times). So, since 1975, the communities involved have been aware: 1. That there was a very high level of arsenic in their water. 2. That there was a distinct danger from that. 3. That the levels they were currently at were too high and were going to be lowered. 4. That studies were going to be done to determine what level. Now, you may wish to check back on all of the links provided and pointed out for the exact moment that it was known as a cancer causing agent, but frankly, it’s common knowledge that arsenic is a poison So, for at least since 1975, these communities have been aware that something very nasty was in their drinking water.

Mr Z. The feds are involved in two ways: 1. The EPA is a federal agency that looks at environmental issues across the country. 2. Water (and air) are not easily divided into states/counties etc. since there are systems of waterways that flow from one jurisidiction to another. So, it is not unusual for the standards to be issued at a Federal level - otherwise one community could simply discard all of it’s toxins into the water, knowing that it’ll flow downstream, and not worry about the other community.

As for “show me one study that says the standard must be…”. Actually, the 10ppb was a comprimise. It should have been lower. the 10ppb is what the World Health Organization has issued as a world wide standard. this has been posted several times.

Any explanation as to how/why the difference between 10ppb and 20ppb costs would be so astronomically more? no? thought not.

The costs involved in a project like this, mainly are the original set up, equipment, processing plants etc. Think about it this way, gentlemen. You need to build a plant. This plant will have to build cars for example. now, you know the cars need to be built. But you haven’t yet decided how big the tires are going to be, nor the colors of the paint that you’ll option. But it’ll take you 5 years to build the plant. Now, is it reasonable and prudent to wait to start building the plant until after you’ve decided that you’ll offer the car in blue and red and not yellow??? nope.

And, I’m still waiting Milo for your explanation of what exactly will be able to be done in the next 60 days that hasn’t been done, couldn’t already have been done and needs to be done now, before you take the very first, tiniest steps toward getting clean water for people who have been routinely poisoned.

Milo You need a cite on "how the implementation process of arsenic reduction is being delayed. "??? check the OP. Really. I have stated that the reasons offered were not sufficient, since the delay does not in fact give any time to conduct any more tests at all, which was one of her stated reasons, her other stated reason that I saw was that the ‘communities didn’t know the costs’, but since they did know there would be some costs, (and I’m not clear exactly when they were informed as to specific costs - certainly if you were told 30 years ago you needed to put in a new water pump into your house, you wouldn’t wait until the old one gave out to look at costs and start saving towards it, right?) and will have at least 5 years to work out how to pay for it, that reason doesn’t seem to be valid, either.

50

1975? So for 26 years the water treatment systems of the world have been knowingly poisoning people and causing 130,000 cancers per year.

They better do something right away. I mean the directors of these water boards are commiting manslaughter. they should be locked up and the plants sued. I want a piece of that class action suit.

51

Knowingly poisoning? yep. Aresenic is well known to be a poison. All those bottles with the skull and cross bones.

Now, did you have a relevant point to make?

Or did you have an answer as to why we should wait any more time to attempt to correct the problem?

Doesn’t appear to be so.

52

Yeah, Wring, heaven forbid we should want to drink water that doesn’t have dangerous chemicals in it! The nerve!

Besides, drinking a little bit of arsenic over a period of time will eventually build up, won’t it? Ick.

Besides, didn’t someone say earlier in this thread, if a town is having problems affording it, they can look into what can be done?

I dont’ get WHY people don’t want to look into ways that won’t destroy the planet. Think of all the people who HAVE died as a result of pollution.

53

wring - At least I now better understand your position on, “The local departments of public works should have known this was coming and saved for it.” It seems to me that my characterization of your opinion wasn’t inaccurate.

As someone who has had a higher than average connection with local government and local government officials over the course of my professional career, I can pretty much assure you that none save money to implement standards that don’t exist – and indeed, aren’t put in place until a quarter-century later. For better or worse, that’s just the way it is.

EPA and state regulators pass down what these municipalities have to do; then and only then do they comply. Because it’s expensive. Money’s tight. The cost of running these systems, maintaining them, expanding them when they reach capacity, is astronomical.

Beyond those costs, there isn’t a lot of money left over for contingencies that may or may not come about, or things that are not required, but “we just don’t like the looks of them, and we want better.”

**
And I’ve now posted several times that all available references to studies talk 10 ppb first and justify it against 50 ppb, with no mention of intermediary levels, their health statistics and expense levels.

What I’m looking for is much more highly relevant than what you are, in that it is the justification for EPA’s delay. So, again. I’m waiting. So is Whitman.

Ignore the point again and I’ll assume you intend to for the duration of this thread, and I’ll respond accordingly.

**
Again, this is not a realistic portrayal of how local governments typically respond to federal mandates. They do what they have to do, when they have to do it, delaying expense for as long as they are able.

I don’t deny the world would be more Utopian if this weren’t the case. But the bottom line gets in the way.

Read carefully back there. It’s been given. Could it have already been done? Sure it could have. Perhaps President Clinton and his staff didn’t feel it necessary. President Bush and his staff does. Local governments thank them for at least checking.

If we’re adding local departments of public works to the “enemies list,” along with Miners, Oil Companies, that vague “Big Business,” etc., you really need to send out updating flyers.

(Not referring to you here, wring, but to some other posters in this thread of the High-Five variety.)

It would seem to give them time to check studies already conducted, to see if the data that you can’t seem to cite is in there somewhere. It would also seem to give them time to consult with the researchers involved in the study, if said data can’t be found there.

This, of course, was all already said. Feel free to ignore it again.

**
I am. From the afore-linked EPA site, they were informed of the costs in mid-2000. That information was of course irrelevant until they knew that the recommended standard was, indeed, going to be one that the EPA was going to go with. That decision was made by Clinton in January 2001.

**
As noted repeatedly, no one was told of any new federal requirements for treating drinking water 30 years ago.

**
I don’t want to go “all you liberals” on ya, now, but what a rather interesting way of putting it. Five years to “figure out how to pay for it.”

Wonder who will end up paying for it, after those five years of “figuring?” Not that that matters too much to certain political persuasions. Who are showing evidence that they aren’t even willing to see if a less burdensome, less costly alternative is available that will still effectively make drinking water safer. Not even willing to consider it.

54

So glad you have a 'higher than average connection" with your local government. Please use it to better your community.

Congress told the EPA in 1974 that the levels needed to be lower the EPA has worked on it since then, amassing studies, collecting opinions.

Yes, if the community is told (as they were back in the 70’s) “you have arsenic in your water system” they should absolutely have been working on a plan to deal with it, at the very least determine the costs. But all of this is moot. The costs (as was pointed out on page one) were determined.

Money is tight. No kidding? But let me get this straight. Your plan is to wait longer? Why? costs will go down? suddenly the arsenic is going to go away? Nope, didn’t think so.

Nope, the one I posted discussed levels in between. Seems to me I posted the link more than once on the first page, but here it is yet again just for you, please read it this time? Nope, don’t have comparative costs. I’ll wait until you tell me the acceptable number of cancer deaths for your community, thank you. The cost for the 10 ppb is about 60$ per household per year, or less, according to the links. That’s too much? you get to tell your neighbors.

My community had to replace the sewer/storm drain system. They’ve battled for years about how to do it, but you know what? they’re still doing it. The original plan was taken to court, but they didn’t stop work on the project, 'cause you see, community safety was at risk. They worked out a new plan, while the work was still going on. That’s how communities work.

You want more health stats: ok
here
here
and here

according to this The EPA evaluated over 6500 pages of documents and recieved opinions on levels of 3 ppb, 10 ppb and 20 ppb. It was under pressure from the industries that they ultimately settled for the 10 ppb. again, the current proposed standards of 10 ppb

seems reasonable to me. The site has a nice picture, too of some one suffering from arsenic exposure.

Milo

then why are you including it in your reply addressed to me? Seriously, I am very tired of this sort of cheap shot from you. Please stop.

The EPA has been studying this issue for the past 25 or so years. The one link I just provided gave a clue as to how exhaustive their research has been. They’re saying 'if it is going to cause serious hardships to specific communities, you can have nine years to work on it. THe estimate is $60 per household. 9 years. $60. How is this unreasonable? This has already been provided to both you and Ms. Whitman. Why are you continuing to ignore it?

55

Thanks for the links. Did you read them?

From the first one:

Are you able to accept that better, now that it’s been said by an environmentalist group more ideologically aligned with you, instead of by me?

The cite doesn’t explain how the different mortality rates were arrived at for different arsenic levels, saying only that one professor made the calculations based on a 1999 National Academy of Sciences report.

His direct findings at various levels seems to contradict statements from your next link (all bolding emphasis mine):

Your next link after that offers nothing new, again discussing cancer risks at 50 ppb and at 100 ppb. It also states:

**

Your next link offers no health stats at all, discusses the cancer risks that everyone involved on all sides acknowledges, and doesn’t talk about the relative risks at varying levels of arsenic.

And, as you mention, not a one of the sites talks about how costs differ depending upon the target level. A key question municipalities and the EPA would like to answer before they proceed with a reduction that (once again let me emphasize) all agree is needed, and an implementation of the new standard that (once again let me emphasize) is not being slowed down one whit from what it would be otherwise.

So, if it was your intention to impress readers of this thread by throwing up a lot of links, I’m sure you might have impressed some who didn’t actually look at them. I did, and they didn’t effectively answer the questions that have been posed to you repeatedly.

A justification has been given as to why this is being done, and you can’t refute that justification with evidence why it’s specious or irrelevant.

**
I already noted very similar information from the EPA’s own web site. However, the information as to how they arrived at 10 was (is) lacking. Cost/benefit analysis at other levels was (is) lacking. Whitman agrees, and wants some more answers.

Round and round we go.

Believe it or not, it is possible to reply to you and others in a thread post. Every debate that involves an issue that splits along ideological lines doesn’t have to become a wring-and-Milo serve and volley into infinity.

And if you’re not going to express the same indignance when people of your own ideological persuasion do this in a daisy chain, you’re not tired enough.

Clever use of “work on it” instead of “raise taxes and rates.” Crafty spin, talking about the maximum length of years, and the estimated per-customer amount of increase, rather than the approximately $200 million it will cost (that number somehow seems bigger than $60). Way to ignore the issue of it being much more of a hardship on smaller communities, hiding that fact behind the $60 figure, and brushing aside their concerns as though giving them four additional years automatically solves them.

Sounds like something the person who initially approved the new standard might have done. As I said before, I’m glad it’s getting a harder look now.

56

**
I didn’t say it was my plan. I said municipalities don’t have funds earmarked in their public works systems for federal standards that don’t exist. When given a federal mandate, they will put off the economic hardship of it for as long as is possible, typically.

That you are having difficulty grasping this point is astounding.

And:

**
I’m sensing a little righteous indignation here. Are you maintaining that such balances are not decided upon in life every day?

Do you by chance splash blood on your local life insurance agent when he walks out of his office? How about your pharmacist, or a board of directors member at your local hospital?

57

Did I read them? yes, the first time. apparently you did not. Yes, I understand that communities won’t always act until the regs go through. Gee, you think that’s why I want the regs to go through?

Your next set of objections come from the scientific discussions about various levels. But, you ignore the essential fact - arsenic in drinking water is (dana carvey voice) bad. BAD. They have data to support the fact that 50ppb is way too high. They don’t know what the lowest ‘safe’ level is. TheyDO know that the current level of 50 ppb is way too high. Why is that a problem for you? Perhaps there is no ‘safe’ level (other than zero). But certainly, it is very, very clear that 50 is way too high, that the proposed 10 would be a vast, serious improvement. The original recommondation from the EPA was 3ppb. But the industries rebelled and the EPA attempted to make a comprimise to get their cooperation. Seemed to work, too, until after Ms. Whitman took office. But, in any event, no one disagrees that 50 is way too high.

Why wait to do something, even if you need to do more in the future?

And naturally, the EPA studies linked don’t talk about the money involved. Surely you know that scientific study is about science, right? not the economy? You’re begining to remind me of the folks at the Ford Company when faced with the dilemma that Pinto’s were at risk of blowing up from rear end collisions. They determined that it would cost less to ‘settle a few lawsuits’ than to make the design changes.

You ask for ‘studies’ to show what safe levels are/cost ratio. But that’s two different things. “safe level” refers to the science of the equation. The cost factor is another thing entirely. Are you suggesting that the scene should be:

50 Ppb = no cost, but huge health risk

20 ppb= moderate cost, but large health risks

10 ppb = large costs but small health risks

3 ppb = astronomical costs but near zero health risks
???

The EPA has already given the 50 ppb and 10 ppb, because ten is their recommended ‘as safe as we can convince you to go’ level.

.
Her stated justification was “so more tests can be done”
Explain to me, please, exactly what tests can be done in 60 days? What testing of soil, water, humans combination can be set up, done and analyzed in 60 days? I say that the answer is none. So, that answer she gave was nonsensica. Her next stated reason was ‘so we can determine the safe level’. However, as explained, no such testing can be done in 60 days. And, frankly, 25 years of testing have not determined that there** is ** a ‘safe’ level (other than zero). So, there again, her rationale does not hold water. Simply 'cause you say it does, doesn’t make it so.

cost analysis? A cost analysis has been given for the recommended level. That’s the recommended level. remember? The one that the World Health Organization has? The one that the EPA negotiated with the industries? Why would they, after completing all of this work, in essence say: “This is the cost and the recommended level. Now, if you want to endanger more people if might save you a few bucks, but we really don’t recommend it” ? (repeat, MIGHT)

Your next set of objections concerns the $60 figure, 9 years etc. Since, to date, I’m the only one who has provided any actual, factual information about costs, I’ll wait until you demonstrate that the community affected will go bankrupt or whatever you think will happen. Yes, certainly no one **wants ** to spend $$. Clearly, though, that’s not really an option.

Again - yes, some cost will have to go up to effect these changes. The issue isn’t if that is going to happen. The issue is how long do you intend to wait to start implimentation of the changes that will make a positive effect on the health of your community?

I am again reminded of my own city’s response to the sewer project. Instead of hand wringing for ages over ‘oh gosh, what to do, what to do’ while costs continue to rise (or do you plan on having such a large recession happen that the cost of living would go down substantially?), they started the project. They continued to work on the project through times when the method of funding the project was under fire in court. They reacted to the court challenge and changed the method of funding all while continuing to complete the project. Because, you see, it was a federal mandate to protect the health of the community.

So, now, please demonstrate for the waiting public:

  1. what is your acceptable level of contamination?

  2. What cost is acceptable to your community?

And naturally, there are these decisions made every day. However, as the Ford officials discovered, painfully, the long term costs of delaying were astronomical.

If I were a tax payer in an affected community, the question I’d be asking my leaders is “are you saving up for your insurance premiums once the lawsuits start happening from persons who got cancer because no action was taken?”

58

A HUGE health risk? First of all, the number of 130,000 annual deaths from cancer due to arsenic is clearly wrong (that’s about 5 times higher than the number of annual deaths from AIDS in the US, and it’s also about 1/5 of the entire number of cancer deaths per year. Clearly, it’s out to lunch). And we have it balanced by a Belgian study which claims to have found ZERO health risk (at least in terms of cancer) from 50 ppb of Arsenic.

Let’s go with the original numbers, and accept that perhaps a couple of hundred people a year might die from arsenic-induced cancer. Let’s further accept that if we reduced the level to 10 ppb 80% of those people would live. Is it still worth doing?

The problem that many conservatives and Libertarians have had with the EPA over the last 8 years is that it tends to ignore cost/benefit analysis when making law. The EPA has proposed regulation that would cost tens of billions of dollars for each life saved.

The Bush administration has only been in office for a couple of months. Asking for 60 days for the new EPA head to go over the assumptions and studies of the last 8 years is not unreasonable. The EPA has a history of overreaching its power, passing excessive regulation, and relying on flawed science when the conclusions match its bias.

If you ask me, Christie Whitman should be examining pretty much everything the EPA did in the last 8 years, and not just the arsenic regulations.

If I were in charge of the EPA, what I would want to see would be some nice charts showing me how many people die today as a result of 50 ppb of arsenic, then some curves of how the number of deaths drops as we drop the level of arsenic all the way from 50 ppb to 3 ppb. Then I would want to overlay a curve of costs required to get to each level, and do a minimax analysis to find out where the best bang for the buck is.

Then, I’d compare that result in terms of money spent to lives saved against other safety compromises we make.

Just to put this into perspective a bit, let’s assume that 200 people a year currently die from arsenic-related illness. How does that stack up against other health concerns?

[ul]
[li] About 200 people a year die from falling out of bed.[/li][li] About 13,000 people die each year from accidental falls in general[/li][li] About 1600 people per year die from lung cancer due to naturally occuring radon gas.[/li][li] When you get down to numbers around 200 people per year dying from cancer, you’re in the same range as the number of people that die from cancer due to drinking milk, coffee, and cola; eating charred steak, eating apples (WITHOUT pesticides - an apple contains natural carcinogens), etc.[/li][/ul]

The original water treatment regs passed in the 1950’s were based on the science of the time. In the last decade or so, there have been some big increases in the understanding of how animals respond to very low levels of carcinogens. The assumptions of most cancer studies have been that the dose-response relationship is linear. i.e. stuffing a rat with 50 times the number of carcinogens will make it 50 times more likely to develop cancer. But as we’ve discovered more and more carcinogens naturally occuring around us, it occured to a number of scientists that something must be wrong with these models, or the aggregate amount of cancer-causing substances we are exposed to would kill us in far greater numbers than what we actually observe.

For example, I quote from a study at the University of Alberta:

Do a web search on “Hormesis” - this is the phenomenon of having extremely low doses of a substance have very different, even opposite effects as higher doses. For instance, oak bark in normal quantities inhibits fungal growth, but in very small quantities actually increases it.

So, if the dose-response curve is not linear, than all of those straight-line projections by the EPA are worthless. And given that the current levels of arsenic are NOT causing a nationwide health epidemic, isn’t it at least prudent to double check these numbers, especially when you believe that the EPA has been a bit out of control in the last 8 years, as most conservatives do? (One rule on wood preservatives that the EPA proposed would have cost $5,700,000,000,000 per life saved, and their meta-study on second-hand smoke was laughably poor science).

59

Sam go back and check. You seem to be the only one saying that 50pbb is an acceptable level of risk. Even Ms. Whitman isn’t claiming that.

60

I never said it was acceptable. I said that it’s not unreasonable for a new administration to want to spend time going over the assumptions of a previous administration, especially in an area where you have reason to believe that many of their studies were flawed and/or their decisions were overzealous. My point is that if the number of deaths per year is in the dozens, it does not qualify as a major health problem that requires immediate decision-making on a rule that could have widespread consequences for the economy.

It really annoys me that people can come out and make blanket statements like, ‘This is a HUGE health problem’ when they apparently have almost no perspective on the true dangers involved. Then you see numbers thrown around like 130,000 cancer deaths a year from trace arsenic, and you know that there is a lot more heat than light being shed on the issue.