To follow up on the cancer stats that pld provided, in order to make the most meaningful comparisons between cancer rates in Europe and the U.S., you’d have to control for all other factors and try to isolate arsenic exposure as the one significant variable.
For example, age, race and endocrine status are considered major factors in one’s risk of developing prostate cancer (arsenic is not considered particularly significant in the etiology of prostate cancer). Americans’ higher rates are probably related in part to having more black citizens.
And as noted, if the EU has only been following the lower standard for arsenic in water for a few years, there hasn’t been time for meaningful differences in cancer rates to have developed relative to the U.S.
I appreciate pldennison bringing some actual facts into the arsenic debate and I also agree with pl’s POV.
Nevertheless, I do not believe those statistics really answer the question.
From what I recall reading, the impact of lowering the arsenic rate would be tiny – far too small to see in the statistic. One reason for quesioning the value of the lower standard is that the impact of the change is too small to measure. It was estimated by extrapolating from cancer rates at higher arsenic level. For biostatistical research, extrapolation is a less reliable techniques than actual measurements at the given levels.
Almost all drinking water in the US already has arsenic levels below the new standard. For the purposes of statistical comparisons, we have essentially been at the lower standard for years.
BTW these two points explain why it’s silly to get so overly excited over this issue. The benefit of the reduction is very small and somewhat uncertain. And, there will be considerable costs to those few areas with higher natural arsenic levels. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to lower the standard; just that it’s a close question worthy of reasonable re-consideration.
Actually, the National Academy of Sciences has just published a report reassessing that risk, putting it higher at lower exposure levels. I haven’t read the report, but it’s available for $40 on their web site.
Apparently it was that piece that convinced the EPA to go ahead with the new regs.
Now, as I understand this arsenic issue, the question of the laxity in aresenic standards has a definite economic slant: to wit; it will result in much easier standards of ecological impact for mining concerns. I am very skeptical, indeed, of any argument that would give more concern to the business side of this question.
If, indeed, those standards can safely be loosened, then all well and good. But if further study is required, then I think the smart move is to hew to the stricter standards until such study is done.
I think our future is glaring us in the face: we will have to rid ourselves of an oil-based economy, for an abundance of reasons. Who best to lead than us? With our technology etc., who is better positioned to invent the energy technology of the future. Who, then, is best equipped to survive?
(and also, sell it to everybody else…dont forget that part…)
**I’m not an expert, but here’s my understanding. I think the burden falls more on the locality than on some mine-owner.
Most areas of the US have low natural arsenic, so the lower standard is automatic. However, there are some areas, particularly around Arizona or Utah with high natural arsenic in the soil. For them to achieve the lower standard will be quite expensive. Note that the US EPA sets the standard, but the local water-supplier bears the costs. So, those local towns or water companies will have higher costs.
Not only that, but if the cost of meeting the new standards is too high, then some rural areas will simply require people to dig their own wells, and lose the benefit of all arsenic-reducing treatment. The result will be that the lower arsenic standard causes people to drink water with higher levels of arsenic.
These issues are not easy to unravel, which is partly why Clinton sat on it for 8 years, and why Bush postponed Clinton’s last-minute executive order.
So, operating on the theory that anything Clinton did must be wrong :rolleyes: Bush recinded the Clinton rules before he had done any research on the issue.
There’s a word for that sort of behavior, and that word is Irresponsible.
(A cynical person like me might think that he did so at the request of buddies in the mining industry…)
Once he commissioned a study of his own, he found exactly the same thing that Clinton EPA had found. That 10ppb is too high, but that the real safety level 3ppb, is too expensive.
Anyone want to guess who Bush was really acting for here? Does anyone really belive that it had been small municipalites on one side and mining interests on the other he would have acted in favor of municipal water?
In fact, I challenge any of his apologists to show any situation where he as acted only for the little guy against the interest of large corporations or his buddies.
I don’t hate Bush. But I do feel contempt for him.
In your conspiracy fantasy, how do you explain why the Bush administration finally did uphold the Clinton order, and did so at a time when Bush’s popularity is at record highs?
The fact that the Administration quietly upheld the order would seem to me to be evidence that they really have just been trying to do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with their worldview, but there are thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of the debate, and there is plenty of room for honest disagreement that doesn’t require a shady payoff to a special interest.
Care to elaborate? What do you mean by THIS? The war?
Corporations are helped just as much as individuals by the war on terror. That one is a wash.
How about the airline bailout:
$15 billion for airline companies (i.e. stockholders). $0 for those laid off by the airlines.
How about an “economic stimulus” package that contains retroactive repeal of the corporate alt-min tax. Which just happens to give a huge windfall to energy and mining businesses because they normally manage to avoid paying normal income taxes due to the wide range of tax shelters available to them.
But once again, this is congress acting with Bush’s approval but not necessarily on his direct order. If you won’t give specifics then there’s nothing to debate.
I was talking about the Bush Administration’s sudden upholding of the Clinton Arsenic limit. How does this benefit their special interests? Given the 90% approval rating Bush enjoys, he certainly didn’t have to make this move for political reasons. And if he wanted to do this for political reasons, he would do it at a time when terrorism wasn’t dominating the news.
So it seems to me that this is a case where the administration is trying to act in the best interests of the people, and at a time when they have enough political capital that they COULD be paying off supporters all over the place.
How do you explain this decision? What motivated it?
Thanks for noticing, Hamlet. This isn’t really intended as a criticism of dopers as I do it myself too, but I often find that people beg for cites and then ignore them when posted. I appreciate you taking time out to read them. I know a lot of information was posted there!