Republican's Assault on Clean Water and Democracy

[rdean]

Are Republicans really defending "filth"?

 

[martybegan]

Bfgrn:

Of course -- It's Robert Kennedy.. The "no windmills in my playpen" keeper of the enviro-torch.. No wonder all that spew had so little connection to the real legislation. Just another fund-raising opportunity to sell those totebags and teddybears...

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

The man is a fucking hypocrite on this pure and simple. He trots out ALL the reasons usually poo poohed by the evinronmental elite, and he somehow still has credibility with them.

Offshore wind, while more expensive, often has much higher uptime. Sea traffic can be managed.

He doesnt want it, not because it is in "the commons," its because it is in HIS commons, and of course people such as him shouldn't have to bear ANY cost of things like this.

FUCKING. HYPOCRITE. PERIOD.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are Republicans really defending "filth"?

Is this one of the 6% of Rdeans posts worth reading?

Nah

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, I don't. Why don't you underwhelm me with them.

I gave you the answer Einstein. The 28 major environmental laws are crafted to return 'personal responsibility' and free market capitalism to the environment, make polluters responsible for their waste and internalize their costs, instead of internalizing their profits and externalizing their costs on US.

If that's true, that's a good idea. I'm in favor of making polluters pay for whatever damage they do.

I'm not in favor of going 30 year without building a new nuclear power plant. On the one hand Obama claims he wants to "Fast track" construction while on the other the EPA has added a whole order of magnitude to the cost and won't let any mew plants get built in any event.

Maybe the EPA is ahead of the curve Frank...

Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022

May 30, 2011

BERLIN (AP) — Germany‘s governing coalition said Monday it will shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision, prompted by Japan’s nuclear disaster, will make Germany the first major industrialized nation to go nuclear-free in years.

It also completes a remarkable about-face for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right government, which only late last year had pushed through a plan to extend the life span of the country’s 17 reactors — with the last scheduled to go offline in 2036.

But Mrs. Merkel now says industrialized, technologically advanced Japan’s helplessness in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink the risks of the technology.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters on Monday after overnight negotiations among the governing parties. “We have to follow a new path.”

 

[martybegan]

I gave you the answer Einstein. The 28 major environmental laws are crafted to return 'personal responsibility' and free market capitalism to the environment, make polluters responsible for their waste and internalize their costs, instead of internalizing their profits and externalizing their costs on US.

If that's true, that's a good idea. I'm in favor of making polluters pay for whatever damage they do.

I'm not in favor of going 30 year without building a new nuclear power plant. On the one hand Obama claims he wants to "Fast track" construction while on the other the EPA has added a whole order of magnitude to the cost and won't let any mew plants get built in any event.

Maybe the EPA is ahead of the curve Frank...

Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022

May 30, 2011

BERLIN (AP) — Germany‘s governing coalition said Monday it will shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision, prompted by Japan’s nuclear disaster, will make Germany the first major industrialized nation to go nuclear-free in years.

It also completes a remarkable about-face for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right government, which only late last year had pushed through a plan to extend the life span of the country’s 17 reactors — with the last scheduled to go offline in 2036.

But Mrs. Merkel now says industrialized, technologically advanced Japan’s helplessness in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink the risks of the technology.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters on Monday after overnight negotiations among the governing parties. “We have to follow a new path.”

And in 2022 when they end up short, they can either build more gas/coal/oil plants for base load, or be hypocrites and buy power from nuclear france.

Its all just a sop to thier asshat green party.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I gave you the answer Einstein. The 28 major environmental laws are crafted to return 'personal responsibility' and free market capitalism to the environment, make polluters responsible for their waste and internalize their costs, instead of internalizing their profits and externalizing their costs on US.

If that's true, that's a good idea. I'm in favor of making polluters pay for whatever damage they do.

I'm not in favor of going 30 year without building a new nuclear power plant. On the one hand Obama claims he wants to "Fast track" construction while on the other the EPA has added a whole order of magnitude to the cost and won't let any mew plants get built in any event.

Maybe the EPA is ahead of the curve Frank...

Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022

May 30, 2011

BERLIN (AP) — Germany‘s governing coalition said Monday it will shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision, prompted by Japan’s nuclear disaster, will make Germany the first major industrialized nation to go nuclear-free in years.

It also completes a remarkable about-face for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right government, which only late last year had pushed through a plan to extend the life span of the country’s 17 reactors — with the last scheduled to go offline in 2036.

But Mrs. Merkel now says industrialized, technologically advanced Japan’s helplessness in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink the risks of the technology.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters on Monday after overnight negotiations among the governing parties. “We have to follow a new path.”

Not a chance. When the US Navy goes back to wooden oars is when we should consider abandoning nuclear power

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

Of course -- It's Robert Kennedy.. The "no windmills in my playpen" keeper of the enviro-torch.. No wonder all that spew had so little connection to the real legislation. Just another fund-raising opportunity to sell those totebags and teddybears...

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

The man is a fucking hypocrite on this pure and simple. He trots out ALL the reasons usually poo poohed by the evinronmental elite, and he somehow still has credibility with them.

Offshore wind, while more expensive, often has much higher uptime. Sea traffic can be managed.

He doesnt want it, not because it is in "the commons," its because it is in HIS commons, and of course people such as him shouldn't have to bear ANY cost of things like this.

FUCKING. HYPOCRITE. PERIOD.

You have the right to your opinion, but the Kennedy family has never been on the 'take'. The whole family has dedicated their lives to public service and the people of this nation. Three brothers were killed in the line of duty.

 

[martybegan]

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

The man is a fucking hypocrite on this pure and simple. He trots out ALL the reasons usually poo poohed by the evinronmental elite, and he somehow still has credibility with them.

Offshore wind, while more expensive, often has much higher uptime. Sea traffic can be managed.

He doesnt want it, not because it is in "the commons," its because it is in HIS commons, and of course people such as him shouldn't have to bear ANY cost of things like this.

FUCKING. HYPOCRITE. PERIOD.

You have the right to your opinion, but the Kennedy family has never been on the 'take'. The whole family has dedicated their lives to public service and the people of this nation. Three brothers were killed in the line of duty.

No take involved, its pure NIMBY. (or NIMBS, Not in My Back Sound)

 

[Bfgrn]

If that's true, that's a good idea. I'm in favor of making polluters pay for whatever damage they do.

I'm not in favor of going 30 year without building a new nuclear power plant. On the one hand Obama claims he wants to "Fast track" construction while on the other the EPA has added a whole order of magnitude to the cost and won't let any mew plants get built in any event.

Maybe the EPA is ahead of the curve Frank...

Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022

May 30, 2011

BERLIN (AP) — Germany‘s governing coalition said Monday it will shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision, prompted by Japan’s nuclear disaster, will make Germany the first major industrialized nation to go nuclear-free in years.

It also completes a remarkable about-face for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right government, which only late last year had pushed through a plan to extend the life span of the country’s 17 reactors — with the last scheduled to go offline in 2036.

But Mrs. Merkel now says industrialized, technologically advanced Japan’s helplessness in the face of the Fukushima disaster made her rethink the risks of the technology.

“We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters on Monday after overnight negotiations among the governing parties. “We have to follow a new path.”

Not a chance. When the US Navy goes back to wooden oars is when we should consider abandoning nuclear power

Great idea Frank, but let's start with the Russian Navy...

Working Together to Defuse Russia's Nuclear Timebomb

On the beaches of the Barents Sea, near the Russian city of Murmansk, ex-Soviet nuclear submarines lie rotting, like ticking ecological time bombs.The Russians have called on German experts to help prevent disaster.

Then England's...

Nuclear Submarine Secrets Spilled In Internet Error

BUNGLING Ministry of Defence workers have laid bare *Britain’s nuclear *submarine secrets to our enemies. A classified government report into the subs’ *vulnerabilities has been published online with key parts blacked out to prevent *sensitive material getting into the wrong hands.

But a massive blunder has meant anyone with basic computer knowledge could reverse the censorship – and read every word of the *previously “restricted” report.

It reveals how easy it would be to cause a Fukushima-style reactor meltdown in a sub and details the *capabilities of US vessels.

 

[flacaltenn]

The states are in a better position to prioritize their environmental agendas. Having Washington decide their allocations for clean-up is silly and counterproductive. In a state like Nevada where there might be a tad higher NATURALLY OCCURING arsenic level in some remote water systems, should they IGNORE the massive water treatment issues in Las Vegas? And go jump on 27 little muni wells serving 286 people in the middle of nowhere just because the Feds said to "JUMP NOW"???

You don't dictate minimum acceptable levels one-time from on high.. You produce science, risk analysis, and budget priorities.. And this bill (which will pass with BIPARTISIAN support probably) just allows the states the right to redress and get waivers.

That's it.. It benefits ALL the states.. Not just the Red ones..

 

[Bfgrn]

The states are in a better position to prioritize their environmental agendas. Having Washington decide their allocations for clean-up is silly and counterproductive. In a state like Nevada where there might be a tad higher NATURALLY OCCURING arsenic level in some remote water systems, should they IGNORE the massive water treatment issues in Las Vegas? And go jump on 27 little muni wells serving 286 people in the middle of nowhere just because the Feds said to "JUMP NOW"???

You don't dictate minimum acceptable levels one-time from on high.. You produce science, risk analysis, and budget priorities.. And this bill (which will pass with BIPARTISIAN support probably) just allows the states the right to redress and get waivers.

That's it.. It benefits ALL the states.. Not just the Red ones..

Are people 'in the middle of nowhere' less susceptible to arsenic poisoning?

 

[Bfgrn]

The man is a fucking hypocrite on this pure and simple. He trots out ALL the reasons usually poo poohed by the evinronmental elite, and he somehow still has credibility with them.

Offshore wind, while more expensive, often has much higher uptime. Sea traffic can be managed.

He doesnt want it, not because it is in "the commons," its because it is in HIS commons, and of course people such as him shouldn't have to bear ANY cost of things like this.

FUCKING. HYPOCRITE. PERIOD.

You have the right to your opinion, but the Kennedy family has never been on the 'take'. The whole family has dedicated their lives to public service and the people of this nation. Three brothers were killed in the line of duty.

No take involved, its pure NIMBY. (or NIMBS, Not in My Back Sound)

That is your opinion, but it only tells us about you, not the Kennedys

 

[flacaltenn]

The states are in a better position to prioritize their environmental agendas. Having Washington decide their allocations for clean-up is silly and counterproductive. In a state like Nevada where there might be a tad higher NATURALLY OCCURING arsenic level in some remote water systems, should they IGNORE the massive water treatment issues in Las Vegas? And go jump on 27 little muni wells serving 286 people in the middle of nowhere just because the Feds said to "JUMP NOW"???

You don't dictate minimum acceptable levels one-time from on high.. You produce science, risk analysis, and budget priorities.. And this bill (which will pass with BIPARTISIAN support probably) just allows the states the right to redress and get waivers.

That's it.. It benefits ALL the states.. Not just the Red ones..

Are people 'in the middle of nowhere' less susceptible to arsenic poisoning?

There's a huge diff between a health hazard and some of the maximum levels set by Wash. I used the example of how the ridiculous radiation standards for Yucca Mtn virtually doomed that project. There are statues in the hallls of Congress that emit more radiation than the Yucca Mtn mandates. Same with arsenic in desert water supplies.. Studies have a hard time verifying any health effects for those remote municipal wells. The people have been using them for a 100 years and arsenic poisoning doesn't show up as a problem.

Of course -- the eco-nauts think that ANY measurable amount of contaminant (even if naturally occuring) is a red flag problem. When actually --- even for arsenic -- trace amounts may be essential to life..

So if Nevada wants to prioritize how it cleans its water, run-off, and sewage.. That should be an option. But this thread has turned largely into an incoherent brawl rather than anything resembling ACTUAL environmental science or honest concern..

I actually debated this very topic of EPA arsenic levels back when the CWA was revised in the 90s.. Some of my concern came from poor and incomplete science for SETTING such a tight standard...

The EPA's model assumes that any exposure to arsenic increases cancer
risk and that cancer risk increases in a linear fashion with increasing
exposure. Other models assume there is a "safe" level of exposure or are
"sublinear" with increases in cancer risk that are negligible at low doses.
Virtually all known toxicological processes follow a sublinear model.
Based on a variety of biochemical, toxicological and human study findings,
the subcommittee stated in its report that only the sublinear models were
plausible. But because subcommittee could not agree on which sublinear
model was correct, the consensus forced by the NRC/EPA process —
incredibly — was to opt for the EPA's linear model, the very model the arsenic subcommittee decided was wrong.

Is this another one of your "the science is SETTLED" arguments? That would be par for the course of the eco-left...

 

[skookerasbil]

Kennedy is a nut.

 

[Bfgrn]

The states are in a better position to prioritize their environmental agendas. Having Washington decide their allocations for clean-up is silly and counterproductive. In a state like Nevada where there might be a tad higher NATURALLY OCCURING arsenic level in some remote water systems, should they IGNORE the massive water treatment issues in Las Vegas? And go jump on 27 little muni wells serving 286 people in the middle of nowhere just because the Feds said to "JUMP NOW"???

You don't dictate minimum acceptable levels one-time from on high.. You produce science, risk analysis, and budget priorities.. And this bill (which will pass with BIPARTISIAN support probably) just allows the states the right to redress and get waivers.

That's it.. It benefits ALL the states.. Not just the Red ones..

Are people 'in the middle of nowhere' less susceptible to arsenic poisoning?

There's a huge diff between a health hazard and some of the maximum levels set by Wash. I used the example of how the ridiculous radiation standards for Yucca Mtn virtually doomed that project. There are statues in the hallls of Congress that emit more radiation than the Yucca Mtn mandates. Same with arsenic in desert water supplies.. Studies have a hard time verifying any health effects for those remote municipal wells. The people have been using them for a 100 years and arsenic poisoning doesn't show up as a problem.

Of course -- the eco-nauts think that ANY measurable amount of contaminant (even if naturally occuring) is a red flag problem. When actually --- even for arsenic -- trace amounts may be essential to life..

So if Nevada wants to prioritize how it cleans its water, run-off, and sewage.. That should be an option. But this thread has turned largely into an incoherent brawl rather than anything resembling ACTUAL environmental science or honest concern..

I actually debated this very topic of EPA arsenic levels back when the CWA was revised in the 90s.. Some of my concern came from poor and incomplete science for SETTING such a tight standard...

The EPA's model assumes that any exposure to arsenic increases cancer
risk and that cancer risk increases in a linear fashion with increasing
exposure. Other models assume there is a "safe" level of exposure or are
"sublinear" with increases in cancer risk that are negligible at low doses.
Virtually all known toxicological processes follow a sublinear model.
Based on a variety of biochemical, toxicological and human study findings,
the subcommittee stated in its report that only the sublinear models were
plausible. But because subcommittee could not agree on which sublinear
model was correct, the consensus forced by the NRC/EPA process —
incredibly — was to opt for the EPA's linear model, the very model the arsenic subcommittee decided was wrong.

Is this another one of your "the science is SETTLED" arguments? That would be par for the course of the eco-left...

I believe there should be room for debate on strictly local anomalies. But tell me WHY should we believe THAT is the intent of the Republican legislation? These are the same people calling for the EPA to be abolished, so if they can't abolish it, they can try to castrate it. These are also the same people who consistently make the list of the Dirty Dozen by the League of Conservation Voters.

BTW, where is the link to your article? And provide documentation on your radiation standards for Yucca Mtn accusation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy is a nut.

He is very sane, and like all true liberals, his concern for other people is genuine. He always says there are no Republican children or Democrat children, they are all American children.

And there is nothing radical about protecting our environment. If we don't do that well, then economic issues will be meaningless. Good environmental policy is always good economic policy, because it encourages us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. Pollution is waste.

RFK Jr has a very well developed understanding of what constitutes a true free market, and common sense reasons we must protect our environment if we really believe in a free market economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:

I believe there should be room for debate on strictly local anomalies. But tell me WHY should we believe THAT is the intent of the Republican legislation? These are the same people calling for the EPA to be abolished, so if they can't abolish it, they can try to castrate it. These are also the same people who consistently make the list of the Dirty Dozen by the League of Conservation Voters.

BTW, where is the link to your article? And provide documentation on your radiation standards for Yucca Mtn accusation.

Well that debate is certainly not welcome by your radical eco-left pals because they have funds to raise and partisian fires to light. Particularly the ones who won't be happy til the population of mankind is trimmed to their liking. So where DOES rationality and science get considered? You've now seen how these issues become an IDENTICAL shouting match between partisians. Doesn't matter what the topic is -- it will end up in an attempt to impeach sources (like I did with pointing out the OP was written by R. Kennedy, because I like to toss bombs into discussions that have turned into partisian pissing matches) OR -- your guys did it first, OR -- you really don't want clean ____ because you're willing to accept some level of risk or contamination. Therefore you are poisoning the earth for spite.

I believe as the reliable half-cocked RDean put it "... so Republicans LIKE filth".

People like me who make science and engineering an entire belief system really don't want to have a lot to do with y'all. Except when it becomes neccessary to correct some govt overreach that one side or the other has managed to finagle and has to be undone.

Without the shouting and political farting around -- we might find some respect for each other's concerns here. Especially when you discover how deeply I also care about the environment despite my disdain for air-headed leftist eco-nauts.

I'm saving the Yucca Mtn/Marble Statue stuff for a separate thread under Energy or the Environment. I wanted to update it from my notes circa 1998 before posting it to avoid any embarrassement or surprises. But trust me -- those statues radiate more than the EPA standard..

As for the arsenic limits and that quote -- I've provided a source below. I only chose arsenic because I KNOW the science is not settled on that one. In fact, it appears that the EPA spun the wheel of fortune to determine the levels.

http://www.rsc.org/images/scaf0030704_tcm18-9777.pdf

The average
level measured in US groundwater
samples is around 1 ppb, but higher levels
are not uncommon. Compared to the rest
of the US, Western states have more
water systems with levels exceeding 10
ppb, and levels exceed 50 ppb in some
locations. Levels exceeding 10 ppb are
also found in parts of the Midwest and
New England. According to EPA, 5.5%
of water systems, serving 11 million
people, exceed the 10 ppb level.

EPA’s revision of the arsenic rule has
been hugely controversial. Critics say
there is little evidence as to whether
significant adverse health effects occur
from ingesting arsenic at very low levels,
and consequently the costs of the new
rule for the American public utilities is
not justified.10 Indeed, the NRC report
stated: “No human studies of sufficient
statistical power or scope have examined
whether consumption of arsenic in
drinking water at the current MCL [50
ppb] results in an increased incidence of
cancer or noncancer effects.” Subsequent
studies, reviewed at the time of the 2001
reappraisal, failed to fill this gap.

The most contentious point in the
scientific debate has been the assumption
that the toxicity of arsenic increases
linearly (i.e. uniformly) in proportion to
increases in its concentration.10,11
Virtually all known toxicological
processes follow a sublinear model–i.e.
increases in cancer risk are negligible at
low doses. Critics say the NRC accepted
that only sublinear models were plausible
but was forced to opt for the linear model
instead because it could not agree on
which sublinear model was correct. This,
they claim, led to a conclusion in favour
of a lower arsenic standard that was not
supported by the science.

Happy now?? -- I'm NOT a REPUB. In fact a pox on both parties. And if the eco-left simply wants to constantly neglect science and reason in order to get their way all the time -- then they are no more environmentalists than their arch rivals..

 

[Si modo]

How is a legislative process, which gives local governments the ability to control what is in thier borders undemocratic?

Because Chicken Little wouldn't get any attention if s/he didn't say the sky were falling.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

I believe there should be room for debate on strictly local anomalies. But tell me WHY should we believe THAT is the intent of the Republican legislation? These are the same people calling for the EPA to be abolished, so if they can't abolish it, they can try to castrate it. These are also the same people who consistently make the list of the Dirty Dozen by the League of Conservation Voters.

BTW, where is the link to your article? And provide documentation on your radiation standards for Yucca Mtn accusation.

Well that debate is certainly not welcome by your radical eco-left pals because they have funds to raise and partisian fires to light. Particularly the ones who won't be happy til the population of mankind is trimmed to their liking. So where DOES rationality and science get considered? You've now seen how these issues become an IDENTICAL shouting match between partisians. Doesn't matter what the topic is -- it will end up in an attempt to impeach sources (like I did with pointing out the OP was written by R. Kennedy, because I like to toss bombs into discussions that have turned into partisian pissing matches) OR -- your guys did it first, OR -- you really don't want clean ____ because you're willing to accept some level of risk or contamination. Therefore you are poisoning the earth for spite.

I believe as the reliable half-cocked RDean put it "... so Republicans LIKE filth".

People like me who make science and engineering an entire belief system really don't want to have a lot to do with y'all. Except when it becomes neccessary to correct some govt overreach that one side or the other has managed to finagle and has to be undone.

Without the shouting and political farting around -- we might find some respect for each other's concerns here. Especially when you discover how deeply I also care about the environment despite my disdain for air-headed leftist eco-nauts.

I'm saving the Yucca Mtn/Marble Statue stuff for a separate thread under Energy or the Environment. I wanted to update it from my notes circa 1998 before posting it to avoid any embarrassement or surprises. But trust me -- those statues radiate more than the EPA standard..

As for the arsenic limits and that quote -- I've provided a source below. I only chose arsenic because I KNOW the science is not settled on that one. In fact, it appears that the EPA spun the wheel of fortune to determine the levels.

http://www.rsc.org/images/scaf0030704_tcm18-9777.pdf

The average
level measured in US groundwater
samples is around 1 ppb, but higher levels
are not uncommon. Compared to the rest
of the US, Western states have more
water systems with levels exceeding 10
ppb, and levels exceed 50 ppb in some
locations. Levels exceeding 10 ppb are
also found in parts of the Midwest and
New England. According to EPA, 5.5%
of water systems, serving 11 million
people, exceed the 10 ppb level.

EPA’s revision of the arsenic rule has
been hugely controversial. Critics say
there is little evidence as to whether
significant adverse health effects occur
from ingesting arsenic at very low levels,
and consequently the costs of the new
rule for the American public utilities is
not justified.10 Indeed, the NRC report
stated: “No human studies of sufficient
statistical power or scope have examined
whether consumption of arsenic in
drinking water at the current MCL [50
ppb] results in an increased incidence of
cancer or noncancer effects.” Subsequent
studies, reviewed at the time of the 2001
reappraisal, failed to fill this gap.

The most contentious point in the
scientific debate has been the assumption
that the toxicity of arsenic increases
linearly (i.e. uniformly) in proportion to
increases in its concentration.10,11
Virtually all known toxicological
processes follow a sublinear model–i.e.
increases in cancer risk are negligible at
low doses. Critics say the NRC accepted
that only sublinear models were plausible
but was forced to opt for the linear model
instead because it could not agree on
which sublinear model was correct. This,
they claim, led to a conclusion in favour
of a lower arsenic standard that was not
supported by the science.

Happy now?? -- I'm NOT a REPUB. In fact a pox on both parties. And if the eco-left simply wants to constantly neglect science and reason in order to get their way all the time -- then they are no more environmentalists than their arch rivals..

Did you READ your own link Einstein?

In developing standards, EPA is required
to set a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL), defined as the maximum
allowable concentration using the best available
technology, treatment or other
means, and taking costs into consideration.
EPA’s cost determinations are
typically based on costs to systems
servicing more than 50 000 people. Less
than 2% of community water systems are
this large, but they serve roughly 56%
of the population served by community
systems. The smallest systems, those
serving fewer than 3300 people, will be
exempt from the new standard for up to
9 years and EPA has announced financial
assistance to help them comply with this
and other SDWA rules.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:::

Yeah -- I read that part.. How many of the 11 million people above 10ppm are on those small systems?

And the 9 year exemption seems to run out (coincidentally) by my calculations this year..
Could be ... -- that's why the bill is there.. That might make sense.. That exemptions like that one are just now coming due and up til now -- the states could ignore them or set a lower priority..

And who cares if the FEDs are gonna kick in a few percent or a free loan? We're talking about the SCIENTIFIC NEED to declare a limit that low..