Anyone know anything about the environmental group suing the Bush administration over arsenic in our drinking water?
Arsenic in Drinking Water
- Thread starter novon
- Start date
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I know that the crummy town I live in (Norman, OK) has the highest level of arsenic in its drinking water of any city in America.
It would cost too much for businesses to keep the water arsnic free. It's better to let people die. The ones that will get hit the hardest are the poor who live where the water is the worst and can't affort filters of bottled water, so you just get rid of the worst of society mostly anyway. In politics you have to be reasonable.
<< It would cost too much for businesses to keep the water arsnic free. It's better to let people die. The ones that will get hit the hardest are the poor who live where the water is the worst and can't affort filters of bottled water, so you just get rid of the worst of society mostly anyway. In politics you have to be reasonable. >>
MOONBEAM YOU ARE A FOOL.
However are there people dieing or even getting sick?
The cost to get arsenic free is astronomical! Remember there are ALLOWIBLE amounts of rat droppings allowed in food.
ARSENIC in SMALL amounts is no real threat.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
<< I know that the crummy town I live in (Norman, OK) has the highest level of arsenic in its drinking water of any city in America. >>
Yes, but if you would read the whole report you would find that it said that Norman's water is still WAAAAAY below the allowable limit of arsenic in drinking water.
Arsenic has been in the water supply since the beginning. Has anyone gotten their panties in a wad about it before? No! Why are they now? Because the Bush Administration overturned an excutive order that Clinton signed in his last days as President. He signed it without any good reason, without scientific data to back his decision, and I believe as a way to thumb his nose at the incoming administration.
Thats pretty funny, Bush is just doing what Congress told Clinton to do in 2000, wait for further studies. Even the head honcho democrats in the Senate voted to wait for further studies to see if lowering the levels would do anything. But the main reason is it was cost prohibitive. The current arsenic aren't killing people.
Read the story,then decide what is right and what is wrong.
Shinerburke,BS. Who fed you that crap? Rush? :disgust:
Shinerburke,BS. Who fed you that crap? Rush? :disgust:
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Where's the BS? Where did I get my info? Well...I live in Oklahoma and I saw the story on 2 different news stations here back when the report about Norman, etc.. first came out. They had the head of the Oklahoma Enviromental Protection Agency on and he was talking about how the report was very misleading.
Gee...the arsenic levels have been set at that level since 1942....wonder why it's just now becoming a big story? Ohh...silly me I know why...it's just another excuse to paint Bush as anti-enviromentalist.
C'mon is going from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion really going to make that much difference?
Gee...the arsenic levels have been set at that level since 1942....wonder why it's just now becoming a big story? Ohh...silly me I know why...it's just another excuse to paint Bush as anti-enviromentalist.
C'mon is going from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion really going to make that much difference?
Brookings Institute
"We find that the rule probably will result in a net loss of life. The direct effect of the rule will be to save about ten lives annually in the future. After taking into account the indirect impacts of the cost of the rule on items like health care expenditures, however, we find that the rule is likely to result in a net loss of about ten lives annually.
A question that the rule does not examine carefully is whether other regulatory alternatives could result in positive net benefits. We explore the option of targeting specific water systems and find that this strategy is unlikely to be very helpful. Instead of regulating more stringently now, the agency should wait until more information becomes available over the next few years. Such a strategy would have the advantage of avoiding large capital expenditures until the time that evidence suggests that risks posed by arsenic in drinking water are significant."
.msn.com
They(Bush administration) emphasize that the new arsenic standard was only suspended to permit further study, that it wouldn't have gone into effect for five years anyhow, and that they aren't trying to defend the current standard of 50 parts per billion. only questioning whether the Clinton administration's standard of 10 parts per billion is too stringent.
Any more questions?
edit/
Don_Vito, as happy as you will be to leave Oklahoma, the Okies will be even happier to see you go.
"We find that the rule probably will result in a net loss of life. The direct effect of the rule will be to save about ten lives annually in the future. After taking into account the indirect impacts of the cost of the rule on items like health care expenditures, however, we find that the rule is likely to result in a net loss of about ten lives annually.
A question that the rule does not examine carefully is whether other regulatory alternatives could result in positive net benefits. We explore the option of targeting specific water systems and find that this strategy is unlikely to be very helpful. Instead of regulating more stringently now, the agency should wait until more information becomes available over the next few years. Such a strategy would have the advantage of avoiding large capital expenditures until the time that evidence suggests that risks posed by arsenic in drinking water are significant."
.msn.com
They(Bush administration) emphasize that the new arsenic standard was only suspended to permit further study, that it wouldn't have gone into effect for five years anyhow, and that they aren't trying to defend the current standard of 50 parts per billion. only questioning whether the Clinton administration's standard of 10 parts per billion is too stringent.
Any more questions?
edit/
Don_Vito, as happy as you will be to leave Oklahoma, the Okies will be even happier to see you go.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
What is arsenic?
(Pronounced ar' se-nik)
Arsenic is found in nature at low levels. It's mostly in compounds with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur. These are called inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic in plants and animals combines with carbon and hydrogen. This is called organic arsenic. Organic arsenic is usually less harmful than inorganic arsenic.
Most arsenic compounds have no smell or special taste.
Inorganic arsenic compounds are mainly used to preserve wood. They are also used to make insecticides and weed killers. You can check the labels of treated wood and insecticides to see if they contain arsenic.
Copper and lead ores contain small amounts of arsenic.
What happens to arsenic when it enters the environment?
It doesn't evaporate.
Most arsenic compounds can dissolve in water.
It gets into air when contaminated materials are burned.
It settles from the air to the ground.
It doesn't break down, but can change from one form to another.
Fish and shellfish build up organic arsenic in their tissues, but most of the arsenic in fish isn't toxic.
How might I be exposed to arsenic?
Breathing sawdust or burning smoke from wood containing arsenic
Breathing workplace air
Ingesting contaminated water, soil, or air at waste sites
Ingesting contaminated water, soil, or air near areas naturally high in arsenic
How can arsenic affect my health?
Inorganic arsenic is a human poison. Organic arsenic is less harmful.
High levels of inorganic arsenic in food or water can be fatal. A high level is 60 parts of arsenic per million parts of food or water (60 ppm). Arsenic damages many tissues including nerves, stomach and intestines, and skin. Breathing high levels can give you a sore throat and irritated lungs.
Lower levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic may cause:
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea
Decreased production of red and white blood cells
Abnormal heart rhythm
Blood vessel damage
A "pins and needles" sensation in hands and feet
Long term exposure to inorganic arsenic may lead to a darkening of the skin and the appearance of small "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso.
Direct skin contact may cause redness and swelling.
How likely is arsenic to cause cancer?
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that arsenic is a known carcinogen. Breathing inorganic arsenic increases the risk of lung cancer. Ingesting inorganic arsenic increases the risk of skin cancer and tumors of the bladder, kidney, liver, and lung.
Is there a medical test to show whether I've been exposed to arsenic?
Tests can measure your exposure to high levels of arsenic. These tests are not routinely performed in a doctor's office.
Arsenic can be measured in your urine. This is the most reliable test for arsenic exposure. Since arsenic stays in the body only short time, you must have the test soon after exposure.
Tests on hair or fingernails can measure your exposure to highlevels of arsenic over the past 6-12 months. These tests are not very useful for low level exposures.
These tests do not predict whether you will have any harmful health effects.
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits on the amount of arsenic that industrial sources can release. It restricted or canceled many uses of arsenic in pesticides and may restrict more. EPA set a limit of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) for arsenic in drinking water. EPA may lower this further.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a maximum permissible exposure limit for workplace airborne arsenic of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³).
Glossary
Carcinogen:
Substance that can cause cancer.
Ingesting:
Taking food or drink into your body.
PPM:
Parts per million.
Microgram (µg):
One millionth of a gram.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Case studies in environmental medicine: Arsenic toxicity. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
SUMMARY: Exposure to higher than average levels of arsenic happens mostly in the workplace, near hazardous waste sites, or in areas with high natural levels. Arsenic is a powerful poison. At high levels, it can cause death or illness. This chemical has been found in at least 781 of 1.300 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Hmmm...guess we need to all stop going to work since that's where most arsenic poisoning occurs. Why isn't the Bush Administration doing anything about arsenic in the workplace? I'm outraged!!!!!
Ok...not really...my main concern daily is actually whether or not the damn blue hair I got stuck behind going to work is going to cause a wreck that kills me because she is driving so damn slow.
(Pronounced ar' se-nik)
Arsenic is found in nature at low levels. It's mostly in compounds with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur. These are called inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic in plants and animals combines with carbon and hydrogen. This is called organic arsenic. Organic arsenic is usually less harmful than inorganic arsenic.
Most arsenic compounds have no smell or special taste.
Inorganic arsenic compounds are mainly used to preserve wood. They are also used to make insecticides and weed killers. You can check the labels of treated wood and insecticides to see if they contain arsenic.
Copper and lead ores contain small amounts of arsenic.
What happens to arsenic when it enters the environment?
It doesn't evaporate.
Most arsenic compounds can dissolve in water.
It gets into air when contaminated materials are burned.
It settles from the air to the ground.
It doesn't break down, but can change from one form to another.
Fish and shellfish build up organic arsenic in their tissues, but most of the arsenic in fish isn't toxic.
How might I be exposed to arsenic?
Breathing sawdust or burning smoke from wood containing arsenic
Breathing workplace air
Ingesting contaminated water, soil, or air at waste sites
Ingesting contaminated water, soil, or air near areas naturally high in arsenic
How can arsenic affect my health?
Inorganic arsenic is a human poison. Organic arsenic is less harmful.
High levels of inorganic arsenic in food or water can be fatal. A high level is 60 parts of arsenic per million parts of food or water (60 ppm). Arsenic damages many tissues including nerves, stomach and intestines, and skin. Breathing high levels can give you a sore throat and irritated lungs.
Lower levels of exposure to inorganic arsenic may cause:
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea
Decreased production of red and white blood cells
Abnormal heart rhythm
Blood vessel damage
A "pins and needles" sensation in hands and feet
Long term exposure to inorganic arsenic may lead to a darkening of the skin and the appearance of small "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso.
Direct skin contact may cause redness and swelling.
How likely is arsenic to cause cancer?
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that arsenic is a known carcinogen. Breathing inorganic arsenic increases the risk of lung cancer. Ingesting inorganic arsenic increases the risk of skin cancer and tumors of the bladder, kidney, liver, and lung.
Is there a medical test to show whether I've been exposed to arsenic?
Tests can measure your exposure to high levels of arsenic. These tests are not routinely performed in a doctor's office.
Arsenic can be measured in your urine. This is the most reliable test for arsenic exposure. Since arsenic stays in the body only short time, you must have the test soon after exposure.
Tests on hair or fingernails can measure your exposure to highlevels of arsenic over the past 6-12 months. These tests are not very useful for low level exposures.
These tests do not predict whether you will have any harmful health effects.
Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits on the amount of arsenic that industrial sources can release. It restricted or canceled many uses of arsenic in pesticides and may restrict more. EPA set a limit of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) for arsenic in drinking water. EPA may lower this further.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a maximum permissible exposure limit for workplace airborne arsenic of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³).
Glossary
Carcinogen:
Substance that can cause cancer.
Ingesting:
Taking food or drink into your body.
PPM:
Parts per million.
Microgram (µg):
One millionth of a gram.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993. Case studies in environmental medicine: Arsenic toxicity. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
SUMMARY: Exposure to higher than average levels of arsenic happens mostly in the workplace, near hazardous waste sites, or in areas with high natural levels. Arsenic is a powerful poison. At high levels, it can cause death or illness. This chemical has been found in at least 781 of 1.300 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Hmmm...guess we need to all stop going to work since that's where most arsenic poisoning occurs. Why isn't the Bush Administration doing anything about arsenic in the workplace? I'm outraged!!!!!
Ok...not really...my main concern daily is actually whether or not the damn blue hair I got stuck behind going to work is going to cause a wreck that kills me because she is driving so damn slow.
>>C'mon is going from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion really going to make that much difference? <<
I'm not a scientist and I don't think you are either. But Scientists did make the determination it was better to reduce the amount of permisable arsnic in the drinking water all over the US. Most sane people would welcome that. You,on the otherhand,choose to ignore good advice and claim its an attempt by Dems to smear Bush. WTF?
This is a suit against the EPA. Where does this become a smear on Bush? Unless he is the person responsible for removing the EPA restrictions,a political arguement should not be played here.
A safe drinking water shoulsd be the arguement. If you like brain dead people and higher than normal cancer rates from drinking your tap water in Norman, good for you. Your children must love you for being so concerned about their health and welfare.
Good grief. Be sensible man. This is in your best interest. Its should not be a political football.
I'm not a scientist and I don't think you are either. But Scientists did make the determination it was better to reduce the amount of permisable arsnic in the drinking water all over the US. Most sane people would welcome that. You,on the otherhand,choose to ignore good advice and claim its an attempt by Dems to smear Bush. WTF?
This is a suit against the EPA. Where does this become a smear on Bush? Unless he is the person responsible for removing the EPA restrictions,a political arguement should not be played here. A safe drinking water shoulsd be the arguement. If you like brain dead people and higher than normal cancer rates from drinking your tap water in Norman, good for you. Your children must love you for being so concerned about their health and welfare.
Good grief. Be sensible man. This is in your best interest. Its should not be a political football.
Clinton was an ass. He was always trying to pass legislation that would help people at the expense of business and people with money. It's a vast left wing conspiracy. They had to suspend the law to give people time to forget about it.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
1. I don't live in Norman
2. No kids
Norman is in western Oklahoma where there happens to be a lot of sulfur, copper, and iron in the soil. Drive across there and you can see the red in the soil. The arsenic levels there are mostly from natural sources(something the head of the Oklahoma EPA said) and is thus less dangerous.
Am I concerend about safe drinking water? Sure I am but there comes a point where more regulations are useless and really serve no purpose.
I can't remember the town name, but there was a small town in Alaska that got it's drinking water straight from a glacier melt lake. Well being glacier melt this water was about as pure as you could get. The EPA came in and started fining the town because they were not cleaning enough pollutants out of the water according to EPA minimum standards. The EPA refused to take into account that this was glacial water and continued to fine the city. Finally in order to clean enough contaminants from the water supply the town had to start dumping the waste for the fishery into the lake so that they could then clean the water of enough pollutants to satisfy the EPA.
2. No kids
Norman is in western Oklahoma where there happens to be a lot of sulfur, copper, and iron in the soil. Drive across there and you can see the red in the soil. The arsenic levels there are mostly from natural sources(something the head of the Oklahoma EPA said) and is thus less dangerous.
Am I concerend about safe drinking water? Sure I am but there comes a point where more regulations are useless and really serve no purpose.
I can't remember the town name, but there was a small town in Alaska that got it's drinking water straight from a glacier melt lake. Well being glacier melt this water was about as pure as you could get. The EPA came in and started fining the town because they were not cleaning enough pollutants out of the water according to EPA minimum standards. The EPA refused to take into account that this was glacial water and continued to fine the city. Finally in order to clean enough contaminants from the water supply the town had to start dumping the waste for the fishery into the lake so that they could then clean the water of enough pollutants to satisfy the EPA.
Being sensible is doing a cost benefit analysis.
The ones I have seen show that the money spent reducing arsenic to 10 parts per million would outweigh the benefits. That money could be better spent on policies that would save more lives then this.
More study needs to be done. Perhaps 25 ppm would give the benifits without a higher cost.
Bush administration is proposing proving that the huge costs incurred will actually be benificial and the best place to spend the dollars.
Don't throw the money away until the benifits are proven.
The ones I have seen show that the money spent reducing arsenic to 10 parts per million would outweigh the benefits. That money could be better spent on policies that would save more lives then this.
More study needs to be done. Perhaps 25 ppm would give the benifits without a higher cost.
Bush administration is proposing proving that the huge costs incurred will actually be benificial and the best place to spend the dollars.
Don't throw the money away until the benifits are proven.
>>Being sensible is doing a cost benefit analysis. <<
Isn't that the same anology that has the two sides arguing about HMO's? Something analagous to having an accountant determine weather you live or die?
No wonder republicans are getting a bad rap. This kind of thinking is just plain stupid.
Health issues should be at arms lenghth form the corprate boardroom. They are part of the problem,not the solution.
Isn't that the same anology that has the two sides arguing about HMO's? Something analagous to having an accountant determine weather you live or die?
No wonder republicans are getting a bad rap. This kind of thinking is just plain stupid.
Health issues should be at arms lenghth form the corprate boardroom. They are part of the problem,not the solution.
We need more arsenic in our drinking water.
That will help us solve the social security crisis
J/K.
That will help us solve the social security crisis
J/K.
It is much better to wait until the benefits are proven. Tons of money can be saved by getting the think tanks to obfuscate the issue, buying scientists to show that it's harmless, and dragging the issue out ad infinitum. If you can do a good enough job on that data nobody will die. It will show that right there in the data.
Tripleshot are you trying to make all democrats look stupid?
Try reading the information at this link again or more possibly for the first time.
Brookings Institute on Aresenic
Let me know what words you are having trouble understanding, I'll explain them to you.
Try reading the information at this link again or more possibly for the first time.
Brookings Institute on Aresenic
Let me know what words you are having trouble understanding, I'll explain them to you.
THe net effect of the moritorium on the change in standard is ZERO so far. What is the harm in checking to be sure that Clinton wasn't high on pot when he set the standard?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter