martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,009
- 34,341
- 2,300
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.
EPAs 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 modeli.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.
EPAs 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.
Costs for upgrades to treatment plants go beyond just the initial captial costs. Operating costs increase as complexity goes up, and this cost is passed onto consumers. By making rules that may not have an actual benefit for the cost you are not only needlessly making a process more complex, but you are using funds that could be better put to use in other areas of the plant.
Making a water treatment plant too complex due to overreaching on the standards is a waste of money.