George W. & Arsenic
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
THE REAL STORY ON ARSENIC IN YOUR WATER
At first, it sounded pretty damming. George W. Bush had 86ed an EPA regulation further limiting the amount of arsenic that could legally be found in America’s drinking water.
For people who don’t bother to look beyond the sensational headlines, this sounds mighty bad indeed! Everybody knows that arsenic is poisonous! Everybody knows that you can die from arsenic poisoning! Why, it’s absolutely outrageous that President Bush would do such a thing! He’s a madman!
OK --- here goes. So everybody knows that arsenic is poison, right? Fine. Do you also know that arsenic is found naturally in broccoli and other vegetables? Do you know that most ground water already contains arsenic? Did you know that at low levels arsenic is virtually harmless to the human body?
Here’s what happened. The National Academy of Sciences issues a report saying that there is too much arsenic in America’s water supply. The EPA follows suit with a new regulation lowering the permissible arsenic in our water supply form 50ppb (parts per billion) to 10ppb.
Fine. Now --- what would this cost, and how many lives would it save?
Cost? The water industry says it would cost about $6 billion in immediate capital outlays and about $600 million a year from then on.
That cost should be no factor, though, if huge numbers of lives could be saved. So, what’s the toll in saved souls? The EPA says that by reducing the arsenic level in water we’re going to statistically save about 28 lives per year.
Whenever you talk about saving lives through regulation you ought to pay a little attention to just how much each one of those saved lives would cost. We could, for instance, save the lives of a lot of airline passengers if each passenger could be encased in an escape pod with automatic fire suppression systems and a decent parachute in case of a disaster. The cost, though, would be absolutely prohibitive. The EPA realizes this and has suggested a figure of “cost per statistical life saved” for its regulations. That figure is around $4 million.
So, what would the cost-per-life-saved be of these new EPA arsenic regulations? OK, --- get your official Clark Howard calculator out. The new arsenic regs would save about 28 lives per year at a cost of $65 million per life. That’s over 16 times the EPA’s own suggest threshold limit!
So --- now that you’ve learned a bit more, does Bush’s rejection of the new EPA standards sound so horrible?
So – why does this work so well? Who can Democrats, union goons, and mental midgets like Barbra Streisand succeed so wildly in demonizing George W. for a decision that actually makes sense? Easy, because the decision doesn’t make sense UNTIL the facts are known. Facts … poison to the left and the liberal mental process.
At first, it sounded pretty damming. George W. Bush had 86ed an EPA regulation further limiting the amount of arsenic that could legally be found in America’s drinking water.
For people who don’t bother to look beyond the sensational headlines, this sounds mighty bad indeed! Everybody knows that arsenic is poisonous! Everybody knows that you can die from arsenic poisoning! Why, it’s absolutely outrageous that President Bush would do such a thing! He’s a madman!
OK --- here goes. So everybody knows that arsenic is poison, right? Fine. Do you also know that arsenic is found naturally in broccoli and other vegetables? Do you know that most ground water already contains arsenic? Did you know that at low levels arsenic is virtually harmless to the human body?
Here’s what happened. The National Academy of Sciences issues a report saying that there is too much arsenic in America’s water supply. The EPA follows suit with a new regulation lowering the permissible arsenic in our water supply form 50ppb (parts per billion) to 10ppb.
Fine. Now --- what would this cost, and how many lives would it save?
Cost? The water industry says it would cost about $6 billion in immediate capital outlays and about $600 million a year from then on.
That cost should be no factor, though, if huge numbers of lives could be saved. So, what’s the toll in saved souls? The EPA says that by reducing the arsenic level in water we’re going to statistically save about 28 lives per year.
Whenever you talk about saving lives through regulation you ought to pay a little attention to just how much each one of those saved lives would cost. We could, for instance, save the lives of a lot of airline passengers if each passenger could be encased in an escape pod with automatic fire suppression systems and a decent parachute in case of a disaster. The cost, though, would be absolutely prohibitive. The EPA realizes this and has suggested a figure of “cost per statistical life saved” for its regulations. That figure is around $4 million.
So, what would the cost-per-life-saved be of these new EPA arsenic regulations? OK, --- get your official Clark Howard calculator out. The new arsenic regs would save about 28 lives per year at a cost of $65 million per life. That’s over 16 times the EPA’s own suggest threshold limit!
So --- now that you’ve learned a bit more, does Bush’s rejection of the new EPA standards sound so horrible?
So – why does this work so well? Who can Democrats, union goons, and mental midgets like Barbra Streisand succeed so wildly in demonizing George W. for a decision that actually makes sense? Easy, because the decision doesn’t make sense UNTIL the facts are known. Facts … poison to the left and the liberal mental process.
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
He is keeping the arsenic level the same as it was for the 8 years of Clinton until more research can be done to find an acceptable level based on science. It was one of those last minute Clinton slimes that would perhaps save a few lives at the expense of 5 billion dollars. Makes for good Liberal spin though. I expect a lower standard to come out. Just not the 80% reduction.
lavender said:
From what I understand at the current acceptable levels of arsenic 50ppb is not leading to a whole lot of medical complications or illnesses that don't lead to death. But if you can find statisics other wise i will acknowledge them and apologize for any insensitivity
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
lavender said:
In an ideal world it would be reduced to 0. Along with a 20 dollar minimum wage, free health care, free college. Not to mention a Chinese Red Army that would sit around the campfire with us and sing Kum by ya my Lord.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,696
Now let's think about this...what would be the purpose in raising the arsenic level? He's not abolishing the limit, so the "less government" argument is hogwash. How does raising the arsenic standard make the US a safer, better place to live? Well, it doesn't. No rational person would say, "Hey, I think we should have MORE poison in our drinking water!" There's only one group of people in the US that wants the standard raised: mining companies, for selfish and greedy reasons. And who do you think was a big contributor to Bush's campaign? Yep, you guessed it - Mining Companies! Wow, quite a coincidence, don't you think?
By tearing down all the environmental policy he can get his hands on, GW is sacrificing our health and the beauty of our great country as payback to the corporations who paid his way. All estimates I've seen say that the raised standard will result in 'only' extra 3 deaths a year. "Only" 3 deaths! So basically, we're sacrificing 3 people a year so that Bush can pay back those who funded his campaign. I just hope that those 3 people aren't related to you people...I think your position would be a LITTLE different...
By tearing down all the environmental policy he can get his hands on, GW is sacrificing our health and the beauty of our great country as payback to the corporations who paid his way. All estimates I've seen say that the raised standard will result in 'only' extra 3 deaths a year. "Only" 3 deaths! So basically, we're sacrificing 3 people a year so that Bush can pay back those who funded his campaign. I just hope that those 3 people aren't related to you people...I think your position would be a LITTLE different...
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
Now let's think about this...
Clinton's first priority was Gays in the military. Only after he left office would the arsenic restrictions gone into place. That's a long long 8 years not to address arsenic don't you think?
8 years... count em...
Clinton's first priority was Gays in the military. Only after he left office would the arsenic restrictions gone into place. That's a long long 8 years not to address arsenic don't you think?
8 years... count em...
No where did it say he is raising the arsenic levels he simply vetoed the lowering of the arsenic levels. Is that more Democratic Spin Laurel 
? As Writerdom said I never heard the democrats whining about arsenic for the 8 years Clinton {a democrat } was in office. Pot ... Kettle ... Black ?
? As Writerdom said I never heard the democrats whining about arsenic for the 8 years Clinton {a democrat } was in office. Pot ... Kettle ... Black ?DevilMayCare
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2001
- Posts
- 521
Congrats Todd
I don't know what you've done young man, but your typing skills have improved phenomenally. Your post above is cogent and well presented. Thanks for the information and attaboy on the typing and composition.
And Laurel, without defending GW, he isn't increasing permissible levels of arsenic, he's simply not implementing changes in regs proposed by the Clinton administration. I hope we can keep our minds open on this subject which so clearly is fraught with polemical possibilities.
I don't know what you've done young man, but your typing skills have improved phenomenally. Your post above is cogent and well presented. Thanks for the information and attaboy on the typing and composition.
And Laurel, without defending GW, he isn't increasing permissible levels of arsenic, he's simply not implementing changes in regs proposed by the Clinton administration. I hope we can keep our minds open on this subject which so clearly is fraught with polemical possibilities.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Re: Congrats Todd
(pppst! It's called copy and paste)
DevilMayCare said:I don't know what you've done young man, but your typing skills have improved phenomenally. Your post above is cogent and well presented. Thanks for the information and attaboy on the typing and composition.
And Laurel, without defending GW, he isn't increasing permissible levels of arsenic, he's simply not implementing changes in regs proposed by the Clinton administration. I hope we can keep our minds open on this subject which so clearly is fraught with polemical possibilities.
(pppst! It's called copy and paste)
DevilMayCare
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2001
- Posts
- 521
Re: Re: Congrats Todd
You really know how to wound a guy.
Todd, tell me it isn't so!
Problem Child said:
(pppst! It's called copy and paste)
You really know how to wound a guy.
Todd, tell me it isn't so!
Re: Re: Re: Congrats Todd
It's Not so
But that would be a lie
http://www.boortz.com
DevilMayCare said:
It's Not so
But that would be a lie
http://www.boortz.com
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
DevilMayCare said:And Laurel, without defending GW, he isn't increasing permissible levels of arsenic, he's simply not implementing changes in regs proposed by the Clinton administration. I hope we can keep our minds open on this subject which so clearly is fraught with polemical possibilities.
I wonder just how many of the last minute regulation changes and executive orders Clinto issued as he left office were made simply because he knew GWB would have to overturn them and take the political heat for reversing edicts that shouldn't have been made in the first place?
50ppb of Arsenic in the water system is a standard that has been in place for some time. Lowering it to 10ppb would divert funds from other more urgent tasks that would save far more than 3 lives. It's a standard that is economically unfeasible for the benefit of too few people.
I don't doubt that some of GWB's decisions are going to be driven by his associations with mining and oil interests, but this sure as hell isn't one of them.
DevilMayCare
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2001
- Posts
- 521
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Todd
Problem Child obviously knows you a lot better than I do. He saw through your treachery more quickly than I did. Live and learn, I guess.
Weird Harold - I don't doubt your correct that Billy Boy made an effort to draw some lines in the sand with the intention of causing GW problems. But I imagine those on the left fully expect Bush to disappoint them in a thousand and one ways over the next four years. I think the real question will be whether those in the center who were swayed by a down home good ole boy will like what he has to say on domestic and foreign matters. Time will tell. Judging from the heat generated on this little post, the prospect seems certain to provide board members the chance to wail and shout at one another. I think, however, though dost protest too much regarding Bill. He's gone, get over it.
Todd said:
Problem Child obviously knows you a lot better than I do. He saw through your treachery more quickly than I did. Live and learn, I guess.
Weird Harold - I don't doubt your correct that Billy Boy made an effort to draw some lines in the sand with the intention of causing GW problems. But I imagine those on the left fully expect Bush to disappoint them in a thousand and one ways over the next four years. I think the real question will be whether those in the center who were swayed by a down home good ole boy will like what he has to say on domestic and foreign matters. Time will tell. Judging from the heat generated on this little post, the prospect seems certain to provide board members the chance to wail and shout at one another. I think, however, though dost protest too much regarding Bill. He's gone, get over it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Todd
No treachery intended DevilMayCare. The question was asked about GWB jr. and arsenic I found an answer for the uestion. Hades I am not even an american but I got to watch what my next door neighbour country does cause it effects me. Right now its got me down to about a 50 cent dollar.
DevilMayCare said:Todd said:
Problem Child obviously knows you a lot better than I do. He saw through your treachery more quickly than I did. Live and learn, I guess.
No treachery intended DevilMayCare. The question was asked about GWB jr. and arsenic I found an answer for the uestion. Hades I am not even an american but I got to watch what my next door neighbour country does cause it effects me. Right now its got me down to about a 50 cent dollar.
DevilMayCare
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2001
- Posts
- 521
Todd - A simple citation of where the quote came from would have answered all my questions. I'm sure you weren't trying to deceive us, but including references to sources makes it so much easier to track conversations like this. As I said, the point of view was worth hearing, regardless of the source.
DevilMayCare said:
Yes the point of view was worth hearing but around here is usaully safer when citing conservative, right or center information to cite first and the source afterwards or the citation will never be regarded as worthy if the source is immediately given. Its the way it was, the way it is, the way it will be.
I don't agree with Republicans too often on environmental issues but this one is fairly simple.
The difference in the Arsenic levels is not a big deal. This was a move by Clinton simply to make Bush have to do this and look like a environment hatin' oil man in the process.
The sad thing is that Dubya doesn't need the help. His predictable reversal on CO2 is a big deal. The drilling in Alaska is a big deal.
Arsenic isn't on par with these.
The difference in the Arsenic levels is not a big deal. This was a move by Clinton simply to make Bush have to do this and look like a environment hatin' oil man in the process.
The sad thing is that Dubya doesn't need the help. His predictable reversal on CO2 is a big deal. The drilling in Alaska is a big deal.
Arsenic isn't on par with these.
Similar threads
