Re: Precautionary principle

[Maury Siskel <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

Ruth, this column by Prather:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22616

which was cited by Jim Muckerheide furnishes one parsimonious account

of the EPA interest in arsenic. For the EPA, I believe that

"precautionary ..."  in this regard is irrelevant.  EPA made a clever

beginning with the distortions in  Carson's Silent Spring and the

agency has continued to learn and grow to the monstrosity that we face

today. Data did not deter them then, and data certainly are no

deterrent to them today.



RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:



> My point exactly: the :\"benefit" is calculated using the LNT theory

> (and in

> the arsenic-in-drinking-water case it isn't even appropriate because

> ingested

> arsenic is not a canrcinogen and has a pretty well understood

> threshold.  The

> cost is very well understood.  this is one of those common-sense

> cases.  The

> community has been drinking this water for >60 years, or even much

> longer

> (and for the last 30 we knew te arsenic concentration was< 50 ppm).

> EPA has

> ponly to consider the community health statistics.

>

> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

> ruthweiner@aol.com



-----------------  not snipped 'cuz I think the connection here is

significant ----------------------



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.