Printable View
Do you know how many 'remotely poisonous' substances are in drinking water? If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Detection technology for chemicals in water is phenomenal; very, very small quantities, measure in parts per billion or trillion, can be detected. If you didn't drink any water that had the slightest bit of bad substances in them, you'd never drink any water.
CR
Yes. I also drink filtered water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Two peer-reviewed articles isn't enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If they were to get to the levels where they could put anyone's life in danger, then they should be removed from water and the water content should be regulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Private Industry is very important
The quality of the water (most of us) drink is far more important
By quality i mean lack of pollutants and poisons...
Any idea how many substances aren't removed by a carbon filter? Perchlorate, for example. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Which is why the Government needs to step in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Which is what this topic is about , the newer studies with more extensive research than those you and Xiahou posted have a strong suggestion that the safe levels are much lower than was previously thought and need new stronger regulation not an exemption from regulation .:idea2:Quote:
If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.
*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---* Thread resurrection starts here *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
Endangered species protection or not is not the issue here. The issue is the style of the Bush administrations.Quote:
Report: Politics corroded Bush decisions on endangered species
· Report says Bush administration official bullied scientists
· Committee critical of handling of endangered species act
· Politics played a role in 20 endangered species decisions
Politics corroded Bush administration decisions on protecting endangered species in regions nationwide, federal investigators have concluded in a sweeping new report. Former interior department official Julie MacDonald frequently bullied career scientists to reduce species protections, the interior department investigators found.
"The results of this investigation paint a picture of something akin to a secret society residing within the interior department that was colluding to undermine the protection of endangered wildlife and covering for one another's misdeeds,"
Its decisions are not based on sincere scientific reports. On the contrary, political decisions are imposed on scientific findings.
It is all remarkably similar to what happened during the run-up to the Iraq war: fake reports, invented 'facts', bullying of those with conflicting findings.
It borders on the obscene. For one, one can not trust the word of the US government for anything anymore. Not since the Soviets made perennial lying and deceit their trademark, has a government of a developed nation made such a mockery of politically independent scientific results.
"The results of this investigation paint a picture of something akin to a secret society residing within the interior department that was colluding to undermine the protection of endangered wildlife and covering for one another's misdeeds,"
Now I know you are a frog Luigi but common this has PETA written all over it.
Quod non.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
This is about Julie MacDonald, former interior minister under Bush. She already resigned in 2007 after an internal investigation found that she had tampered with scientific findings and violated federal rules by giving government documents to oil industry and property rights lobbyists.
A full report about it has now been published. It is damning in the extreme.
What is so damning about it? The tampering with science is. Bush is quite open in his policies: a full War on the Environment. Fine. If the American electorate wishes to undo in eight years all the efforts their ancestors made in the previous hundred years to protect America's stunning National Parks, then fine.
But...at stake is the science and honesty of this War on the Environment. It is frought with lies, deceit, corruption. And deliberate anti-science. Nonsense non-science.
Special interest groups have bought America's government. This government, Bush, has next abused its power to silence independent science.
The result is that America's national treasures have been sold for a pittance to businesses closely associated with the Bush administration. Here's Wikipedia, for a brief synopsis:
The report. It is not a PETA or lobby group report. It is from the Inspector General Earl Devaney. It confirms the allegations, in no uncertain terms, that led to MacDonald's resignation last year.Quote:
MacDonald is the deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior. That is, the one responsible for them.
On 30 October, 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that advocates scientific integrity, alleged that McDonald had "personally reversed scientific findings, changed scientific conclusions to prevent endangered species from receiving protection, removed relevant information from a scientific document, and ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt her edits."
According to the Inspector General, "MacDonald has been heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field."
MacDonald resigned on 1 May, 2007, one week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on the Inspector General's findings.
In November 2007, a followup report by the Inspector General found that MacDonald could have benefited financially from a decision to remove the Sacramento splittail fish from the federal endangered species list.
The Washington Post called the events leading to MacDonald's resignation "the latest in a series of controversies in which government officials and outside scientists have accused the Bush administration of overriding or setting aside scientific findings that clashed with its political agenda."[9] In the aftermath of her departure, many endangered species designation denials which had been issued during her tenure were reversed.
a full War on the Environment.
Now I do understand that I kinda deserved that, but isn't that taking it little far?
Sorry, the harshness of my words wasn't meant for you, my dearest. ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
My choice for the phrase War on the Environment is quite deliberate. It and the War on Terror are both fought with the same means: misinformation, lies, deceit and intimidation. With the same disastrous result. The difference is, that Bush has been rather less succesful in weeding out terrorists than America's natural treasures.
Bush does not simply state that he will give preference to the industrial interests of befriended businesses over the American environment and the health and safety of the American people. It is far more devious and perverse than that.
The Bush administration doesn't simply pass environmentally unfriendly legislation. It simply orders a 'scientific' report that will state that species X is no longer endagered, or that mining in nature reserve Y has no detrimental effect on the environment. Next, with these 'scientific' results in hand, the administration grants mining concessions. Who needs new legislation? :idea2:
African dictators would be embarrassed about a scheme like this. This is how mining corporations operate in the Congo. You buy a president, you buy a scientific report, and presto. :no:
Bush' concessions and legislation have usually been based on 'proven and scientific fact' that they have no detrimental effect on health and nature. Alas, the full scale of the Bush administration's involvement with faked, political science is now becoming clear. It is a complete disgrace. A mockery of democracy and science alike.
edit huh what sorry drunk
If we can't trust the independence and validity of science, what can we trust?
Human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach