Bush Trashing the Environment

[Ice]

Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

[Xiahou]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Not quiet, it was just the logical extension of what you said. Everything is poisonous- it's all a matter of dosage. Until we know what the proper levels are for anything, it should be banned. Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?

What determines whether something should be banned until proven safe?

[CountArach]

Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.

[Xiahou]

Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.

Water is poisonous. We should probably ban it until we can determine the what, if any, levels are safe.

Perchlorate could use some form of monitoring, sure- but it's also a naturally occurring substance that has uses in medicine. EWG throwing around labels like "neurotoxin", just makes me roll my eyes. And I'm certainly glad that the EPA's initial guidance of 1ppb never made it into any sort of binding regulation. Where on earth did they get that? It's like they pulled it out of the air.

A new report by the National Academies' National Research Council on the health effects of perchlorate, a chemical that in high doses can decrease thyroid function in humans and that is present in many public drinking-water supplies, says daily ingestion of up to 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight can occur without adversely affecting the health of even the most sensitive populations. That amount is more than 20 times the "reference dose" proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a recent draft risk assessment.

link

[Tribesman]

sure- but it's also a naturally occurring substance that has uses in medicine.

Kinda like Barium or opium then

Oh dear it looks like Rabbits study isn't up to date , the very small sample group used for that study has been superseeded by a peer reviewed study published by the EPA with a much much larger group of subjects ...and oh dear oh dear oh dear they conclude that the negative effect on peoples health starts at much lower intake levels than was previously thought possible , especially among women ....and yes it is also a later study than that used by Xiahou and also again has a much much much larger group of test subjects .

[Husar]

Oh dear oh dear, who woulda thunkathought something like that? Oh dear oh dear.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.

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.

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

[CountArach]

Do you know how many 'remotely poisonous' substances are in drinking water?

Yes. I also drink filtered water.

If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.

Two peer-reviewed articles isn't enough for you?

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

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Xiahou]

Yes. I also drink filtered water.

Any idea how many substances aren't removed by a carbon filter? Perchlorate, for example.

[CountArach]

Any idea how many substances aren't removed by a carbon filter? Perchlorate, for example.

Which is why the Government needs to step in.

[Husar]

Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?

Or should we unban everything because industrial lobbyists got a one-sided study pushing their position?

[Ice]

Not quiet, it was just the logical extension of what you said. Everything is poisonous- it's all a matter of dosage. Until we know what the proper levels are for anything, it should be banned. Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?

What determines whether something should be banned until proven safe?

This is a pretty one sided situation, X. Thoroughly and constantly proving our drinking water is still safe is a good idea imho.

[Tribesman]

If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.

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 .