posted
Lets see. Arsenic can be good for you. Another spin. Who did the study? The tobacco companies. All of these poisons build up in your blood stream. One day they kill you. Maybe they call it cancer. Maybe they call it something else. It is still the same thing. No matter. You will all be buying water from Canada soon enough. Same crap we just haven't poisoned all of it yet.
It helps to read the article before you draw a conclusion. The study's conclusions were backed by the Sierra Club and the Brookings Institute. I dare ya to accuse them of being in league with the tobacco industry.
posted
Even Michael Kinsley at Slate.com has grudgingly admitted Bush is right on this one, (although the only points he gives him in the article.) People have to control their knee jerk reactions to issues. Go to: Poisioning The Well Bush is right about arsenic. Damn! http://slate.msn.com/Readme/01-04-12/Readme.asp
------------------ Wright Signs Wyandotte, Michigan Since 1978 http://www.wrightsigns.bigstep.com All change isn't progress, and all progress isn't forward.
Posts: 2787 | From: Wyandotte, MI USA | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah! Great! Get the govenment into the middle of this...and watch them screw it up...just like everything else!!! We will wind up with a water shortage!
------------------ Si Allen #562 La Mirada, CA. USA (714) 521-4810 ICQ # 330407 "SignPainters do It with Longer Strokes!"
Brushasaurus on Chat
Gladly supporting this BB !
Posts: 8831 | From: La Mirada, CA, USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I am wrong, (I just read this post this morning), but it seems to me what they are saying is that... Since the cost of regulating the toxin in the water is so much money for that community for example, that they should accept the present standards opposed to none at all(going back to the well water with arsenic). What choices do they have? You are talking money, and if they had the money, would they do it? Why are these areas that are scientifically proven in high levels also carrying high incidences of childhood leukemia? Maybe it could be something else, but it is getting to be narrowed down with the studies.. In essence, are they saying that because of the unaffordable cost of cleaning the water, a little cleanup is better than none? Yes, to me, two hours of sleep a night is better than none! But, am I going to be healthy? Yes, on the "survivors" show, a small bag of rice for three days, is better than no food at all! Yes, the Sierra Club would have to agree with that one too. I started the post to find these things out about water and hear feedback. It is really interesting but when we take a good look at it, you will realize that I believe we need to take a personal look and remember the ultimate objective of mine is to spark an awareness of finding solutions and gathering as much information as possible of all kinds. I welcome these findings, but we must eventually take an individual responsibility to seek out safe water and the correct amount of water for ourselves and our families (and loved ones). I, personally, have always slacked off on drinking even the correct amount of water all my life. I just felt one day to share my encouragement to my friends in Letterville to drink, not forget our proper amounts per day! I am hoping still, that you will remind me! And, if reading, to scrutinize what you are reading and where it is coming from, to seek out as much info as you can in our busy lives. You know, I find it interesting that water safety it is such an issue that affects a large majority of the human race, which really wasn't an issue ten years ago. But, why is there more cancer than ten years ago, than two years ago? I don't know the relation, and many of us don't have the time or choose to take the time to do the research by ourselves. To me, it is like geneology; who has the time? There are many that have already done the research.. just make sure you know the facts are out there. I am just as baffled as you, I think, and am seeing that there are many out there that are extremely concerned and never read the statistics or newpapers or hear the media... they are just trying to survive and are getting sick.... And I used to really like the Brita, but I am really feeling the difference with the other. From the information reported, the reverse osmosis filtration process takes about 6 or 7 gallons of water to produce one filtered. Is that efficiency, when there is not enough water to go around? Oh well, we are all welcome to make our own decisions based on the facts at hand, and I hope that you are getting the facts as they really are. It may be that you are having a great life and don't want to be bothered, but someone you know is affected by this and in the next few years, I just can't believe that we are going to let the government keep making our decisions for us. We need to be vocal if our concerns are valid, but here, I am not in a political discussion about the government right now, especially, because it is a matter of where the money is appropriated, and that is the issue there, not whether we "need" that or not. I do have access to fresh artisan well water if I want, that has been tested and is pure, but I don't have time to travel up there to get it all the time and cannot lug gallons around all the time. Also, I am thinking about the whole population, not just me.... I happen to love you guys (well, some of you!
------------------ Deb Creative Signs "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."
Posts: 5373 | From: Loves Park, Illinois | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live across the river from a government munitions plant, this facility has produced explosives for over 60 years. Guess where the bastards put their waste and bi-products? Seems some bright a-hole back in the 60's decided they needed to get rid of a bunch of toxic waste (they even shipped some in from other sites) so they dug some 'deep-wells' and dropped it into the lower aquifer. Like it would never get into the water table we use for our water systems in this area,,, yeah right! For the past ten years they have been digging 'test wells' to see what has actually happened, you guessed it, small quantities are showing up in our drinking water. But, according to 'government specs', it is not at a health risk level as yet. We've already got enough chlorine, flouride and antifungal preventatives in our water that it burns your eyes when showering. I don't drink it without running it through my filtering system and then boiling it and very little of it then. I'll take my daily fluids in beer and a MelloYello! (rotten barley and yellow food dye #5) A lot of the media hype and scare is brought on by 'bottled water companies' wanting to increase sales and yet a lot of the stuff you hear is actually true. People are living longer than they ever have and yet we're being 'poisoned' by everything.
------------------ Larry
Elliott Design McLemoresville, Tn.
If you can't find the time to do it right, where gonna find the time to do it over?
Posts: 486 | From: McLemoresville, TN. USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aww... Larry, how do you know what is hype and what isn't? Some of it is genetics, some is this and that... I do realize that there is a lot of hype in my opinion too, but it will all boil down to the truth in the end! Like I said, I'm not a purist, but I'm not eating all the hype the government is handing me either....If you know me, you will realize that I am not a fanatic, everything in moderation...and I have acquaintences of every lifestyle and faith or no faith..are people really living longer? 7,000 years ago there were reports of people living 1,000 years! where are they??
------------------ Deb Creative Signs "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."
Posts: 5373 | From: Loves Park, Illinois | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Water is something that should be close to everyone's heart. The thing about these poisons is that you can't remove them without spending huge amounts of dollars. So the answer is just don't pollute. Watch what you buy. Avoid the disposable stuff. Everything that is made has some sort of waste. Every little bit of poison accumulates until the planet is wasted. I know this from living in a community that completely wasted every living thing on land and water The pollution is now dispersed over a wider area from the smoke stacks that are above the natural inversion layer. INCO now sends that polution to the US. The stacks were made 30 years ago and the land is just starting to get better. By the way people still drink the water that killed all of the vegetation and fish. (sulpher dioxide) Maybe we are OK now but wait 20 or 30 more years. The effects will accumulate over time.
posted
As I see it, there really is no need to change the standard. If the standard needs to be changed, it needs to be done more on a local and/or personal level. By that I mean, local municipalities which are governed by your townhall, which are in turn are overseen by you the voter; and by purchasing a Brita or similar system yourself.
The current standards have been working fine for decades. The arsenic levels haven't changed just because of a change in the Presidency. If they are so bad now, why didn't the previous administration do something in it's 8 year stewardship, rather than wait until the term was over. I'm sorry, but IMHO, there is more politics involved here than health concerns. It was the sole reason the standard was changed.
As to the article, it has some very valid points. Lets face it. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Take the 1.6 gallon toilets we are faced with today. The purpose of changing to these new low-flow toliets was to help the enviroment and conserve water. Did it work? No. Now we have to flush twice and we end up using 25% more water than before.
Regulations must be means-tested. Just because they sound good doesn't mean that they are.
posted
Bottom line is what Kevin said: Don't pollute... The problem is, most of us don't pollute. It's the big corporations and yes, the government (military) who does the majority of the dirty deed. And of course, farmers... yes... the salt of the earth have always been muckin' up the environment...but we can talk about the dust bowl later.... Meanwhile.. I'll agree that Bush is the best thing to happen to the environmental movement since James Watt... heh heh... Environmentalists are galvanizing in surging memberships and donations and people willing to spend their time to make a difference. Just as Planned Parenthood got the biggest surge of donations and new members when Bush cut off birth control aid to foreign nations. Yep... I'm beginning to be glad Bush finagled his way in... And his signing that new bankruptcy bill into law, heh heh... yeah... Bush for big biz! Go Duhbya! Lookin' forward to the next faux paus. LE
------------------ LazyEdna in RL known as Sara Straw from southern Utah 5 National Parks within 3 hours drive Red Rock Heaven
Posts: 776 | From: Aurora, Utah, USA | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
Heard any good news lately about CO2 emissions...or drilling for a few buckets of oil in Alaska...or the Kyoto Protocol...or logging in National Parks?
posted
Kyoto Protocol : hey so it warms up a degree or two..then the northeners will quit bitching about how cold it is and if we try hard enuff we could end winter at least 30 min earlier for them every year...besides blame Dupont,it was their patent running out that started all that BS
CO2 emissions : easy cure,stop breathing,or lets just start shooting prisoners...that has a twofold impact..less O2 consumed=less CO2 produced right? plus empty jails is a good tax savings and hey ..economic stimulus ...as for CO2 from other sources...hey trees and plants gotta have some sort of source of life right we have to think of the trees
Drilling for oil in Alaska:why not thats why its there..only about 35 people and coupla moose live there,plenty of open spots to drill and if ya spill some who gives a damn the snow will cover it
Logging in National Forests :RIGHT ON!!!! look at all the trees those damn things have..mo money mo money.....plus what a horrible waste of prime real estate--- besides we can send the blue assed owls or what ever BS animal we've picked to bleed about to a zoo,easier to see em there and at least people would know what the hell they were
This just in......its been decided that all these things are decidely less harmful to the world in general than Oprah ...more news at 10
------------------ Gavin Chachere aka Zeeman Miller Supply Co./Ozone Signs & Grafix New Orleans La. www.millersupply.net www.ozonegrafix.com
Posts: 1223 | From: new orleans.la. | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic