Whoopdedoo yerself!

Post #4,061 by jb4 8/7/01 1:50:40 PM Reply	Whoopdedoo yerself! Whoopdeedoo for your alma mater. Unfortunately I don't think that the epa would approve of a state approved water board telling all of its users to strap a bucket onto their sink. If I were to live in an area where my only source of drinking water were arsenic-contaminated, you can be damn well sure I would "strap a bucket onto [my] sink", and I'd lead the charge for my neighbors to do the same, posthaste! And so would you, bigmouth! You just can't seem to grasp the fact that it was a poorly thought out passage of a standard that has no basis in fact and absolutely no concern for the economic reality of the situation. And you just can't seem to grasp that the only argument that you can muster against strict standards against a known poison and carcinogen - an economic argument sheesh...how petty! - has been overtaken by events. So, Be, if there is no longer an economic disincentive to removing this particular carcingen from our drinking water, what will you think of next? jb4 (Enquiring minds want to know...)
Post #4,078 by addison 8/7/01 3:21:17 PM Reply	At some point, it always comes down to economics. Failing to know/realize that is a huge problem. And you just can't seem to grasp that the only argument that you can muster against strict standards against a known poison and carcinogen We don't live in a sterile bubble. You consume poisions and carcinogens every day. Have hundreds of cancer cells. Experience hard radiation (more if you go outside). So when you look at that, you have to figure out the difference. If 200 micro-units and 400 micro-units have essentially the SAME EFFECT, why try and take out the extra 200, if its not cheap to do so? Sometimes it is. Oxygen, for instance. All oxygen that's produced today is to "aviation standards" (stricter than medicinal, even). Why? Because its just as cheap and easy to do that as any other process, so everybody just makes it the "cheap, good" way. But that's not always the case. At some point you always have to say "that's good enough". Because the time and money you're spending there are BETTER spent elsewhere. So you get arsenic out of the water and have coal dust in the air.... Is that a win? (It depends). So, Be, if there is no longer an economic disincentive to removing this particular carcingen from our drinking water, what will you think of next? I'm not sure that that's the case at all. Until you've set up the system, and discovered all the costs (and amazingly, there usually are some "gotchas" in there somewhere), then its hard to smugly say 'Well, this is cheaper'. Addison
Post #4,175 by jb4 8/8/01 9:46:54 AM Reply	Reading comprehension IS a skill So you get arsenic out of the water and have coal dust in the air.... Coal dust? COAL DUST?!? Where in the world did THAT non-sequitir come from??? I like discussing things with you, Ad, as in general you tend to address the issues (and occasionally enlighten me in the process). I agree that there is a concept of "good enough", and that the concept should..no, must be considered in such things as toxicity and its concomittant eradication. But try to stay on-topic, OK? Yes, I know it's easy to get swept up in missionary zeal (like your friend Be occasionally does). But this group is generally intelligent enough to recognize a Red Herring when it sees one (and I'm not talking about the magazine, either ;-) ), and inserting one into your argument reduces it to the level of dismissable blather. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,207 by addison 8/8/01 11:42:43 AM Reply	..That you're lacking. Coal dust? COAL DUST?!? Where in the world did THAT non-sequitir come from??? I think its quite obvious. Especially for one insinuating of his superior [intellect] comprehension. It was an example. So you reduce X, and now you have no money to deal with Y. Tradeoffs. Simple enough concept. I just picked coal dust as one (as can be rather big problem). But try to stay on-topic, OK? I was. So you spend the money to get arsenic in the water to some (apparently arbitrary) level, and what do you not have available anymore? And you know, re-reading my post, I think its pretty obvious that its an example for you. But of course, that requires reading comprehension. I agree that there is a concept of "good enough", and that the concept should..no, must be considered in such things as toxicity and its concomittant eradication. That seems to have been lacking in prior posts, but I am glad to hear that. Addison
Post #4,210 by bepatient 8/8/01 11:47:03 AM Reply	So... ...why don't we then stick to the fact that your arguing about removal of a natural occurring water contaminant...while at the same time ignoring the fact that an equally poisonous substance is being ADDED so kids won't get cavities (at least they'll die with pretty teeth) AND...you seem to propose that it should be done AT ANY EXPENSE...which is easy for you to say...unless of course you happen to be one of the folks that has to pay the 1.5 million per well capital and 500k per year maintenance....borne largely by communities with UNDER 10,000 customers...DO THE MATH. And these are communites UNDER 40ppb with no scientific justification that 10ppb is any better...and some of these communities are operating in the teen level...but the expense is the same. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,401 by jb4 8/9/01 2:03:16 PM Reply	Like I said: Reading Comprehension IS a skill... AND...you seem to propose that it should be done AT ANY EXPENSE...which is easy for you to say.[...] No, that's not at all what I said, and you bloody well know it, Red Herring Boy. What I said (on several occasions) was that your numbers are basically bullshit, that there are several newer technologies that have been shown to be substantially cheaper than those highly inflated numbers you seem to be so fond of conjuring up. "substantially cheaper" != "AT ANY EXPENSE" Got it? Good! Now can we continue...? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,407 by wharris2 8/9/01 2:45:48 PM Reply	And then you posted a link to a site with two technologies with no reference of ever being deployed for a large-scale water treatment plant. Speaking of straw, you're growing lots of it. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,416 by bepatient 8/9/01 3:11:31 PM Reply	And reality is a bitch The numbers are straight from the EPA analysis of the cost to implement this program. Too bad for you they don't recognize your "substantially cheaper" and completely untested at scale technologies as acceptable solutions...and unfortunately for you...and your argument...these locals are FORCED to stick with technologies recognized and approved by the government. Oh well... Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,442 by Ashton 8/9/01 8:16:52 PM Reply	I'm sure that proves that further research could show no significant chance of these methods' scalability. So let's go with the convenient numbers we can already conjure. Didn't realize that, like M$ 60M lines of code, these 'solutions'.. spring full-blown into the first draft, like a Mozart Mass. University didn't quiiite have the funds to build a pilot plant. So: nope, it's NG. Like the first Wright Flyer wing-warp. Sheesh! What are ya Bill, a Numerologist? A.
Post #4,473 by bepatient 8/9/01 11:18:45 PM Reply	Further research... ...wouldn't help those localities that would have had to implement those systems now...at the costs given in my posts. Maybe 5 years from now my numbers will be all wrong. Right now...unfortunately...they're not. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,478 by Ashton 8/10/01 12:03:16 AM Reply	Will agree: no remedy for punctilious bureaucracy exists..
Post #4,085 by bepatient 8/7/01 4:24:09 PM 8/7/01 4:26:22 PM Reply	And still... you argue that reducing a known carcinogen and poison (not eliminating) is a HUGE deal...even though it is a naturally occurring known carcinogen and poison and nobody can tell you if 40ppb is worse than 10ppb... and at the same time double the amount of rat poison put in the water...and peacefully ignore the fact that the AMA is lobbying to TRIPLE it again because it has the nice side benefit that the kids won't get as many cavities. And they are ADDING this to the water...no natural occurrence going on here. And STILL you ignore the fact that the legislation didn't care and didn't allow for "close"...and didn't offer assistance to areas that just plain couldn't afford to do it. And, unfortunately for you, somebody has to pay for all of this stuff. Sorry you don't seem to understand that the "real world" works that way. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Aug. 7, 2001, 04:26:22 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,122 by a6l6e6x 8/7/01 8:48:03 PM 8/7/01 8:49:16 PM Reply	Arsenic may not be all bad. It may in fact be an essential nutrient! "Some studies have suggested that inorganic arsenic is an essential nutrient in goats, chicks, mini pigs, and rats. However, no comparable data are available for humans." This is from an [link\|http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hlthef/arsenic.html\|EPA report.] So, maybe before too long, there will be a recommended minimum arsenic content in drinking water. Incidentally, do you have a deck made of treated lumber? What do you suppose they treat the lumber with? Yep, arsenic. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Edited by a6l6e6x Aug. 7, 2001, 08:49:16 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,123 by boxley 8/7/01 8:51:52 PM Reply	kfc secret ingredient as well as tobacco Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,132 by admin 8/7/01 9:29:32 PM Reply	Treated lumber If you build raised vegetable gardens, make sure you use untreated lumber for exactly that reason. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #4,177 by jb4 8/8/01 9:50:59 AM Reply	Have seen this, too In reading up on the laterite filter, there were other articles that indicated that there are (IIRC) two "main" categories of arsenic, and that inorganic arsenic is probably not harmful (exzcept in large quantities, and may even be beneficial in trace amounts. The other category (organic arsenic?) is, hwever more prevalent, and substantially more dangerous. If I have the time, I'll try to track down links... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,178 by jb4 8/8/01 9:51:54 AM Reply	BTW, I don't drink my deck! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,284 by a6l6e6x 8/8/01 5:14:41 PM Reply	Re: BTW, I don't drink my deck! Ever drop food on the deck floor? Ever lick your fingers, perhaps before turning a page, after holding the handrails? You think maybe the rain will leach some arsenic out on to the ground below? Maybe to feed the tomatoes you planted next to the deck. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,403 by jb4 8/9/01 2:13:50 PM Reply	No, No, and No Up to now, we don't eat on the deck, and we also don't believe in the 5 Second Rule. Our deck doesn't have handrails. (they block our cats' view of the back yard). We don't grow Tamatas. I guess we're safe, then? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!