At some point, it *always* comes down to economics.

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..

Welcome to IWETHEY!