Not quite so bad
Dave Tahija
location: Butte, Montana, en route from San Francisco to Juneau
listening to: Train - Save me, San Francisco
registered: 1999.12.27
posts: 261
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
I�m sorry I didn�t explain the point of the 1 in 100 number. It�s ridiculous on its face. If there really was an increased cancer risk of that magnitude, places like Albuquerque would be overrun with many, many more cancer cases than most areas of the country and they�re simply not.
It turns out that the number was arrived at by straight-line extrapolation from studies in high-arsenic areas in Taiwan and South America where the dissolved arsenic levels are measured in hundreds not tens of ppb. This is no more valid than making an assessment of a normal 2000 calorie/day diet by comparing it to studies of a 200 calorie/day starvation diet would be.
Nobody knows the effects of 50 ppb vs 10 ppb arsenic in water - the studies have not been done. By the way, at 5 ppb, L.A. water probably need to be treated.
From a selfish point of view, I should really welcome lower arsenic limits in water. I�ve done enough arsenic treatment research that my earnings potential would probably go way up if the new standards went in. But, given what is actually known, it would be a waste of a lot of regular people�s money.
D
Dave Tahija
(view)
I�m sorry I didn�t explain the point of the 1 in 100 number. It�s ridiculous on its face. If there really was an increased cancer risk of that magnitude, places like Albuquerque would be overrun with many, many more cancer cases than most areas of the country and they�re simply not.
It turns out that the number was arrived at by straight-line extrapolation from studies in high-arsenic areas in Taiwan and South America where the dissolved arsenic levels are measured in hundreds not tens of ppb. This is no more valid than making an assessment of a normal 2000 calorie/day diet by comparing it to studies of a 200 calorie/day starvation diet would be.
Nobody knows the effects of 50 ppb vs 10 ppb arsenic in water - the studies have not been done. By the way, at 5 ppb, L.A. water probably need to be treated.
From a selfish point of view, I should really welcome lower arsenic limits in water. I�ve done enough arsenic treatment research that my earnings potential would probably go way up if the new standards went in. But, given what is actually known, it would be a waste of a lot of regular people�s money.
