SCOTUS goes against EPA in a 5-4 ruling. We won’t have cheap eggs but we will have water with dookie particles in it! Thanks Trump..

[T. A. Gardner]

Are water standards too safe? Food standards? Are you a follower of RFK Jr, Terry?

Water standards? Yes
Food standards? Some
Follow RFK? No. Didn't know anything about him really as little as two years ago. Don't know that much about him now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Water standards? Yes
Food standards? Some
Follow RFK? No. Didn't know anything about him really as little as two years ago. Don't know that much about him now.

Why do you think water standards are too safe? Food standards?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why do you think water standards are too safe? Food standards?

I've given examples already.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I've given examples already.

Of course you have, Terry.

 

[volsrocks]

SCOTUS Rules against EPA in Water Pollution Case

One conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, joined the court's three liberals in dissent.

time.com

ruling for San Francisco in a case about the discharge of raw sewage that sometimes occurs during heavy rains

San Fran LETS PEOPLE SHIT ON THE SIDEWALKS!!!!!! And you are OK with that

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ruling for San Francisco in a case about the discharge of raw sewage that sometimes occurs during heavy rains

San Fran LETS PEOPLE SHIT ON THE SIDEWALKS!!!!!! And you are OK with that

You didn't read or understand the article and what the EPA was doing.

In essence, the EPA told San Francisco under the regulation at question it was not only responsible for the specific levels of various things in waste water they discharged into the Pacific Ocean but for monitoring those levels in the Pacific Ocean, potentially to include the entire ocean. The permit the EPA issued made San Francisco not only responsible for what they discharged, but for monitoring and maintaining those standards after the discharge reached the Pacific Ocean and mixed with it.

 

[FastLane]

As much as Trump deems necessary to kill the American population.

We are starting with you first.

 

[Into the Night]

You just contradicted yourself. "Safe enough" does not mean "too safe". You still haven't been able to define "too safe", which is the term you used.

How do you know something is "not safe enough"? You still haven't been able to define that either.

 

[Into the Night]

Why do you think water standards are too safe? Food standards?

RQAA. Pay attention, Sybil.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

RQAA. Pay attention, Sybil.

^^^

 

[serendipity]

You really are a hater, aren't you?

She's about as funny as getting fingered by Abu Hamza!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Under Trump, it doesn't matter. Rich people can afford bottled water and high priced filters.

High priced? You just can't be low brow--like you.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Humel is a rancid little turd, the kind of spoiled crotch goblin who got handed a crusty controller and a sticky box of popsicles just to shut his whining trap and give his parents a break. He was that snot nosed punk smashing everything in sight when he sucked at a game or got called out for being the walking shit stain he has always been.

Laughable really. Poor bastard is still the same stunted jackass he was at 12, a pitiful man child who never crawled out of his diaper days. I would feel sorry for him but nah.

He is a grown ass adult now and the my mommy did not hug me excuse is as dead as his dignity. We all had our crap to shovel through to become decent humans with a shred of class.

Humel just festered into a bitter hate spewing loser, a pathetic waste of oxygen who proves evolution does not give a damn about everyone.

He needed some of this in his life you're saying...?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

High priced? You just can't be low brow--like you.

I have no doubt you make your own water filters out of soda pop bottles and dirt, Terry.

 

[serendipity]

Humel is a rancid little turd, the kind of spoiled crotch goblin who got handed a crusty controller and a sticky box of popsicles just to shut his whining trap and give his parents a break. He was that snot nosed punk smashing everything in sight when he sucked at a game or got called out for being the walking shit stain he has always been.

Laughable really. Poor bastard is still the same stunted jackass he was at 12, a pitiful man child who never crawled out of his diaper days. I would feel sorry for him but nah.

He is a grown ass adult now and the my mommy did not hug me excuse is as dead as his dignity. We all had our crap to shovel through to become decent humans with a shred of class.

Humel just festered into a bitter hate spewing loser, a pathetic waste of oxygen who proves evolution does not give a damn about everyone.

It's a she but hard to tell I grant you!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Some examples:

During the Clinton administration the EPA lowered allowable arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb (Parts Per Billion), from the previous standard of 50 ppb. This had no discernable effect on health as the level necessary for it being a health hazard is about 1000 times that level, as seen in say, Bandladesh.
This reduction did result in water companies that get their supply from ground water having to invest in expensive new testing equipment and filtration systems to often remove a few ppb to meet the new standards. Across about half of the US, people saw their water bills double to triple.
The ONLY REASON the EPA lowered that standard was that there was now testing equipment that could accurately measure that minute an amount of arsenic in drinking water.

The EPA did the same thing with hexavalent chromium lowering the level to 0 (zero). That too raised the cost of drinking water by a commensurate amount. For no discernable effect on health.

Or the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission). At one point, they found that 9 to 13 small children a year fall into a 5-gallon bucket and drown in the liquid in the bucket. Their solution was to want to order manufacturers to put crossed sticks on the opening of those buckets. Manufacturers said that would add about $10 billion a year to the cost of 5-gallon buckets and raise inflation. The CPSC didn't care. Users said the crossed sticks would interfere with their use of these buckets for the purposes they had them for and they'd just smash them out to make the bucket useful. The CPSC replied they'd make that illegal and criminally fine people who did.
In the end, the CPSC backed down and put a label on 5-gallon buckets warning about this hazard.

Today in the US 9 to 13 children fall into a 5-gallon bucket a year and drown...

What kind of "safety device" comes with warning labels that warn you it could kill you?

Safety is first and foremost YOUR personal responsibility, not the governments or some bureaucrats. The government and bureaucrats make all sorts of insane safety rules that anyone with even basic experience and knowledge recognize as asinine. Yet, retards like YOU take everything those idiots in offices who never hammered a nail in their lifetime as gospel.

Oh god I hate when clueless amateurs try to opine on issues their clueless about. I mean to say that safety is not a government responsibility is an asinine thing to say and that’s coming from someone who has seen people get killed in industrial accidents. Without these regulations which establish minimum standards of safety our roads wouldn’t be safe to live, the electrical appliances you use wouldn’t be safe, our roads and vehicles wouldn’t be safe, nor would your water be safe to drink or food safe to eat.

So let’s quickly dismiss your comment on hexavalent chromium. The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for chromium is 100 ppb. That includes hexavalent chromium. Now keep in mind that’s the federal MCL and the States are lawfully permitted to have even stricter regulatory standards but not less strict. For example Californias MCL for chromium, including hex chrome, is 10 ppb. Now there is also another standard called Maximum Desired Contaminant Levels (MDCL). This is the Federal EPA MDCL limit. The Federal MDCL is in fact 0 ppb for hexavalent chromium. So what is the difference between an MCL and an MDCL? A MCL is legally enforceable and a MDCL is not. So your claim that the MCDL of hex chrome cost consumers and industry lots of money to comply with the MDCL standard for hex chrome is total BS. No one paid a damned thing for the 0 ppb MCDL for hex chrome because it’s not enforceable. The current enforceable limit for chromium in water is still 100 ppb including hex chrome? So why don’t EPA regulate hex chrome separately from trivalent chromium? Well that’s easier said than done. Most of the current acceptable test methods for trace metals analysis require either flame atomic absorption (FLAA), graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA), Cold Vapor Atomic absorption (CVAA) or Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma spectroscopy (ICP). Well that’s a problem as these instrumental analytical methods cannot determine what the specific oxidation state of a metal element is. So currently the best demonstrated available technology for hexavalent chromium analysis is high performance ion chromatography. That, however, is problematic because it uses post chromatography column colorimetric methods that can cause all sorts of interferences that introduce significant error into the post column detector that make hex chrome analysis problematic in that they cannot meet the 99.8% correlation coefficient standard for accuracy that can be obtained by atomic absorption and ICP spectroscopy. This is why MCL’s for chromium are based on total chromium values and not chromium’s specific oxidation state.

Now let’s move on to your comments on the Arsenic MCL’s. Your comment that the 10 ppb MCL was andp only because better technology had been developed that could detect arsenic at levels as low as 10ppb. Let me disabuse you of that notion. I was measuring arsenic in the lab at lower method detection limits than 10 ppb using CVAA Spectroscopy back in the 80’s.

The major technical advancement for trace metals analysis that occurred in the 90’s was Inductively Couple Argon Spectroscopy (ICP). Now it’s easy to understand why ICP which is a more advanced technology than Atomic Absorption spectroscopy and would seem to have a higher level of sensitivity than AA, except it really doesn’t. ICP is more sensitive than FLAA in trace metals analysis but it is not more sensitive than GFAA or CVAA both of which can detect arsenic at lower method detection limits than ICP. The main advantage of ICP vs AA spectroscopy is that it can do sequential and simultaneous multi element analysis which AA cannot. With AA you have to measure one element at a time. So the main advantage of ICP is that it is more precise and you can make many more multi element analyses than in the time you can make one analysis of one element via AA spectroscopy but ICP is not as sensitive or accurate as GFAA or CVAA. So your notion that new technologies that could perform trace metals analysis down to 10 ppb drove the decision to lower the MCL for arsenic from 50 ppb to 10 ppb is pure bullshit. That simply didn’t happen.

The decision was made to lower the standard, even though the 50 ppb MCL was a safe standard, to 10 ppb is that it provided a greater statistical measure of protection from chronic exposure to arsenic that is associated with cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.

So let’s get back to these huge costs associated with this change of the MCL standard for arsenic where you’re wading deep in to the BS again.

EPA prior to recommending changes to the Arsenic MCL did studies on those costs and made them available for public comment. EPA did a study on on all the U.S. waste water publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that served over 100 people and estimated what that cost would be if implemented. They determined an annual cost (in 2000 USD) of 185 million dollars. This amounted to a $32 annual increase in cost for the households served. Oh, but wait a second! That’s just one side of the coin. You did mention the cost of lowering the MCL for arsenic but what you didn’t think about was the other side of the coin. That is the cost benefit of lowering the MCL which was calculated for that study at $165 million. Leaving us with a total cost per household of something around $2-3 per household served. Oh Dear God the Pain!

You hear this from industry every time any environmental regulation is promulgated. The sky is falling we’re all going to go broke. You know what the real irony is here? This regulatory change only impacted less than 5% of the U.S. population because their water was already below the 10 ppb MCL for arsenic.

You should really take some time to study the history of these environmental laws and regulations instead of listening to Chicken Little and learn why they were put into place in the first place. Yes these standards have with come with some really big price tags but the benefits by any objective measure has far exceeded cost in general.

So please. Spare me the University of YouTube BS.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Oh god I hate when clueless amateurs try to opine on issues their clueless about. I mean to say that safety is not a government responsibility is an asinine thing to say and that’s coming from someone who has seen people get killed in industrial accidents. Without these regulations which establish minimum standards of safety our roads wouldn’t be safe to live, the electrical appliances you use wouldn’t be safe, our roads and vehicles wouldn’t be safe, nor would your water be safe to drink or food safe to eat.

So let’s quickly dismiss your comment on hexavalent chromium. The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for chromium is 100 ppb. That includes hexavalent chromium. Now keep in mind that’s the federal MCL and the States are lawfully permitted to have even stricter regulatory standards but not less strict. For example Californias MCL for chromium, including hex chrome, is 10 ppb. Now there is also another standard called Maximum Desired Contaminant Levels (MDCL). This is the Federal EPA MDCL limit. The Federal MDCL is in fact 0 ppb for hexavalent chromium. So what is the difference between an MCL and an MDCL? A MCL is legally enforceable and a MDCL is not. So your claim that the MCDL of hex chrome cost consumers and industry lots of money to comply with the MDCL standard for hex chrome is total BS. No one paid a damned thing for the 0 ppb MCDL for hex chrome because it’s not enforceable. The current enforceable limit for chromium in water is still 100 ppb including hex chrome? So why don’t EPA regulate hex chrome separately from trivalent chromium? Well that’s easier said than done. Most of the current acceptable test methods for trace metals analysis require either flame atomic absorption (FLAA), graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA), Cold Vapor Atomic absorption (CVAA) or Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma spectroscopy (ICP). Well that’s a problem as these instrumental analytical methods cannot determine what the specific oxidation state of a metal element is. So currently the best demonstrated available technology for hexavalent chromium analysis is high performance ion chromatography. That, however, is problematic because it uses post chromatography column colorimetric methods that can cause all sorts of interferences that introduce significant error into the post column detector that make hex chrome analysis problematic in that they cannot meet the 99.8% correlation coefficient standard for accuracy that can be obtained by atomic absorption and ICP spectroscopy. This is why MCL’s for chromium are based on total chromium values and not chromium’s specific oxidation state.

Now let’s move on to your comments on the Arsenic MCL’s. Your comment that the 10 ppb MCL was andp only because better technology had been developed that could detect arsenic at levels as low as 10ppb. Let me disabuse you of that notion. I was measuring arsenic in the lab at lower method detection limits than 10 ppb using CVAA Spectroscopy back in the 80’s.

The major technical advancement for trace metals analysis that occurred in the 90’s was Inductively Couple Argon Spectroscopy (ICP). Now it’s easy to understand why ICP which is a more advanced technology than Atomic Absorption spectroscopy and would seem to have a higher level of sensitivity than AA, except it really doesn’t. ICP is more sensitive than FLAA in trace metals analysis but it is not more sensitive than GFAA or CVAA both of which can detect arsenic at lower method detection limits than ICP. The main advantage of ICP vs AA spectroscopy is that it can do sequential and simultaneous multi element analysis which AA cannot. With AA you have to measure one element at a time. So the main advantage of ICP is that it is more precise and you can make many more multi element analyses than in the time you can make one analysis of one element via AA spectroscopy but ICP is not as sensitive or accurate as GFAA or CVAA. So your notion that new technologies that could perform trace metals analysis down to 10 ppb drove the decision to lower the MCL for arsenic from 50 ppb to 10 ppb is pure bullshit. That simply didn’t happen.

The decision was made to lower the standard, even though the 50 ppb MCL was a safe standard, to 10 ppb is that it provided a greater statistical measure of protection from chronic exposure to arsenic that is associated with cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.

So let’s get back to these huge costs associated with this change of the MCL standard for arsenic where you’re wading deep in to the BS again.

EPA prior to recommending changes to the Arsenic MCL did studies on those costs and made them available for public comment. EPA did a study on on all the U.S. waste water publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that served over 100 people and estimated what that cost would be if implemented. They determined an annual cost (in 2000 USD) of 185 million dollars. This amounted to a $32 annual increase in cost for the households served. Oh, but wait a second! That’s just one side of the coin. You did mention the cost of lowering the MCL for arsenic but what you didn’t think about was the other side of the coin. That is the cost benefit of lowering the MCL which was calculated for that study at $165 million. Leaving us with a total cost per household of something around $2-3 per household served. Oh Dear God the Pain!

You hear this from industry every time any environmental regulation is promulgated. The sky is falling we’re all going to go broke. You know what the real irony is here? This regulatory change only impacted less than 5% of the U.S. population because their water was already below the 10 ppb MCL for arsenic.

You should really take some time to study the history of these environmental laws and regulations instead of listening to Chicken Little and learn why they were put into place in the first place. Yes these standards have with come with some really big price tags but the benefits by any objective measure has far exceeded cost in general.

So please. Spare me the University of YouTube BS.

You missed my point with your rant. It was safe enough before and lowering the standards didn't increase safety by anywhere close to enough to warrant the extra costs.

In the case of arsenic, I saw communities here in the Phoenix metro area have their water bill triple overnight because of that one. Generally, it was to remove 2 to 5 ppb. The EPA's cost estimates are, in my opinion for shit, and nothing you have to say on that is going to move that view.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nothing. Water supplies are treated and tested. Neither the EPA nor the FDA nor Trump do any of that. Local governments do.

Ewww, you actually said something that’s correct. I guess an old blind hog finds an acorn every now and then but you are correct. Local Governments do operate and manage these publicly owned treatment works. Having said that the Federal and State governments do enforce that these facilities do operate to meet the minimum standards they require.

 

[Into the Night]

Ewww, you actually said something that’s correct. I guess an old blind hog finds an acorn every now and then but you are correct. Local Governments do operate and manage these publicly owned treatment works. Having said that the Federal and State governments do enforce that these facilities do operate to meet the minimum standards they require.

Federal government does not treat water supplies or enforce treating water supplies.
That is done by local and State governments.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^

You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Sybil.