A perfect example of cognitive dissonance

AProudLefty said:
Is that the same argument you'd use for Flint?
Click to expand...

No. Flint's problem was caused by a different reason. In Flint, they changed water sources. This changed the pH of the water and created what's called a "crud burst." That is all the built up water scale in older lead and leaded steel (galvanized) piping came loose and well, you got what happened.

Same thing happened in Tucson when the idiot Progressive Leftists running the city ignored engineering advice and switched the water from wells to CAP water. In older parts of the city people had black gunk coming out of the tap, for the same reason as Flint.

This problem was due to incompetence among the city's management and politicians, not to something inherent in the water itself.
 
AssHatZombie said:
plus often that shit is poison.
Click to expand...

With hexavalent chromium, rarely. It's really rare in US drinking water. There's some places in Oklahoma where it might be an issue, but for the rest of the country it is an issue looking for a problem. Same with arsenic.

The US standard for arsenic for decades was 50 ppb--nothing for all intents. 50 ppm (1000 times more) is dangerous over time, like in Bangladesh. During the Clinton administration, the EPA changed the standard to 10 ppb because test equipment--expensive test equipment--had become available that could actually accurately measure that small an amount. No other reason, just they could. That cost millions of Americans, particularly in the Western US as much as $100 + a month extra for their water. It had ZERO health benefits that were measurable.

A few ppb of hexavalent chromium is the exact same thing. A hundred times that could be dangerous. The only reason it too became an issue was we now had ways to accurately measure insignificant amounts in water.

photos%2F2013%2F03%2F13%2Fchromium-bars-thumb.gif


The highest concentration EWG discovered, came from Norman, Oklahoma. But at nearly 13 parts per billion, the water there is still considered safe according to the 22-year-old EPA standard (100 ppb). It is, however, more than 600 times greater than the public health goal established by the California Environmental Protection Agency in the wake of the Hinkley well poisoning scandal.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/science-jan-june13-hinkley_03-13

What Brockovich did, and many other greedy ambulance chasing shyster liars like her do, is take advantage of stupid government regulation that grossly overreaches on the idea of Zero tolerance and 100% safety. These absurdly stupid regulations become some etched in stone rule that those liars take and use in court to hammer huge settlements out of corporations.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
With hexavalent chromium, rarely. It's really rare in US drinking water. There's some places in Oklahoma where it might be an issue, but for the rest of the country it is an issue looking for a problem. Same with arsenic.

The US standard for arsenic for decades was 50 ppb--nothing for all intents. 50 ppm (1000 times more) is dangerous over time, like in Bangladesh. During the Clinton administration, the EPA changed the standard to 10 ppb because test equipment--expensive test equipment--had become available that could actually accurately measure that small an amount. No other reason, just they could. That cost millions of Americans, particularly in the Western US as much as $100 + a month extra for their water. It had ZERO health benefits that were measurable.

A few ppb of hexavalent chromium is the exact same thing. A hundred times that could be dangerous. The only reason it too became an issue was we now had ways to accurately measure insignificant amounts in water.

photos%2F2013%2F03%2F13%2Fchromium-bars-thumb.gif




https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/science-jan-june13-hinkley_03-13

What Brockovich did, and many other greedy ambulance chasing shyster liars like her do, is take advantage of stupid government regulation that grossly overreaches on the idea of Zero tolerance and 100% safety. These absurdly stupid regulations become some etched in stone rule that those liars take and use in court to hammer huge settlements out of corporations.
Click to expand...

there are bigger fish to fry i suppose.

but there is much more pollution like, real pollution, not co2 fake pollution.

he have to stop direct poison injection directly into humanity in the form of fake vaccines first.
 
AssHatZombie said:
there are bigger fish to fry i suppose.

but there is much more pollution like, real pollution, not co2 fake pollution.

he have to stop direct poison injection directly into humanity in the form of fake vaccines first.
Click to expand...

I read of another case where lawyers, like Brockovich, found trace amounts of lead in the material a company was using to make those bouncy houses you see at kid's birthday parties. This was California again. They sued the company because the material was supposed to be "lead free." The company didn't make the material. The amount of lead present was insignificant (a few ppb), but the state standard was ZERO.
The company had to pony up for bullshit. They then left California for friendlier shores. By the way, a Chinese company could make the same product and all they'd face is being banned from selling their product in California, no liability...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I read of another case where lawyers, like Brockovich, found trace amounts of lead in the material a company was using to make those bouncy houses you see at kid's birthday parties. This was California again. They sued the company because the material was supposed to be "lead free." The company didn't make the material. The amount of lead present was insignificant (a few ppb), but the state standard was ZERO.
The company had to pony up for bullshit. They then left California for friendlier shores. By the way, a Chinese company could make the same product and all they'd face is being banned from selling their product in California, no liability...
Click to expand...

but overall, regulation is needed despite these stories.

the idea that bad product will correct itself out of the market does not actually work because of corporate control and spin by a fascist/corporate media.

surely you're not suggesting all regulation is bad.

i think we all can admit there are abuses.

china uses human slavery of political prisoners too.

is that ultra-hip and LIBERTARIAN?
 
AssHatZombie said:
but overall, regulation is needed despite these stories.

the idea that bad product will correct itself out of the market does not actually work because of corporate control and spin by a fascist/corporate media.

surely you're not suggesting all regulation is bad.

i think we all can admit there are abuses.

china uses human slavery of political prisoners too.

is that ultra-hip and LIBERTARIAN?
Click to expand...

What isn't needed is a zero-tolerance mentality, but that's almost inevitable when you don't put a very short leash on bureaucrats. The EPA these days make up the science to fit their policy decisions. This hexavalent chromium thing is the same thing. Make the science fit the policy, not the other way around.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What isn't needed is a zero-tolerance mentality, but that's almost inevitable when you don't put a very short leash on bureaucrats. The EPA these days make up the science to fit their policy decisions. This hexavalent chromium thing is the same thing. Make the science fit the policy, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Zero lead is best. that is the science on lead.

zero tolerance is ok with toxins.

:truestory:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That movie piece is bullshit for the most part

Hexavalent chromium is only a problem if it is present in sufficient quantity to be a problem. The issue and where Brockovich (a ill-informed liar... err, lawyer) gets it wrong is she (in real life) sees pollution issues as an absolute, binary thing. That is, if any amount of pollution is present, it's evil and bad.

The result is that she (again in RL) will sue--and has made a career out of this--entities over tiny, irrelevant, and often non-verifiable amounts of pollution to get a settlement for cherry picked clients. For all intents, Erin Brockovich is an ambulance chasing POS lawyer that is gaming the system. She know SHIT about the science and environmentalism of the topics she sues on, relying instead on mostly getting those sued to settle without a trial.

If her targets were to go to trial and fight on the basis of science, Brockovich would likely have lost virtually every case she's brought. She is hardly the only lawyer or law firm that's made a career out of this bullshit either. She's just more of a celebrity.
Click to expand...

You are the one that seems to be ill informed. Erin Brockovich is not a lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top