The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

Already defined it for you yesterday. Your poor memory is not my problem.

YOUR poor memory. You defined ocean water as 'pollution'. That isn't even sensible. Still waiting for you to define 'pollution'. I know you won't, because you can't. You'll just evade. Inversion fallacy. Evasion.
 
You defined ocean water as 'pollution'. That isn't even sensible. Still waiting for you to define 'pollution'. I know you won't, because you can't. You'll just evade.

Is ocean water harmful to humans?

One more time, pollution is an introduction or a presence of HARMFUL chemicals in an environment.
 
I never stated that. I claimed that in many cases the people researching these things fudge or even outright lie in their research to get things passed into law. In the case of arsenic, at the 50 ppb vs 10 ppb / old v. new standard, the old might--MIGHT have resulted in up to 1% more cancer than the 10 ppb level.
No one knows what causes cancer. Cancer can occur in any type of tissue. 'Cancerous tests' involving mice are hokey.
As for "peer review," that's often a worthless or near worthless exercise in back patting rather than a truly critical review of someone's work. I see it as mostly an irrelevant appeal to authority rather than something that, on its own, adds credibility.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Peer review means NOTHING to any theory of science.
As for costs...
Depending on who's numbers you want to use, implementing this rule was expensive and likely not worth the potential results that would be gained (a minor / very slight reduction in cancer rates--maybe...)
The cause of cancer is unknown.
I'm not quite sure how you get lung cancer from arsenic in drinking water but... Also, the EPA has a record of making up their cost benefit numbers out of thin air.
That they do. Of course, this is true for pretty much every government agency.
In other words, Trump ordered them to be transparent and open about their data and claims,
Ineffective.
and Biden let them rescind that order and go back to just publishing their resulting claims without showing proof...
So Biden removed even that ineffective 'pressure'.
You know that the order probably was a good thing when those that have the most to benefit from not having to abide by it whine the loudest...
Kind of like DuPont during the CFC fear mongering.
 
Back
Top