Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Huh?
do black lives matter to planned parenthood?
Huh?
do black lives matter to planned parenthood?
Already defined it for you yesterday. Your poor memory is not my problem.
So you have no questions. I already knew this. Bulverism fallacy.If I had any questions the LAST person I would ask them of is you. You seem to be uniquely uneducated in everything. A feat I didn't think possible.
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.
Yeah, Lefty actually answered this for you.
I understand your Poe-Troll game here requires you to be ignorant at EVERY point, but at some point you ruin your little game by playing TOO ignorant.
So you also believe that ocean water is 'pollution'. Gotit.
Semantics fallacy."made up of" is not the same as "is".
think of your oo
"is a" versus "has a".
By your logic, houses are people.
A building is not made up of people, dumbass. It is made BY people.
eugenics is still very popular.
the core of naziism is alive and well.
Ocean water is not pollution.
Paradox. irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
No one knows what causes cancer. Cancer can occur in any type of tissue. 'Cancerous tests' involving mice are hokey.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.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Peer review means NOTHING to any theory of science.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.
The cause of cancer is unknown.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...)
That they do. Of course, this is true for pretty much every government agency.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.
Ineffective.In other words, Trump ordered them to be transparent and open about their data and claims,
So Biden removed even that ineffective 'pressure'.and Biden let them rescind that order and go back to just publishing their resulting claims without showing proof...
Kind of like DuPont during the CFC fear mongering.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...
Correct. Corporations are made BY people.
The salt is not harmful to humans.
Yes it is.
So you also believe that ocean water is 'pollution'. Gotit.