"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "arizona cowboy" <cacheoverflowATyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do you know what the allowable level of arsenic in water is? Did you
> >> know
> > that
> >> arsenic occurs naturally in water??
> >
> > so does mercury and lead, but I don't want them in my children's water
> > either
> >
> > are you retarded from lead in your water, and that makes you make such
> > stupid statements?
>
> Perhaps, if you knew the facts, you wouldn't have had the response you did
> in the first place. When Clinton left office, he signed an executive order
> to have the levels of arsenic lowered to 20% of the then current level
> within 6 years. This order was based on no scientific data and had no
> direct support from any scientific body, but it *did* create a major
> financial cost if it were to be implemented. When Bush came into office,
on
> of the things his administration did was to validate this EO from the
> Clinton administration. With real scientific data, the Bush administration
> found that the current levels were perfectly safe. So, Bush countered
> Clinton's executive order and declared the current levels (which gives the
> only factual tidbit to your statement, since the current leves are 5 times
> what Clinton's EO *intended* to achieve, at great costs and with little
> benefit) to be safe. He then effectively tossed out Clinton's
> scientifically unsupported ordered that would have done little more than
> cause the Bush administration to spend alot of money for no improvement.
>

They aren't shy about spending money on faith based pork or entertaining the
idea of spending money on non-scientific based programs for conversion
therapy for gays. If the rule was changed, I have to think that is was
without regard to scientific fact. As they say, even a stopped clock is
right twice a day.