Vox Humana wrote:

>> 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.

I think it was last Wednesday's Sean Hannity or Niel Boortz show where this
topic was discussed at length (I'm pretty such it was Boortz) and the facts
were brought up concerning Clinton's EO and Bush's shutting it down.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
"Die for oil suckers....suckers....suckers...." - Jello Biafra