It was Rachel's Health and Environment News #722 that most recently
addressed arsenic. It's currently online at
<http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=1>.
The EPA estimated that the annual cost of implementing a 10 ppb
standard would be $181 million. Considering the benefits, this is
extremely cheap. The price is probably an overestimate, as experience
shows from previous cost-benefit analyses of environmental regulations
later implemented at lower cost. In economics, cleanliness is next to
efficiency.
(At a later date, the Rachel's article should be in the archives at
<http://www.rachel.org/>.)
Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:24:44 -0300, John Henry wrote:
>A
>> > In other words, I doubt that there are more than 2-3 people in the
>> world who wound deny
>>that having zero arsenic in water is a good thing....<
>>
>>this issue (and those elided) were addressed in the article that was
>>posted from Rachel's
>>on-line environmental magazine.
>
>
>I missed the article. Was it published here? More or less when, so I can go
>look for it in the archives. Or perhaps a URL to the magazine?
>
>Best,
>
>John R Henry CPP
>
>Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com
>
>Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at
>http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm
>
>
