At 09:11 AM 4/21/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Much of the arsenic would have to be removed by the mining companies and
>others that create the problem. It is very dangerous in small amounts.
>Again, the WSJ article makes it seem like an airtight case.
I read the article. You are right about much of the arsenic needing to be
removed by mining companies. But much arsenic occurs naturally in well
water and would need to be removed by water departments. That was in the
article too.
++++
(From the WSJ)
"That burden would fall mainly on ratepayers in small communities in the
Southwest and parts of the upper Midwest and New England, where arsenic
leaches naturally from rocks into water supplies. Roughly 15% of New
Hampshire's drinking water exceeds 10 ppb of arsenic, for example, as do
3,300 water systems in Michigan and 25% of New Mexico's water districts,
including Albuquerque's. In all,about 15 million Americans drink affected
water."
++++
It's hard to see how improvements to the mining industry are going to
affect that one way or the other.
Regarding the comment by someone about eliminating waste by not letting the
contaminant in in the first place, how would you propose to keep arsenic in
the Earth's crust from leaching into the water as it passes through? I
agree in general about eliminating waste of all kinds in industrial
processes. That's how I make a good part of my living. I just think you are
off base in this particular case.
And I'm still curious how abortion doctors and the supremes got into your
previous note. Was that an error on your part or was there some point you
were making about Arsenic? If so, it went way over my head but you did
pique my curiosity.
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
