Laserfiche WebLink
expense for localities by some estimates $5 billion or more to upgrade water facilities, <br /> replace filtration systems and so on. New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici complained that <br /> the standard would cost his state alone between$400 million and$500 million. <br /> What does money matter when a life is at stake? EPA predicted that when the standard <br /> was phased in, it might mean 37-57 fewer cancers nationwide. But these aren't real <br /> cancers. They are guestimates based on models and assumptions. EPA can't show you <br /> anyone who has gotten cancer from trace amounts of arsenic in the water supply. But the <br /> money spent preventing these imaginary cancers won't be available to prevent real <br /> cancers. That$5 billion happens to be more than the government now spends on breast or <br /> prostate cancer prevention. <br /> This controversy speaks to more than just the Bush administration's environmental and <br /> health priorities. It speaks to the enormous power of the executive branch of government. <br /> During the presidential campaign, there was much discussion of the fact that whoever <br /> became president would have to reach across the political aisle to get anything done <br /> legislatively, so closely divided was power in Congress. <br /> But Mr. Clinton understood that he had the authority to effect enormous changes in <br /> government roadless wilderness areas, emission reductions, monument designations, <br /> pardons and, yes, arsenic standards by relying on powers that Congress ceded to the <br /> executive branch long ago. Mr. Waxman applauded rule by executive fiat, so long as Mr. <br /> Clinton was issuing the fiats. But now that the ranks of the Bush administration are <br /> rapidly filling with horrors known conservatives determined to use that power for <br /> different ends, he and his allies have lost their enthusiasm for it. <br /> The controversy also speaks to the familiar rule of toxicology that "the dose makes the <br /> poison." Put another way, there is no such thing as a toxic substance. There is only a <br /> toxic dose. The rule applies to arsenic no less than any other substance. <br /> Environmentalists argue that if a substance is poisonous at a high dose, it is poisonous at <br /> a low dose; there is no threshold exposure below which it is safe. It's a convenient <br /> argument when one is trying to close a manufacturer which produces trace amounts of a <br /> suspect chemical or to raise money from a fearful public. <br /> Consider again the case of arsenic. At high doses, well above existing standards, arsenic <br /> is toxic. But in trace amounts it may not only be harmless, it may be benign. A check of <br /> the medical literature turns up dozens of studies in peer-reviewed journals on the use of <br /> arsenic in the treatment of leukemia, for example. By diverting scarce tax dollars from <br /> real to hypothetical health problems, the fear mongering over arsenic may wind up being <br /> a bigger assault on the environment and public health than arsenic ever was. <br /> (Reprinted from: The Washington Times,March 29, 2001) <br /> 18. REMARKS BY GALE NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR <br />