I agree that often science gets left out and political pressure takes over,
this usually creates standards that allow more toxins and/or pollutants than
science would like, not the other way round. This is usually because the
chemical companies or other vested interests have the lobbyists working on
their behalf.


"mm" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:51:56 -0600, "Bob M." wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Mark Modrall wrote:
Hi...

My wife's been looking into arsenic removal systems for our house.
We tested the water and have pentavalent arsenic in it exceeding the
new standards.

She's got it down to Purolite's Arsenix system and ResinTech's
ASM-10-HP (an anion exchange system). She was wondering if anyone out
there had opinions about which one was better. The former says their
media last 3 years, the latter 5, but she's finding none of the
vendors who actually install the stuff warrantee either out nearly
that far.

The old standard of 50 parts per billion was in force for about a
zillion
years. The new standard, 10 parts per billion, has as much science
behind
it as did the ban on silicone breast implants.

If your water is below 50, save your money.


Exactly. Clinton changed it in the waning -days- of his presidency. There
was zero science behind the move, it was all political. If it was so
necessary, it would have been lowered long ago.

I don't konw about the rest of it, but this last sentence doesn't
compute. For example, maybe they tried for the lower value but
compromised on the earlier higher value. Maybe there were other
efforts to lower it but they failed.

The notion that things must have been done right the first time, so
any other way isn't right, is not valid.