Posted on 10/20/2014 4:33:15 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Environmental Protection Agency took the first step toward regulating a chemical in the country’s drinking water on Monday.
The EPA issued a preliminary determination to regulate the chemical called strontium, which is a naturally occurring element.
At elevated levels strontium can impact bone strength in people who don’t consume enough calcium, the EPA said.
Strontium has been found in roughly 99 percent of the public water systems in the U.S..
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I thought it was only radioactive Sr that was bad?
I’m old school. Rather than have EPA nazis issue new regulations I prefer legislation, debate, votes, and a presidential signature.
There ya go.
Here you will find the many standards that epa sets on drinking water.
Do you think that Congress authorized epa to set these many individual standards.
If you wanted to get away from being a low information republican, you could search Safe Drinking Water Act Strontium
How much deuterium oxide would you like in your water?
Dihydrogen monoxide:
is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of Styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Great. This means we’re all going to die of thirst now.
Oh, about 1 part in 6,000.
How about starting with Chlorine instead and maybe fluoride, too!
If it is naturally occurring is it a contaminate? What is the cost of removal?
How about the deadly chemical that cities have been adding to their water for sixty-some years, which, if you poured any into a river or creek, you would go to jail for years?
It’s used in abortion clinics.
Could be. Naturally occurring doesn’t mean safe.
Protecting the public health is almost always some sort of cost benefit analysis. I’m sure a lot of that will happen before any final rule on strontium is promulgated.
Hydrogen Hydroxide would be a more appropriate name. It’s the positive hydrogen atom (H) bonded with the negative hydroxide radical (HO).
You are correct that it doesn’t mean safe but most of the time the EPA sets their standards quite beyond what is actually safe. I could see testing and informing the community of the dangers but doing a cost benefit analysis from three thousand miles away leaves a lot to be desired. That should be done by the community that will have to pay for it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except the flow of water either above ground or below does not give much heed to artificial community boundaries. What’s needed for you depends on where you get your water
Thanks.
Not for long!
Well they can cut my power but I’d still have water. Several sources actually. One might require some purification the other is many times more pure and safer than anything the government regulates or owns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
