[jimkress]

Typical pseudoscientific, Liberal clap-trap. Your repeated referencing of the EPA and NRC (both well established sources of advocacy 'science') make it clear you have predefined the solution and facts are irrelevant. You have in no way offered independent scientific evidence (from real scientists, not 3rd rate, eco-evangelists (NAS non-members) from the EPA and the NRC) that refutes any of the statements made by Milloy.

I'm sure that's not a problem, since Liberals who support thiss drivel from the NRC aren't interested in facts, only about feeling good about what they do ...

As for your comments about Milloy's 'ad-hominem' remarks, the NRC panelists are desperately trying to pass themselves off as members of the NAS, which they are most certainly not. It's the usual attempt by politically motivated, Liberal 'scientists' to perniciously assume the mantle of a respected body in order to perpetuate their fraudulent ideas on an unsuspecting and somewhat naive public.

[cogitator]

It's not good form to resort to name-calling when people or a group come to conclusions you don't agree with.

The main point that I wanted to make was not about the conclusions. You can debate them, or not, as you wish. The main point was that the 10 ppm standard wasn't arrived at simply by choosing a number. The rule was subject to numerous public hearings and analytical reports. It's fine to disagree with the results of the process, but no one should think that there was no process involved.

I'm not going to get involved in name-calling. If you want to discuss the data, then get back to me.