P.S.
And as a parent (since you brought it up <s>), let me assure you that
in all likelihood I would probably prefer free child's safety seats
for my car than micro-marginally improved drinking water.
Jim


>>
>>Bissell here: what if the reduction from 50 ppb to 10 ppb meant that 15
>>children would not die from arsenic poisoning? Is that worth the $400
>>million?
>
>. . .  not if spending that same $400 million saves 100 children from
>being ejected from automobiles in car crashes--via the mechanism of
>the Newly Proposed, State of New Mexico
>Jim-Tantillo-the-Pragmatist-Sponsored Child's Free Safety Seat
>Giveaway Program.  Net cost: $400 million, net benefit: 100 lives
>saved.
>
>And (all humor aside), I bet that there's a *far* better ability to
>predict the potential lives saved via giving away better car seats
>than by estimating 1 in 10 million-type odds of any given child being
>poisoned by 10-50 ppb of arsenic in the water supply.
>
>That said, I acknowledge your point.  If with a reasonable amount of
>certainty one could make the prediction that yes, 15 children will
>die as a result of inaction, then I think that has to be taken into
>consideration.  Is that a decisive factor in forming a conclusion?  I
>don't know--in some cases perhaps it is.  But the point of most of
>the risk literature, especially with regard to environmental toxics,
>is that there are far greater *known* risks elsewhere.  If I were
>king, I'd spend that $400 million on an education campaign warning
>vegetarians of the dangers of toxins in raw salad mushrooms.  And if
>I really wanted to Save The Children I'd crusade against aflotoxins
>in peanut butter.  Peanut Butter--the Silent Killer.
>
>jt
>
>
>>
>>Steven
>>
>>  Dada is not dead
>>Watch your overcoat