@blatham,
blatham wrote:
NY Times editorial on the Pruitt appointment to EPA
I can see in your quoted NY Times editorial piece some inspiration for your evident fondness for metaphors and frequant sweeping statements of little or no informational content, but far reaching deceptive potential. It is indeed very useful **** for the deceptive political rhetoric you both practice.
I really liked the bit about "... 195 countries that agreed in Paris last year to reduce their emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases in the belief that the United States would show the way." In the first place few of these nations have made any serious efforts to comply with previous agreements (How well are you guys doing up in Alberta?) , and secondly their real expectations are quite unknowable, even to the NYT, and, whatever they may be, don't bind this country in any way.
The issues with arsenic, mercury and other toxic pollutants (most of which are ubiquitous in small quantities and naturally occurring), involve regulatory action limits, a very technical question that has many complicating factors including the mobility and reactivity of the molecules in question; the various biological uptake paths in humans; the accumulation (or absense of it) in the human body; and a host of other factors. EPA has recently taken to the issuance of action limits that in some cases are below the ability of even advanced laboratories to detect by any proven means. Go figure !
I recognize your lack of knowledge or even apparent interest in these technical details ( For both you and the NYT these details do take some of the flourish out of wanted rhetorical flights, and conflate desired simpolistic, uninformed "solutions" - very inconvenient.)
By the way organic arsenic is a component of most of the plant food you eat. It is nutritious, is redily excreted by the body and relatively harmpess. Facts are pesky things.