U.S. District Court Overrules the Zeroes at the EPA
Zero Chloroform?
There is no such thing as a zero concentration, lest the term apply to the intellectual abilities of the leaders of Clinton appointee Carol Browner's Environmental Protection Agency.

For example, suppose that air has one part contaminant per billion parts of air.  Then there are about 10 million molecules of contaminant in a cubic centimeter of air, roughly the size of a sugar cube.  That's not zero.

And if a solid (such as the soil) has one part contaminant per billion parts of solid, then there are about 10,000,000,000,000 molecules of contaminant in ever cubic centimeter of the solid.  That's also not zero.

The Environmental Protection Agency has its sights set on zero contaminant for every "carcinogen."  By their definition, a carcinogen is a substance that, if fed to any test animals whatsoever --- even in HUGE doses --- causes cancer in any of the test animals.  Often the test is equivalent to feeding a human all of the artificial sweetener in a thousand bottles of soda pop in a single day.

One of the EPA's so-called "possible carcinogens" is chloroform, the stuff that villains in TV shows use in a handkerchief to render somebody unconscious.  But chloroform is formed as a byproduct of chlorination of water.  In EPA's infinite wisdom, chloroform concentration should be zero, which means that chlorination of water should be banned.

Well, typhus, dysentery, E-coli, and other lovelies thrive in untreated water, and they deserve the protection of the EPA, don't they?  (So what if it kills humans?  The EPA is protecting The Environment.)

The US District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the EPA violated the Safe Water Drinking Act by setting the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal at zero.  Pity the poor microbes.

    To main Energy Advocate Index 
Your comments & questions, please

Perhaps you would like to subscribe to  The Energy Advocate 


Copyright © The Energy Advocate 2000. All rights reserved.