The recent furor over the Bush Administration’s recent
decision to reexamine new standards for the level of arsenic in
the country’s water systems reflects the continuing inability
of the GOP to win the public relations battle, even though the
facts are clearly on their side. To review:
In his last days in office, Bill Clinton ordered that the
Environmental Protection Agency change the maximum amount of
arsenic allowed in the public water supply from 50 parts per
billion to 10 parts per billion. That regulation was not to take
effect until 2006. Saying that the issue requires further study,
Christie Whitman, the new head of the EPA, put a hold on this
forthcoming regulation in March. Environmental groups
subsequently blasted the Bush Administration for its callous
disregard for the environment. The Bush Administration has since
tried to repair the political damage by announcing
"pro-environment" measures just before "Earth
Day", including Christie Whitman’s announcement that the
National Academy of Sciences recommend a new arsenic standard
between 3 parts per billion and 20 parts per billion.
Note that the Bush Administration has not softened the old
standard of 50 parts per billion already in place. Nor has it
reversed the new standard offered by Clinton, as it would not
have gone into effect until 2006, but merely tabled it so it can
be put under further study. At worst, the Bush Administration
will maintain the current standard, and ultimately they may
improve it.
Reducing the level of arsenic level may or may not be a good
idea. The World Health Organization argues that the standard
should be 10 parts per billion as a "provisional
guideline". The National Academy of Sciences recommended a
lower level as well in 1999.
However, the NAS noted the following while making the
aforementioned recommendation: "Additional epidemiological
evaluations are needed to characterize the dose-response
relationship for arsenic-associated cancer and noncancer end
points, especially at low doses. Such studies are of critical
importance for improving the scientific validity of risk
assessment." This means, in simple language, that they do
not know whether strengthening the arsenic standard will make an
iota of difference in improving public health.
By the NAS’ numbers, the new regulations would save 200
lives per year, but this is based on the unscientific method of
extrapolation. Gordon Prather, a writer of Worldnetdaily.com and
an expert on energy and environmental issues, writes that
"in arsenic levels, as almost everything else EPA regulates
-- what they do is start plotting percentage of mice killed vs.
level of exposure. Suppose it's 100% at some level A and 10% at
some other, much lower level B. Then they draw a straight line
between A and B and then ask what percentage corresponds to some
very, very low level C. Suppose that at C, that percentage turns
out to be .00001%. Well, .00001% times 100 million mice is 10
dead mice."
But such a method does not distinguish between levels that
kill and very small amounts that may make no qualitative
difference. If you drink a sufficient amount of alcohol at one
time, you will die, and if you drink a lot of it, your health
will suffer, and you have a greater likelihood of contracting
cancer. But if you drink two glasses of wine per week instead of
one, are you more likely to contract cancer? Most health experts
would not make such a claim. Infinitely small amounts of arsenic
may fit this particular analogy.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance, and minute
amounts of it in water may actually kill certain microbes in
water, thus doing more good than harm for individuals who drink
it.
Senator Pete Dominici of New Mexico recently pointed out that
his home state "has some of the highest naturally occurring
levels of arsenic in the nation, yet has a lower than average
incidence of the diseases associated with arsenic."
If new regulations are enacted, rural areas face the biggest
hurdles in complying with the new standard. Of course, these
rural areas and not the federal government would be forced to
pay for the cost of the new regulations. Trying telling people
living in rural areas that would be forced to comply with new
water regulations and pay an extra hundred dollars a month for
their water bill for scientific reasons that are ambiguous, at
best.
"Bush is right about arsenic." Did a right-wing
Neanderthal say this? No, liberal Michael Kinsley did. ''The
question is never posed: Do you want your water bill to go up
several hundreds of dollars a year to go from a one-in-500,000
to one-in-a-million chance of cancer?" Is this from a
reactionary think-tank? Nope, this is from Peitro Nivola, a
regulatory expert at the moderate to liberal Brookings
Institution.
None of these facts and opinions settle the debate on
arsenic. A stricter standard may prove to be valuable and
sensible, although it may be above 10 parts per billion.
However, it does make Whitman’s original plan to hold off
implementation of the regulation until further study a sound
one.
Moreover, it should be clear by now why Congress never passed
stricter arsenic regulations on its own, why Clinton passed this
regulation in the last moments of his Presidency and how the
noise that environmental groups make on this issue do not square
with the facts.
Nevertheless, a portion of the public undoubtedly believes
that Bush’s stance on arsenic puts the health of the public in
jeopardy, and it reflects their wariness of his positions on the
environment.
I support drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge,
intelligent logging on federal lands, and a complete repudiation
of the Kyoto Treaty. However, many moderates, where political
elections are won and lost, would find these positions inimical
to their own views, which more often than not are based in a
principled but vague attitudinal stance as opposed to strong
conviction. People believe that the environment is an important
issue and want to be "for" it, but most people do not
spend much time examining the minutiae of the issues involved.
This works to the disadvantage of the Bush Administration,
which must choose between explaining its position that is
difficult to sum up in a soundbite, or mollifying its position
in order to suit moderates. This is a choice facing the GOP on a
host of issues and poses an overarching question: to woo the
moderates or to consolidate the conservative base?
The Bush Administration chose to woo moderates and play
defense on this issue, as Whitman altered the EPA’s stance by
asking the National Academy of Sciences to recommend a standard
between 3 parts per billion and 20 per billion. But this stance
is a mistake. Asking the NAS for a standard at 20 parts per
billion or less is to assume that such a standard would provide
specific health benefits before there is evidence to warrant it.
Whitman’s position confers legitimacy to environmental groups
in a premature fashion.
Environmentalists always have and always will demonize the
Bush Administration or conservative ideas for an environmental
stance that is less than all consuming. But Whitman’s EPA
should stop trying to appeal a group of people who will never be
satisfied with their policy directions, no matter how much thy
try to appease criticism. Moreover, moderates who see an
administration that caters to environmentalists is one that
lacks the courage of its convictions, and loses the backbone
that makes it worthy of support. Sound public policy should
dictate public relations battles, and not the other way around.
The key is to get out the facts in a forceful but positive
way. Above all, stop trying to appease groups who exalt
indignation over facts. Democrats tend to be better than
Republicans at these types of political games for several
reasons, but Republicans are bound to lose if they don't fight
back. In this case, Democratic interest groups seized upon this
specific issue in an underhanded way, so as to bolster their own
sense of moral and intellectual superiority to themselves and
the general public. The best antidote to these political attacks
is the following: spread the truth as much as possible, stay
calm in the face of blistering and unfair characterizations in
the press, and have faith that the American public will refuse
to fall for demagoguery once they know the score.
|
Shop PUSA
It Looks Like a President Only
Smaller: Trailing Campaign 2000
by Joel Achenbach
DVD's Under $10 at buy.com!
Cigar.com
The
Trouble With Government
by Derek Bok
Scan your PC for viruses now!
Magazine of the Month
Nickel and Dimed: Or Not Getting
by in America
by Barbara Ehrenreich
The O'Reilly Factor: The Good,
Bad, and Completely Ridiculous in American Life
by Bill O'Reilly
Leather -
Sale (30 to 50% off)
Shop for Your Princess at DisneyStore.com
No One Left To Lie
To: The Values of the Worst Family
by Christopher Hitchens
Search
the Web for:
Death Penalty
Ronald
Reagan
Middle
East
MP3
Web Music
George
W. Bush
Saddam Hussein
Online Gambling
Auto Loans
Free Online Games
NFL
Nascar
Britney Spears
|