Brice,

Did you actually read this article, or are you just reacting to it
because your political nemesis posted it?  It sounds to me like "the
press" is already involved, with "evidence in hand":

"EPA data analyzed by The Post identified 274 utilities, which
together
serve 11.5 million people, that have reported unsafe lead levels since
2000. Those numbers do not include cities where testing methods
concealed
true lead levels."

I'm in no position to defend the facts and figures (or bias) in this
article.  But it seems odd that you would casually dismiss it, implying
that it's justified with "junk science", without offering any "hard"
science to counter it.  Please point out any specific examples of "junk
science" in this article.

"Mercury is not dangerous if handled properly."  You could say the same
thing about plutonium.  That doesn't mean I want it in my water supply.

Art Frank
Manager of Information Systems
OHSU Foundation
[log in to unmask]
(503) 220-8320


>>> Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> 10/5/2004 1:40:36 PM >>>
<snip>
Mercury is not dangerous if handled properly.  One of the biggest
problems with issues of this sort is the amount of 'junk science'
used to justify it.  So the natual thing for someone to do is get
a sample of water tested, and get someone from the press involved
when you have the evidence in hand, instead of just blindly following
someone with their hair on fire...
</snip>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *