Slashdot Mirror
Florida Regulators OK Plan To Increase Toxins In Water (washingtontimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Times: Despite the objection of environmental groups, state environmental regulators voted Tuesday to approve new standards that will increase the amount of cancer-causing toxins allowed in Florida's rivers and streams under a plan the state says will protect more Floridians than current standards. The Environmental Regulation Commission voted 3-2 to approve a proposal that would increase the number of regulated chemicals from 54 to 92 allowed in rivers, streams and other sources of drinking water, news media outlets reported. The Miami Herald reports that under the proposal, acceptable levels of toxins will be increased for more than two dozen known carcinogens and decreased for 13 currently regulated chemicals. State officials back the plan because it places new rules on 39 other chemicals that are not currently regulated. The standards still must be reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but the Scott administration came under withering criticism for pushing the proposal at this time. That's because there are two vacancies on the commission, including one for a commissioner who is supposed to represent the environmental community.
The bottled water industry will be pleased as drinkable tap becomes more scarce all over the US. This is just part of the process. Maintaining a clean water supply is too difficult and expensive. So instead of raising the price, which is totally unjustifiable anyway, it's far easier to let the quality slip.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
headline should read "Rick Scott's plan to POISON Floridians, you won't believe what happens next"
another serving of GREEN SLIME , please!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Without all of the data ("two dozen known carcinogens" in an unknown concentration), this could still be a net gain for Floridians. There are plenty of substances that the rest of the developed world believes to be inert in small doses, but that "are known to the state of California to cause cancer" at any dosage. If they are loosening the regulations on some substances using actual data to devise allowable limits, and again using actual data to further restrict those chemicals that are harmful, then perhaps this change is completely above the board, and inline with the best interest of the people. Drinkable water is a disappearing resource, so practical guidelines (do I need to mention using actual data again?), seems a prudent course of action, and this article doesn't provide enough information to determine if these changes are indeed practical or detrimental to consumers.