You (especially you young feathermerchants) need -- in this era of increasing environmental pollution -- to understand the DISTINCTIONS and PURPOSE of the title's content. Why? To avoid being misinformed or conned by various TALKING HEADS and MEDIACS.

In March, 2001, President Bush reversed President Clinton's support of the National Academy of Sciences recommendation to lower the TOLERANCE LEVEL (allowable amount) of ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER. He, supported by politicians and business types, questioned the scientific capability of this august body, while also pleading that IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO GIVE YOU PURER DRINKING WATER. (This shifts the burden onto future generations of politicians and public to pay the medical costs if this be deleterious.)

I was provoked into writing this by a comment of George (The Apostate) Will on the ABC Program, "This Week", of Sunday, 3/27/01. Anent trying to make drinking water safer, Will compared it to trying to make a "perfectly safe automobile". You can't compare the two processes involved for reasons that explicate my title.

You perhaps know that chemical atoms combine, and chemical molecules combine, under appropriate conditions. THIS MEANS THAT NO CHEMICAL ELEMENT OR COMPOUND IS PURELY WHAT THE CHEMICAL FORMULA SAYS, but ALWAYS CONTAINS "TRACES OF IMPURITIES". DISTINCTIONS ARISE ONLY FROM DEGREE OF IMPURITY, AND MY TITLE CONCERNS GOVERNMENT STANDARDS OF TOLERANCE.

Why two different standards -- INDUSTRIAL and PHARMACEUTICAL? Because LIVING SYSTEMS (especially, HUMAN SYSTEMS) differ significantly from NONLIVING SYSTEMS. An INDUSTRIAL PROCESS can TOLERATE higher LEVELS of a given IMPURITY than can a LIVING SYSTEM. The chemical engineer can use increased PRESSURE AND HEAT (beyond that "ambient" or environmental) to force enaction of a CHEMICAL PROCESS. But PLANT and ANIMAL SYSTEMS (particularly HUMAN SYSTEMS) cannot TOLERATE such high levels of PRESSURE and HEAT!

Hence, the need for LOWER LEVELS OF IMPURITIES in the CHEMICALS ingested by HUMANS, IN ORDER THAT NECESSARY BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES CAN OCCUR AT "GOOD" LEVELS. This STANDARD OF TOLERANCE is called "Pharmaceutical Purity".

So George (The Apostate) Will was saying, in effect, that automobiles and humans have ESSENTIALLY THE SAME KIND OF SYSTEMS. I don't excuse Will -- as I might other TALKING HEADS or MEDIACS -- for the same reason that I call him "The Apostate". Will was formerly a professor of philosophy, as was his father, but now almost flaunts his philosophical APOSTACY. Anyone with such a background should know enough about Science to be aware of such distinctions. (Around 1830, "natural philsophers" became known as "physicists", party of the second part in this matter.) And all of these TALKING HEADS and MEDIACS have better RESOURCES OF INFORMATION than I.

One further caveat, which also explains why I won't tolerate a microwave oven (actually a radar system!) in my house, and worry that my sons have them. As a statistician, I've spent 50 years watching TOLERANCE LEVELS, for various purposes, BE LOWERED as DATA SHOWED NEED. We can detect some of the most distance star systems by microwave receivers. You may check your microwave oven by a recommended device, which shows "safe levels of radiation". But a better receiver could detect your microwave oven blocks away -- at ATTENUATED STRENGTH. A few years from now, STATISTICS may show that the TOLERANCE LEVEL is too high, and a significant number of humans are suffering from this, so a new LEVEL may be instituted. That's what I've witnessed over and over, during the past 50 years.

My POINT: Data a few years from now may show that impurities of ARSENIC and such MAY BE ATTENUATING LIVE-GIVING BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES in a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of people. A new STANDARD may be instituted -- TOO LATE FOR MANY PEOPLE!

THE TOLERANCE FOR STATISICIANS (although many of them turns their backs on this) IS TO "GO BY THE WORST CASE SCENARIO", choosing a less-costly SCENARIO. (That may be "increasing cost now of purer drinking water" vs. "big medical costs later".)

When some politician or business type or Mediac challenges the above STRATEGY, demand why they're standing on a DOUBLE STANDARD. For this is the STRATEGY followed in so much decision-making in POLITICS, BUSINESS, THE MEDIA, etsettery. (And if it isn't, tell their investers or constituents.) Ask objectord to PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Stand up and be counted! It's your LIFE and your BUDGET!