Your premise is that the "allowed" limit is the detectable limit. Seems to be a leap to me - we can detect levels much, much lower than that which is allowed. I don't know that I understand your implication.

For instance, no lead in the body is good, and we allow lead in the body, more than we would have to because the mining companies can't afford to limit their wastes any more. So, the detectable limit isn't the allowed limit.

However, that paroxysm of paranoia over pollutants perfectly sets the stage for people versus profits. (Emmit Hughes, a speechwriter for DDE loved "p"s. "Our powerful posture of preparedness" was one of his phrases.) But I'm beginning to get it.

Even though sometimes it seems private enterprise screams we can't afford anything except to manufacture, that everything from Workers Compensation to Social Security to low levels of pollutants are going to be financially disastrous. Every time. Always. It seems to me they say that if industry can't pollute it cannot profit, enough. So, they NEED to use the entire environment which belongs to everyone for their own selfish purposes. Proper-think, though clearly shows those purposes aren't selfish, though, because if industry profits are very high, it's good for everyone - from CEOs and CFOs to gardeners, maids, housekeepers, car wash attendants, and so on. And since a person can't make it on Social Security, a bit more lead in the body is a favor to them. Makes sense.

The next initially puzzling paradigm is that we've never had a stronger economy than that which was generated during the Clinton administration and inherited by Bush AND we've never had a more people-friendly economy in terms of things like Social Security, Medicaid, Workers Compensation and so on. Now, virtually every one of those was fought against tooth and nail by Republicans. More people friendly - strong economy. Huh. And thank God under proper-think there is an answer.

It must be that we would have had a much, much better way of life if none of those things happened. That's gotta be it. That it's good, except for those unfortunate enough to pay taxes, those poor but not hungry, put-upon people paying for deadbeats, corporate and individual. That it's paying for a marginal existence for individuals and a lavish one for corporations is irrelevant - welfare is welfare. Well, maybe not, because if corporations do well, even on welfare, we all do well. But it could have been much better.

I'm getting it. It takes me a while, but immersion in the conservative manner of thinking does soak through. Give the environment to industry and it benefits everyone. Provide welfare to corporations, and everyone does well.

Such a relief. It didn't make sense before.

Arf