Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 9 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5545, p. 1257
DOI: 10.1126/science.294.5545.1257c
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

ScienceScope

Ending one of the biggest scientific controversies of the young Bush Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week issued a new standard for arsenic in drinking water. It chose exactly the same level of 10 parts per billion (ppb) set by the Clinton Administration.

In March, EPA administrator Christine Whitman suspended that standard and asked for more scientific review, noting that cleanup costs could be high. Her move provoked an uproar among environmentalists and some members of Congress and inspired countless jibes about the president's disregard for the public's health. But if more review was meant to block the standard, it backfired: A National Academy of Sciences panel found that the cancer risks of arsenic were greater than previously thought, suggesting that even 10 ppb might not be protective enough (Science, 21 September, p. 2189). The panel's chair, retired pathologist Robert Goyer, declined to comment on EPA's decision. But he said that it's in line with a World Health Organization guideline followed by many countries.

To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)