You're missing my point, Steve. Arsenic is definitely worth worrying about. IT's a serious problem in some areas. But as toxic waste goes, it's not particularly heavy. Because the TRI is just based on weight, some other "more polluted" watersheds with heavier, but less toxic pollutants, will get more attention than one that is laced with Arsenic.

By the way, you have to understand something about the phrase "deemed unsafe". If you listen to the press, they like to scream "our waters are less safe than ever before...look at the stats!!" What they don't mention is that the definition of a "safe" level of Arsenic has been changed, and for political reasons. It used to be 50 ppb. Clinton changed it to 10 ppb. So if the level in your area used to be 40 ppb, and industry reduced it to 30 ppb, guess what? Your area is now polluted, when it wasn't before, even though the level of pollution went down. These are the games politicians and government agencies play.

It's the same way with diabetes. Haven't you heard the media and the medical community howling about the "diabetes epidemic?" Well, it's because they've changed the very definition of diabetes from a blood glucose level of >200 mgl/dl to >124 mg/dl. So now your health insurance company gets to deny your coverage, and you may not even be able to get life insurance, even though your health hasn't changed at all. Now you're "sick".