Roger Caiazza analyzes the supposed health benefits of fighting climate change and finds the benefits are hugely overstated and assume things that make no sense in the real world.
My understanding is that scientific bases are not used when determining concentration thresholds for contaminants or heavy metals, but that legal defensibility is the primary determinant. For instance, the maximum drinking water standard used to be 50ppb. The usual green groups brought suit against the EPA to lower this standard to 5ppb, which, at the time, was below available instrument detection level and for which, no medical science could show any benefit. The EPA settled with the plaintiffs with 10ppb, which was detectable and could be achieved by municipal water treatment facilities after installation of reverse osmosis apparatus or other available methods. So, the new drinking water standard was based on the "Sue and Settle" method of regulation.
My understanding is that scientific bases are not used when determining concentration thresholds for contaminants or heavy metals, but that legal defensibility is the primary determinant. For instance, the maximum drinking water standard used to be 50ppb. The usual green groups brought suit against the EPA to lower this standard to 5ppb, which, at the time, was below available instrument detection level and for which, no medical science could show any benefit. The EPA settled with the plaintiffs with 10ppb, which was detectable and could be achieved by municipal water treatment facilities after installation of reverse osmosis apparatus or other available methods. So, the new drinking water standard was based on the "Sue and Settle" method of regulation.