As I coyly place my tongue in my cheek...

News flash:  Swimming in chlorinated pools can lead to cancer: study!

Where's the nanny staters wanting to ban pools?  Or chlorine?  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Apparently, adults that swim for 40 minutes in a chlorinated pool showed signs of mutated DNA!  Not Toxic Avenger style mutation of course, but mutation nonetheless indicating an increased risk of cancer.  To top it off, subjects also showed signs of respiratory effects from the chlorine in the pool. 

If adults had these effects, what about the children?  Most young kids I know spend more than 40 minutes at the pool and the young kids' size would also have increased effects than those found in adults.

How should the nanny staters react?  We already have the template with tobacco, so let's plug in the new information and see what we get...

If we take the nanny stater's positions, then we should first have various Attorney Generals from different states sue the chlorine makers and suppliers and extract a "chlorine settlement" of several billion dollars, which the money would then be used to "educate" swimmers about the risks of swimming in pools.  Like the tobacco settlement though, little to none of the "chlorine settlement" money would actually be spent in the way it was supposed to be used.

Congress, using the nanny staters as cover and in an effort to "get people to stop swimming in chlorinated pools" will pass a series of "pool taxes" and "chlorine taxes", which we all know is just a cover to raise more money.  States will also follow suit when they see the money generated by the federal government.  At the same time, the chlorine producers will be hurt by this action so these chlorine producers will then allowed to receive subsidies in order to stay in business. 

The nanny staters wouldn't stop with suing the chlorine industry.  Next, they would petition Congress to force chlorine companies and pools to erect huge signs stating the health effects of swimming in chlorinated pools. 

Still not satisfied, the nanny staters would drag the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society into the mix and begin to petition Congress and states to outlaw chlorine altogether.

Sound familiar?  It should.  Remember when people said "I don't care if they ban smoking.  It's gross.  I don't smoke, so I don't care"?  Remember when I said there will be a day when the federal government would regulate your health?  That day is upon us soon when Obamacare kicks into effect.  Remember, if you do nothing when they come for others' rights, nobody will be left to fight for yours when they come for your rights. 

The above satire of the nanny staters overreaction may seem a bit extreme but we have seen such reactionary proposals at other times, and I'm not talking about tobacco.  Remember Red Dye #2?

Red Dye #2 was banned because a Russian study found that it could lead to cancer.  Consumer activists freaked out, and pressured the FDA to act.  Of course, the Chicken Littles ignored the fact that a human would have to drink 7,500 12oz cans of Red Dye #2 soda to reach the levels of toxins found in the Russian test rats.  And that's not to mention the costs to industry - which is passed on to the consumer.  So industry started using Red Dye #40, and nobody noticed anything except for a few higher prices in products containing Red Dye #40.  The American consumer was in the clear, right?  Not so fast!  Now Red Dye #40, and several others (some used in Twinkies!) have now been shown to be carcinogenic in children and to cause hyperactivity in children..

Remember, soylent green is made of people...