I need to brush myself up on ...

I need to brush myself up on this subject. However, I deplore the use of negative statistical symbolism used in the article. I have seen this many times. Why should you compare washington city in a toxic well to give a practical idea to the layman? Why not something like 150% of Lake Michigan. This is a trivial issue but when you start your argumant with black logic, I find myself on the opposite side sub-consciously. I am not disputing the fact here but I am stating that examples of more positive events can be given. Moreover, how much is the area of Washington city? Is it as per municipal norms. Is the standard acceptable to all the people ? If yes, then no problem. However if no, then the toxic waste quantity is vague. You may say that this is irrelevant to the subject and I will agree with you. But sometimes, matters of zero significance need to be deflated back to the original size so that the irrelevance does not become relevant within a short time.