101–110 of 146 posts
If it's a wider problem than just Flint, why isn't it being presented as such by and large in the media and by politicians? Is it because that's where the political shenanigans were caught first, when will it get addressed as the more wide-spread problem it appears to be? Or is it more like an opportunist PR stunt [i.e. "we care a lot about..."] or the issue du jour which they'll abandon after they "address" Flint?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ancient Romans knew that lead water pipes were unhealthy and so they preferred terracotta pipes. Do you have a source for this? At the same time, they used lead acetate to sweeten wine and food, which is way more dangerous. If they made the weaker connection between health and water pipes, they should have been able to connect health and this as well.
Yeah and they knew that was bad too. Probably if they had a good way of testing for lead acetate, they'd probably have thrown the occasional wine merchant to the lions. I have a copy of De re Metallica[1] it has a whole chapter on stuff like this and that's 1500's Europe. Lead is kinda tricky since it tends to get passivized most of the time by sulfate and phosphate. Except when it doesn't and then it's insidiously b…
He and his wife (who was also a geologist) were fluent in Chinese and would speak in it if they wanted privacy.
He became known for international humanitarian missions during and after the first world war. He became a national figure by directing flood relief operations during the 1927 Mississippi Flood, which catapulted him into the White House a year later.
He was a much better humanitarian than he was a president. And pretty good geologist and linguist too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. is huge but it's also filled with a lot of people and a lot of local governments, state governments, and of course a federal government. If you want one independent source of proof that U.S. water is safe, consider that almost every U.S. child has blood work done on an annual basis. If elevated levels of lead are a problem, they would be detected at that time, as they were in Flint.
Almost every US child has blood work done on an annual basis? For what? What are they looking for? Lead specifically?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unless you're in Flint, or a paranoiac, tap water in the US is safe. Period. Given the size of the United States that's a very brave statement. Water quality in Europe is typically measured on on commune level and even in countries like Austria which pride themselves for drinkable tap water there are incidents which cause tap water to not be drinkable at times.
The U.S. is huge but it's also filled with a lot of people and a lot of local governments, state governments, and of course a federal government. If you want one independent source of proof that U.S. water is safe, consider that almost every U.S. child has blood work done on an annual basis. If elevated levels of lead are a problem, they would be detected at that time, as they were in Flint.
What? I hated needles as a kid. I think I would have remembered having my blood drawn once a year.
At http://www.mamapedia.com/article/how-often-do-children-get-r... , there are a lot of people who had never heard of routine bloodwork. At http://www.metroparent.com/daily/health-fitness/childrens-he... is a doctor talking about routine bloodwork for children, but only every other year after the age of 5.
You can cheap water testing kits on amazon which you can use. Also not water is 100% safe and it makes a lot of sense to diversify the water sources. We use tap water for cooking, bottled water from different brands at home and workplace. That probably is good enough. I have tested water at home for lead and pesticides and found it to be safe to drink. [Sunnyvale]
The one place we know it isn't safe - Flint - says that you should not use tap water for cooking as the lead will get in the food.
Nor does it make sense to diversify sources. You pay a lot more for non-tap water, bottled water doesn't have a track record of being better than tap water, and it's harder to track any recall issues or other warnings if you have multiple sources.
Plus, there are other ethical questions. Did you want to support the military government of Fiji? Or Nestlé's success in limiting the rights of Michigan citizens to bring legal action to "protect the state's natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction"? Because those are some of the side-effects of choosing bottled water.
In addition, of course, to all the packaging waste and transport costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's fine for the first cup or two, but after that it starts to burn. Wash your hands with it and you'll find you skin is dry and cracking. I have handled and, against my better judgement, quaffed many types of deionised water: triple glass distilled, reverse osmosis, ion exchange, etc. They taste more or less the same to store-bought distilled water and I have not yet had any of the ailments in your complaint. Ther…
Water departments are supposed to do surveys at residential taps to evaluate the effect of alkalinity on lead in the water as it is actually drank. Even the small town I came from does. Seattle, for example, made some changes based on these surveys: http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/Water/Water_Quality/W...
If it's a wider problem than just Flint, why isn't it being presented as such by and large in the media and by politicians? Is it because that's where the political shenanigans were caught first, when will it get addressed as the more wide-spread problem it appears to be? Or is it more like an opportunist PR stunt [i.e. "we care a lot about..."] or the issue du jour which they'll abandon after they "address" Flint?
Flint was 100% avoidable and motivated by greed.
My hardware guy and I are building fun weekend projects. What raspberry pi sensors can you use to figure out if our water is polluted, etc. It should be noticeable, I'm just asking for basic testing. Nothing too crazy.
There's a reason the kits are like this, instead of an electronic device: http://www.amazon.com/First-Alert-WT1-Drinking-Water/dp/B000...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. is huge but it's also filled with a lot of people and a lot of local governments, state governments, and of course a federal government. If you want one independent source of proof that U.S. water is safe, consider that almost every U.S. child has blood work done on an annual basis. If elevated levels of lead are a problem, they would be detected at that time, as they were in Flint.
Almost every US child has blood work done on an annual basis? For what? What are they looking for? Lead specifically?
I remember getting a finger stick almost every visit to the doctor as a kid, but that was just for cell counts and maybe sugar that they did in the office, not a full panel of tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read Vitrivius's De Architectura, specifically the part on building aqueducts. It's basically a manual for "So the Emperor told you to build a city from scratch…" As a random aside, he also includes a proof that the water level mechanism he prefers works even though the Earth is a (roughly) spherical object and not a flat plane.
Couldn't find it in the book itself, but it is referenced here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura#Materials
For when lead is smelted in casting the fumes from it settle upon their members and day after day burn out and take away all the virtues of the blood from their limbs Hence water ought by no means to be conducted in lead pipes if we want to have it wholesome That the taste is better when it comes from clay pipes may be proved by everyday life for though our tables are loaded with silver vessels yet everybody uses earthenware for the sake of purity of taste.
Google books, pg 246 https://goo.gl/g19bhQ