Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#111

Post by JoeAltmaier »

mc32 wrote: post #24

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?

The last. The OP for instance was low on content. I found this 'fact' : “We have a lot of threats to the water supply”

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#112

Post by nvusuvu »

ascorbic wrote: post #74
manachar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most houses in the U.S. built prior to a few decades ago have lead paint and many have asbestos. Then there's the whole leaded gasoline fiasco. The world has known of the danger of lead and many other dangerous substances, but often still chooses to use the dangerous substance. Sometimes it's because there weren't alternative substances that could do what needed to be done. Sometimes it was just a matter of expense.…

> Course, then there are cases like the leaded gasoline that should be considered one of the greatest crimes of all time. And the man who was responsible for this was also responsible for CFCs. "He had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr .

On October 30, 1924, Midgley participated in a press conference to demonstrate the apparent safety of TEL. In this demonstration, he poured TEL over his hands, then placed a bottle of the chemical under his nose and inhaled its vapor for sixty seconds, declaring that he could do this every day without succumbing to any problems whatsoever.[5][8] However, the State of New Jersey ordered the Bayway plant to be closed a few days later, and Jersey Standard was forbidden to manufacture TEL there again without state permission. Midgley would later have to take leave of absence from work after being diagnosed with lead poisoning.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#113

Post by jschwartzi »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #94
voltagex_ wrote: post #10

If I travel to the US (Let's say Los Angeles, Seattle and New York) how do I know if the tap water is safe to drink? In the EU I normally just ask a local. In Germany it's safe to drink but in the Czech Republic you might be better off drinking bottled water (last time I checked was ~10 years ago, sorry if it's changed).

Locals will also tell you vaccines will give you autism and wifi is making them sick so they need homeopathic medicine. Better to go with facts over hearsay. The EPA requires yearly water quality reports (called Consumer Confidence Reports) for all municipal water supplies in the United States. Specifically they are due by July 1st each year. LA - https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualit... Seattl…

Those reports don't tell me whether the water coming out of my taps is contaminated.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#114

Post by tallanvor »

snowwrestler wrote: post #66
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #40

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.

No, blood work is not an annual event for most children in the US. It's quite rare, which is why one doctor started testing as many children as she could to confirm that they were seeing spikes in lead levels.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#115

Post by minikites »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #107
minikites wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flint was 100% avoidable and motivated by greed.

100% avoidable, yes. Motivated by greed? No, by indifference. No decision-maker here made a decision about the water supply in order to make money off of it.

What? Money was literally the reason:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/what-did...

> To save money, the city began drawing its water from the Flint River, rather than from Detroit’s system, which was deemed too costly. But the river’s water was high in salt, which helped corrode Flint’s aging pipes, leaching lead into the water supply.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#116

Post by alanwatts »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #107
minikites wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flint was 100% avoidable and motivated by greed.

100% avoidable, yes. Motivated by greed? No, by indifference. No decision-maker here made a decision about the water supply in order to make money off of it.

If it was not to make money, then it was to save money due to increasing budget constraints. Allowing the poisoning of the water supply due to budget constraints is some third world shit.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#117

Post by paulmd »

colin_mccabe wrote: post #61
manachar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most houses in the U.S. built prior to a few decades ago have lead paint and many have asbestos. Then there's the whole leaded gasoline fiasco. The world has known of the danger of lead and many other dangerous substances, but often still chooses to use the dangerous substance. Sometimes it's because there weren't alternative substances that could do what needed to be done. Sometimes it was just a matter of expense.…

Course, then there are cases like the leaded gasoline that should be considered one of the greatest crimes of all time. Yep, and it's still going on. Some small planes still use leaded fuels. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a54/

Yep, most of the small piston-engine aircraft are designed to run on 100-octane fuel. The only practical way to get the octane that high is leaded gasoline. However, the lead levels are lower than they used to be (avgas is typically 100LL for "low-lead"). Also, general aviation only consumes about 0.1% of the transportation fuel supply, so we're talking about a minuscule fraction of the fuel consumed.

More modern aircraft can often get by with 94-octane premium unleaded. However, they cannot tolerate ethanol in their fuel, and due to congressional mandates for ethanol blends it's become increasingly difficult and expensive to source ethanol-free premium gasoline. Paradoxically, this pushes general aviation back to 100LL, which can easily be sourced without ethanol.

Modern aircraft also have a trend towards diesel engines (often adapted from automotive diesels) that can be run on Jet A-1 fuel. These are actually very promising because they have good performance-to-fuel economy. See the Diamond DA62 for an example.

http://www.gami.com/g100ul/avgas0211.pdf

http://www.aci-na.org/static/entransit/smallairports2011conf...

The root problem is that the general aviation fleet turns over incredibly slowly due to intensive maintenance requirements imposed by the FAA (eg annual total overhauls). It's pretty normal for your average single-engine aircraft to reach a lifespan of 40-50 years, and there's still plenty of aircraft that are pushing 70 or 80 years old.

As such it's very difficult to achieve a phase-out of a fuel type within timeframes that people consider reasonable. Like I said, the shift towards 94-octane premium unleaded and diesels is already happening, but it will probably take another 20-30 years for the fleet to naturally rotate to engines that support alternative fuels.

FAA oversight requirements (parts sourcing and mechanic labor) make everything airplane-related insanely expensive. You could mandate engine replacements, but this would be so expensive it would basically total 50% of the general-aviation fleet in an instant. At the end of the day we're talking about <0.1% of the transportation fuel supply so it's just not that big a deal.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#118

Post by maxerickson »

paulmd wrote: post #117
colin_mccabe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Course, then there are cases like the leaded gasoline that should be considered one of the greatest crimes of all time. Yep, and it's still going on. Some small planes still use leaded fuels. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a54/

Yep, most of the small piston-engine aircraft are designed to run on 100-octane fuel. The only practical way to get the octane that high is leaded gasoline. However, the lead levels are lower than they used to be (avgas is typically 100LL for "low-lead"). Also, general aviation only consumes about 0.1% of the transportation fuel supply, so we're talking about a minuscule fraction of the fuel consumed. More modern air…

I'm not in a panic about the lead in aviation fuel, but the relatively tiny amount of fuel used isn't really the thing you want to consider, you want to look at the absolute harm done by the use.

I do realize that in this case the harm is likely extremely difficult to even estimate.

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#119

Post by DamnYuppie »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #38
DamnYuppie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also most likely that terracotta pipes were easier and cheaper to manufacture then lead pipes.

And broken easier and required to be replaced. So I doubt that they would have preferred it without reason.

And your are implying that decreased cost and ease of manufacturing aren't viable reasons??

Re: Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

#120

Post by astrodust »

jschwartzi wrote: post #113
nommm-nommm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locals will also tell you vaccines will give you autism and wifi is making them sick so they need homeopathic medicine. Better to go with facts over hearsay. The EPA requires yearly water quality reports (called Consumer Confidence Reports) for all municipal water supplies in the United States. Specifically they are due by July 1st each year. LA - https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/YourWater/AnnualWaterQualit... Seattl…

Those reports don't tell me whether the water coming out of my taps is contaminated.

Then you get your own water tested. Here they have lead testing kits to try and weed out the old problems with lead pipes and solder.
Post reply on HN