
Virginia Tech Professor Spent $147k to Help Uncover the Flint Water Scandal - rmason
http://www.attn.com/stories/5314/virginia-tech-flint-water-crisis
======
nemild
Is anyone else saddened that it takes a personal mortgage by a passionate
professor and his team to figure this out? And that even after they proved it,
a GoFundMe campaign is the only way to recoup the funds?

With the agencies involved dragging their feet, was there no other way to get
someone else involved? Is there a whistleblower fund like the SEC has:
[https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower](https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower) that
gives them a portion of the impact they had (10-30% for amounts over $1 MM in
the SEC's case)?

~~~
sremani
This is the GoFundMe page,
[https://www.gofundme.com/flintstudyvt](https://www.gofundme.com/flintstudyvt)

~~~
bartvk
Thanks. I chipped in a tenner and I'm from Europe. But the passion that this
team shows, is awe-inspiring.

------
gjmulhol
Wow, I was under the impression that the Flint situation was primarily driven
by bad policy put in place by people who didn't really know what they were
doing, but it seems like there was a lot more nefarious action than that.

~~~
masonic
That's the common spin of the moment.

What they aren't saying is _why_ Flint switched its supply: the Detroit system
_drastically_ raised its fees to Flint (the switch saved $19 million over the
first 8 years alone), and Flint was broke as it is. The city council vote to
switch was 7-1, with 6 Democrats voting "yes".

[http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/03/flint_city...](http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/03/flint_city_council_approves_re.html)

Many articles try to imply that the lead came from the new water supplier; in
fact, it leached from lead pipes the existing system used as its water mains.

Yes, despite all these years of knowing the dangers of lead, neither Flint nor
Detroit made any attempt to clear lead from their water delivery systems, and
EPA rules allowed testing to be based on long periods of letting taps run to
clear as many contaminants as possible first.

And switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve the lead problem in the
mains, although it may be less acute.

~~~
throwaway5752
"And switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve the lead problem in the
mains, although it may be less acute."

It does solve it. The Detroit water has lower chloride levels than the Flint
River sourced water, so the lead in the service lines and solder won't leach
above acceptable limits. There's lead in old mains and service lines
_everywhere_ in the country, particularly in lines put in place before the mid
20th century. And the cost to remove them in places like Flint is high because
the frost line is so deep.

~~~
ugexe
Reverting to the old water source doesn't just revert the corrosion process
that has already been started

~~~
justin66
I read somewhere that they're putting chemicals in (phosphates?) to try to
help fix things in that regard.

------
robotmlg
I met Marc Edwards in 2010. when I did a summer program at Virginia Tech. One
of the most passionate people you'll ever meet. The big news then was water
contamination in D.C.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_contamination_in_Washingt...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_contamination_in_Washington,_D.C._drinking_water)),
another project that Edwards spent much of his personal funds on. Fortunately
then, his work earned him a MacArthur Genius Grant in 2007, helping him to pay
back his debt.

~~~
jlgaddis
I hope he wins something similar for his work here. It's outrageous that he
had to take out a mortgage on his home in order to be able to complete this
project. I don't know the man but I have much respect for him.

------
AngrySkillzz
Interesting couple of Reddit comments on the relevant water chemistry in this
situation. [1]

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/41gqfe/is_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/41gqfe/is_gov_rick_snyder_actually_to_blame_for_the/cz2nsho)

------
blammail
This situation is horrifying. And if we're thinking of costs - those have only
begun. I shudder to think the longterm health effects this will have for years
to come.

------
kevindeasis
I've heard from my colleagues that there are leaked emails around on how they
chose to switch suppliers. Even though they knew the lead contamination.

Anyone have a link of the said email dump? Other links are broken

------
DanielBMarkham
Related reading about Flint:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/22/flint-
water...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/22/flint-water-lead-
poison-michigan-health-column/79019134/)

------
discardorama
Side question: how expensive is it to get your water tested? I live in an
older house, and all this talk has made me concerned about what's coming from
my pipes, since they are > 100 yrs old.

~~~
russell
Simple kits for testing both water and painted surfaces go for $10 and up at
Home Depot. The less expensive ones have two tests. You should test at least a
couple of fixtures because older fixtures often contain lead. Getting a
positive may mean that you need only replace that fixture. Testing the paint
isnt a bad idea either. If you get a positive then you need to have the water
tested by a lab. It isnt very expensive to get a kit and mail a sample back to
the lab. Your city or county water department should be able to help you find
a reliable lab.

I am not an expert in the area, but I did serve on the board of a small mutual
water company in the hills above Silicon Valley. We were required to do daily
tests for things like coliform bacteria and monthly tests for other possible
contaminates. Every few years we handed out lead testing kits to a few
households on the various branches of the system to make sure lead wasnt
leaching into the water. All of our samples had to be tested at county
approved labs. A county inspector also took samples during the year. The
testing for larger water systems were even stricter.

------
dghughes
I was in Scranton Pennsylvania in 1999 and was horrified at the water there,
the water was yellowish orange.

My guess is many former industrial regions in the US will have heavily
contaminated water.

~~~
ugexe
The yellowish orange color is not produced by industry though, so I'm not sure
why you think that

~~~
dghughes
Lots of coal and steel industries so who knows I thought there may be a link
since it's similar in a region near me where coal and steel were common.

------
melted
Seems like a hundred dollars should have been sufficient. It's a simple lab
test. Lead in the water == bad news.

------
ck2
Remember they switched to flint river to save a "whopping" $1 Million per
year.

They are probably costing $1 Million per week now in bottled water.

Imagine what the special needs kids caused by this will cost taxpayers for the
next several decades.

Even without the lead leeching issues, everyone knows the Flint river was an
industrial dumping ground for decades and was very toxic - no amount of
filtering would have made it safe for constant consumption.

~~~
cjbprime
> Remember they switched to flint river to save a "whopping" $1 Million per
> year.

It's starting to look like they were offered a deal from their previous water
source that would have come in under the price of switching to Flint, so the
decision making process was especially weird.

> Even without the lead leeching issues, everyone knows the Flint river was an
> industrial dumping ground for decades and was very toxic - no amount of
> filtering would have made it safe for constant consumption.

As I understand it, the science is that it would have been fine if they hadn't
failed to add an anti-corrosive agent, against normal best practice. The lead
did not come from the river; the lead came from water pipes being corroded by
the water.

------
olympus
Weird that nobody has mentioned this yet: The article claims that Prof.
Edwards spent $147k from his _discretionary research funds_ and personal
funds. He's still a good guy and has probably used a non-trivial amount of his
own money, but it's not like he had to pull all of it out of his bank account.
Discretionary research funds are given to researchers as money for them to
spend on whatever research they find interesting. It's kind of like 3M's 20%
time. The article doesn't mention how much of the $147k came from his research
money and how much came from his pocket book. Why? Because it's not as
sensational to find out that this guy (who is a tenured professor at a big
school) put up $125k of research money and $22k of his own. I don't know what
the actual numbers are but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up less than $50k
of his own money and had the vast majority come from research funds,
considering his history (wikipedia claims he received a $450k grant in 2011
from the EPA to study lead and copper in the water).

Again, I'm not saying he's a fraud. He probably still put up a decent chunk
himself. He did take out a mortgage on his house, but it doesn't mean that he
put 100% of the value of his house towards this crisis. All I'm saying is
don't get caught up in all the sensationalism.

~~~
maxerickson
Several replies to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782)
mentioned it about 1 hour before you posted.

(inaccurate + convenient characterizations of existing comments are a pet
peeve, sorry)

~~~
olympus
Several replies? Only one person addresses discretionary research funds. Every
other commenter quotes the article but is focused on the subject of that
thread (mistaking volunteer hours for money spent). MaggieL wrote: > So...how
much research money was within his discretionary budget?

I wasn't going to reply, but couldn't pass this one up. Inaccurate
characterizations might be a pet peeve of yours, but apparently that doesn't
prevent hypocrisy.

~~~
maxerickson
I think directly quoting those few words meets the bar set by 'mentioned'.

If it was lost in a longer quote maybe not, but when there are 2 sentences
quoted and 1 of them is the statement in question...

------
jrjr
City of Detroit's FAULT. The attempted gouging of Flint for their water supply
is the cause, who was that person that allowed that attempt ?

That is the cockroach that needs the light shown upon them.

follow the money.

jrjr

------
droithomme
They claim the professor and his students did 6000 hrs of work testing samples
(that's an especially round number), which they valued at an average of
$27.74/hr even though everyone was a volunteer and no one was asking to be
paid. This is how they came up with an estimate of a labor value of $166,487
for this voluntary work for which no students who did the work were paid or
asked to be paid.

It is extremely misleading and deceptive here to say that the professor spent
$147,000 because he did not spend $147,000 at all. He spent 11200+3180+50 =
$14,430 and he received 32843+200+500+200 = $33,743 in grants and fees he
charged for speaking, for a surplus of $19,313.

Furthermore, the money being raised is going into an account supervised by the
lead. It is not being used to pay the people who did the work for their time.
This is especially outrageous that he is collecting money for their volunteer
work and keeping it for his own use.

~~~
MaggieL
Headline: "Professor Marc Edwards Spent $147,000..." fine print: "...a net
deficit of $147,174, which Edwards covered with his own discretionary research
and personal funds..."

So...how much research money was within his discretionary budget? It's a bit
of a stretch to call that "his own funds".

~~~
blackguardx
He is essentially using his own money to do what the local and state
governments should have done. His discretionary funds could have been used to
buy equipment for his lab in order to help him get research grants. Instead,
they were spent to do water testing in a different city and in a different
state. He isn't going to receive any research grants or meaningful scientific
publications out of this, which is essentially the job of a university
professor. That's why it is portrayed as such a sacrifice.

------
sabujp
erin brokovich II, directed by michael moore, a netflix special to raise
money.

------
PythonicAlpha
The problem is, in a world, where profits are the most important thing and
everything else is secondary, human life does not count -- even when human
health is destroyed, it can be good -- to increase the profit margins of some
corporations.

------
pfarnsworth
This is sickening. How this could occur in 2016 needs to be studied and
eliminated with prejudice. To think that government officials look at that
orange water and think that's normal. It reminds of the Monsanto lobbyist that
claimed that RoundUp is perfectly safe to drink, but then instantly refused to
drink it when offered. I wish there was a special place in hell for people
like that.

~~~
glenra
The guy you're thinking of wasn't a Monsanto lobbyist.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-
its-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-not-safe-
to-drink-weed-killer-on-camera-but-who-cares/#397a8d9c718e)

------
crimsonalucard
>"[It's a] trivial cost compared to the damage we prevented," Edwards said in
an email to ATTN:. "Best investment we could have made into society."

In the world we live in, people only invest in themselves and society may or
may not benefit as a consequence. This type of selflessness is rare and
unsustainable.

~~~
adventured
Oh really, people only invest into themselves? In the case of the US,
Americans pay $6.1 trillion annually in taxes between local + state + federal.
Equal to one third of GDP. Those same Americans give vast sums to charity,
with the US having practically invented modern philanthropy. Your premise
doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Let me rephrase. In a capitalist society where given the choice people and
corporations in general function as self interested entities.

