
America Is Flint - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/sunday/america-is-flint.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
======
grandalf
The broader point is that incompetence and corruption plagues institutions
(public and private) of all sizes.

Regardless of one's politics, it's critical that we hold our institutions
accountable and help them get better over time.

This includes our country, our state, our county, our city, our company, our
social and professional groups, open source communities, etc.

There is a strong human tendency to want to defend organizations we are part
of (or rely on) rather than trying to constructively improve them.

Flint is an example of institutional failures at multiple levels, but over all
the loss of life and suffering pales in comparison to what our failed
institutions did in Iraq and around the world, and what they do to our schools
all across the country, etc.

The more official an organization (government, etc.), the more fancy its
facilities (buildings with columns, spires, domes, etc.) the more we must
realize its credibility is based on self-perpetuation rather than on tangible,
auditable results.

There are so many failures happening across the board, and the biggest enemy
to progress is the idea that loyalty means keeping quiet.

~~~
rayiner
Having worked in this area, I can say that "incompetence and corruption" is an
intellectually lazy explanation for the problems facing municipal water
supplies. The real problem is that water is a municipal utility and municipal
rate setting boards set water rates far too low. There is simply not enough
money to rip out all the old lead pipe and replace it:
[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/clean-water-at-any-
rate_b_504...](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/clean-water-at-any-
rate_b_504263.html). It's politically untenable for water boards to raise
rates, especially since water bills are not progressive (seniors and the poor
pay the same rate as rich people).

~~~
mikeash
So fund the system with taxes. Issue bonds for necessary infrastructure
upgrades. If raising money is politically impossible in any form, shut the
system down. If the responsible people are just throwing their hands up and
letting the systems collapse and poison people along the way, that's at best
incompetence.

~~~
ovis
The politician who raises taxes or shuts down water delivery may be replaced
at the next election by the one that doesn't and keeps the lead pipes.

~~~
mikeash
Sure, that's why you end up with incompetent and corrupt people in power.

~~~
jonathankoren
I don't think you can call this fictional public servant incompetent and
corrupt. He's just doing what the people wanted. That shortsightedness and
aversion to investment is problem of the electorate.

~~~
mikeash
When the people's wishes result in poisoning children, a good public servant
doesn't just say "OK" and do it. "Just following orders" isn't any better just
because those orders come through a democratic process. When it's that bad you
fight it, you show people the consequences of what they're asking for, and if
they insist then you either refuse or resign in protest.

Edit: it occurs to me that this characterization of "just doing what the
people wanted" is probably completely wrong anyway. I'm sure there was never a
public meeting in Flint, for example, where city officials stood up before the
public and laid out the plan to switch water supplies and the subsequent
poisoning of the entire city that would result.

~~~
jonathankoren
But that's not the situation outlined in the thread. It's the public servant
that see the lead pipes, the dangerous and untenable situation and takes
action. Then he's sacked _for_ taking action. What then?

~~~
mikeash
Then someone new takes the position and the process repeats.

You can certainly blame the public for electing incompetent or corrupt public
officials. Said officials also shoulder the blame for fucking up the water
system. That they would be fired for doing the right thing does not absolve
them in the least.

I'm not saying you can't blame the people for who they choose to govern,
merely that the people who govern are _also_ to blame.

The situation for Flint specifically is complicated by the fact that the city
has an emergency manager appointed by the governor. The elected council
approved the decision to switch as well, so the locals aren't free from
responsibility either, but there's plenty of opportunity for finger-pointing
in many directions.

------
ghshephard
If I understood the article, what Kristof is saying, is that as bad as Flint
appears to be for children, there are a lot of places as bad, or worse, that
are getting no press at all.

Testing for elevated level of lead in children:

    
    
       o Flint - 4.9% 
       o New York State (outside of NYC): 6.7%
       o Pennsylvania: 8.5%
       o Westside Detroit: 20%
       o Iowa: 32%
    

If these figures are true (and one hopes that the NYT fact checked these
numbers), and are comparable, it seems like what's happening in Flint is just
the tip of the iceberg.

~~~
madaxe_again
While this is indeed pretty dire, it's worth bearing in mind that the entire
generation who are currently running the world suffer from lead poisoning to
one degree or another - atmospheric lead from gasoline additives was a major
source of lead in humans until lead was withdrawn from petroleum. Add that to
most paints being lead based until the last quarter of the 20th century, and
you have an entire generation of brain damage.

The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership
being brain damaged by lead - they added lead acetate to wine as a sweetener,
and lined watercourses with lead regularly - although the former was a far
greater source.
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/win...](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html)
for some reference.

In any case, a huge chunk of the world's population has heavy metal poisoning,
be it mercury, lead, cadmium, or all of the above - and it's largely being
ignored, and things like Flint are almost unhelpful, as it makes this look
like a localised problem, when it's actually global.

~~~
herge
> The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership
> being brain damaged by lead

FWIW, modern historians don't believe that. See
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_co...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_cosmos_neil_degrassetyson_said_some_historians/cgyxmj3)
for a rundown of the modern scholarship on the question, including a breakdown
of Nriagu's arguments.

~~~
themartorana
If the Romans knew lead pipes made water unhealthy, how did we end up with so
much lead piping? (I'm not asking the question as a refutation, I'm genuinely
curious - was this a lesson we forgot??)

~~~
mike_hearn
You could also ask why lead was used for gasoline when it was known that lead
was toxic.

The reason is simple. People knew it was toxic and caused brain damage
('madness' in Roman terms) at high levels of exposure. What they didn't
realise is that very small levels of exposure could cause an internal buildup
over time and cause steady mental degradation. If someone is exposed to
massive heavy metal poisoning and immediately goes crazy, the correlation is
obvious. If an entire generation slowly gets more violent and crime rates go
up, then it's much, much harder to spot the issue because everyone is changing
at the same time.

~~~
Houshalter
Almost everything is poisonous in large doses. This really complicates such
research.

------
sz4kerto
Minor point:

"In Baltimore, a two-year-old boy named Malachi can’t speak, apparently
because of lead poisoning."

Many two year old children don't speak, and later become completely normal. (I
started speaking around the age of 3.)

~~~
sathackr
A lot of these cases seem to be borderline, and many times the maladies are
only loosely ascribed to lead poisoning. Reading the articles, you see things
like "16ppb, 1ppb above the level that the CDC requires you to take action"

And, in the linked article, the line that sz4kerto quoted "In Baltimore, a
two-year-old boy...can’t speak, apparently because of lead poisoning."

Hardly a smoking gun.

Many of the outrage-inducing headlines, when you read further, aren't nearly
as bad as what they seem. If 15ppb requires no action, why is 16ppb an
outrage? Or even 30ppb. Usually 'safe' levels of a substance are set at least
an order of magnitude below the point they become a problem in most
circumstances.

Obviously lead poisoning is a real thing, and the government cover-ups and
selective testing are a problem, but I foresee an entire generation of Flint
descendants that will start blaming any and all of their problems on this
Flint issue, of course, looking for a $$ handout as well. It would be nice for
the media(and the general public) to apply even the lowest evidence bar
"greater weight of the evidence" \-- meaning at least a 50% probability -- to
the situation. It seems the current bar is "a slight chance in hell."

A two year old, exposed to an unknown amount of lead, who can't talk, does not
seem to be a definitive victim of lead poisoning. He is, however, a great tool
for the media to use to invoke the "won't you think of the children" hysteria,
which will surely prompt a knee-jerk reaction that will waste millions of
dollars.

~~~
putlake
It's easy to see this in terms of statistics if it's not _your_ 2-year old
with the speech delay. Not all individuals tolerate lead at the same level.
Lead was commonly used in the middle ages and not everyone suffered from the
neurological damage that lead can cause.

Statistics are the best tool we have but it's also important to realize that
when the incidence rate is low enough, you need a lot of data for statistical
methods to be reliable. We see this in A/B testing of conversion rates. If
your base conversion rate is only 0.1% and you are looking for a 15% lift
(e.g. 15% higher chance of lead poisoning), then you need a sample size of
over 700,000 for each branch (i.e. 700,000 kids "exposed" to lead and 700,000
not exposed). That kind of sample size is hard to come by.

~~~
sathackr
I agree -- I wasn't trying to show that there wasn't enough affected cases to
indicate definitive lead poisoning, just that it's likely not nearly as
widespread or causing as much damage as is currently being ascribed to it.

From the article "4.9 percent of children tested for lead turned out to have
elevated levels." What is 'elevated'? Is that 30ug/dl? or 3ug/dl when the
average is 2ug/dl. When specific information is absent, I generally doubt the
accuracy.

But I guess that's typical news media anyways. If it's not bursting in to
flames, then it isn't news.

Edit: added "From the article..."

~~~
alexandercrohde
I totally agree with request for more detail; I would love a breakdown of PPB
by area. So I found this:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/15/this-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/15/this-
is-how-toxic-flints-water-really-is/)

Flint has an actual problem.

~~~
pyre
That article has some issues though:

> The city opted out of Detroit's water supply

As I understand, it the City of Detroit basically kicked them out (or raised
the rates prohibitively high). Flint was already on track to transition to a
regional water system ( _not_ the Flint river system), but it wasn't completed
yet. This statement places all of the blame onto Flint for pulling out of
using Detroit's water system.

~~~
DrScump
The details have been posted in several earlier threads, but the TL;DR version
is:

1) Detroit was gouging Flint, well into 7 figures per year, (plus the supply
pipes from Detroit to Flint have lead)

2) Flint signed a new deal for a new supply direct from Lake Huron with lead-
free supply lines at an 8-figure cost savings per decade (or less) -- better
water, much cheaper. Construction to take ~4 years.

3) Detroit hears this, cuts off Flint at earliest opportunity (1-year notice
opt-out), apparently assuming that they could later gouge even _more_ under
the assumption that Flint had no alternative;

4) Flint resorts to using Flint River in the interim (until new Huron feeds
from new water system are complete), prepared for the bacterial risks but
unaware of lead risks.

------
nashashmi
In NYC, we used to install cast-iron lead joint pipes for water main
distribution, up until 1985 when a law was passed banning it. To phase out old
water main, the NYCDEP has a rule: All pipes older than 1975 (or thereabouts)
underneath areas of road reconstruction will be replaced by ductile iron pipe.
But NYC still continues to have a lot of pipe that are cast iron even now.

------
pnathan
The question immediately for me is: how do I test my own water? If this is
such an issue, it's clear public health departments are not fully trustable,
which is _terrible_ ; but the starting point isn't to start the engineering
project, it's to determine safety of self. Then on to the politicing, raising
water prices, improving infrastructure, etc.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _how do I test my own water?_

If you live in New York City, you can request a free water lead test kit
[http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-
te...](http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-test-kit-
request). Your own city may have a similar program. Call City Hall and ask.

------
srameshc
We live on tap water and always assumed that the water quality would be
flawless here in US. But after reading such stories, I subscribe to the idea
of buying bottled water or refillable purified tap water. Now I will have to
research if refillable RO water shops can actually clear water or has any lead
or any other contamination in it.

~~~
dalke
> I subscribe to the idea of buying bottled water

Quoting from
[http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qbw.asp](http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qbw.asp)
:

> 1\. Isn't bottled water safer than tap water?

> No, not necessarily. NRDC conducted a four-year review of the bottled water
> industry and the safety standards that govern it, including a comparison of
> national bottled water rules with national tap water rules, and independent
> testing of over 1,000 bottles of water. Our conclusion is that there is no
> assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle it is any cleaner or
> safer than water from the tap. And in fact, an estimated 25 percent or more
> of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle -- sometimes further
> treated, sometimes not.

> 2\. Is bottled water actually unsafe?

> Most bottled water appears to be safe. Of the bottles we tested, the
> majority proved to be high quality and relatively free of contaminants. The
> quality of some brands was spotty, however, and such products may pose a
> health risk, primarily for people with weakened immune systems (such as the
> frail elderly, some infants, transplant and cancer patients, or people with
> HIV/AIDS). About 22 percent of the brands we tested contained, in at least
> one sample, chemical contaminants at levels above strict state health
> limits. If consumed over a long period of time, some of these contaminants
> could cause cancer or other health problems.

Don't forget also that there's a _lot_ of plastic waste with bottled water,
and the cost is enormous. The pure tap water I drink is cheap enough that I
also use it to bathe in and water my plants. Even purified tap water isn't
that cheap.

This price difference means there is a strong business interest to privatize
water. (See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization)
). One of these companies is Nestlé Waters. Nestlé, like other private water
companies, are bringing in loads of bottled water to Flint. This has the dual
purpose of humanitarian support, and getting the idea across that bottled
water is a solution over untrustworthy city water.

What an amazing coincidence that Deborah Muchmore, the wife of Gov. Rick
Snyder’s ex-Chief of Staff Dennis Muchmore, was also spokesperson for Nestle
Waters in Michigan. I think this alignment of interests is a natural
consequence of believing that a (democratic) government should be run more
like a(n autoritarian) business.

~~~
merpnderp
One point, if Nestle ran th water supply, they could be sued for damages and
the EPA would have an adversarial role instead of covering for their buddies
as they very likely were in Flint (by knowing the water was dangerous for
months and only saying something when an independent researcher proved it was
dangerous).

But the main point is they would face a jury setting damages if they pulled
the same rookie corrupt BS that happened in Flint. The government won't.

~~~
dalke
I'm not suggesting that Nestle would want to run the water supply. It's much
more profitable to sell bottled water instead.

The biggest competitor to pop/soda is water. When I was a kid, almost no one
drank bottled water, and there were a lot more public water fountains. It
should be no surprise that companies entered that marketplace a few decades
back, and water fountains started to disappear. See
[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-thinking-
public...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-thinking-public-
drinking-fountains-are-gross-problem-180955931/?no-ist) or [http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/2015/08/30/Respecting-pu...](http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/2015/08/30/Respecting-public-water-
fountains/stories/201508300106) . Quoting from the latter:

> Homegrown brands, though, couldn’t boast glamorous European roots. So
> instead, they made Americans afraid of the tap. One ad from Royal Spring
> Water claimed that “tap water is poison.” Another, from Calistoga Mountain
> Spring Water, asked: “How can you be sure your water is safe? ...
> Unfortunately, you can’t.” Fiji Water infuriated Ohio with the tagline “The
> label says Fiji because it’s not bottled in Cleveland.” The insinuation, of
> course, was that there was something wrong with local water.

If people don't trust public city water to drink, but do trust private bottled
water, then more profits for those companies. (Or if the new Central Florida
University stadium was built without fountains, forcing people to buy $3
bottled water instead, then profit! ... Until the water ran out and "60
attendees were treated for heat-related issues; 18 were hospitalized for heat
exhaustion".)

~~~
merpnderp
Not having access to potable water inside a public area like that seems nearly
criminal. I wonder if they faced legal action, as I assume they had a policy
of no outside drinks or beverages.

~~~
dalke
My mistake on the name, it was the University of Central Florida, and more
specifically Bright House Stadium.

There's TV news coverage at
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t-44S_gebI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t-44S_gebI)
. It and the article at
[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-09-19/news/FOUNTAIN...](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-09-19/news/FOUNTAIN19_1_drinking-
fountains-water-fountains-heston) say that the university believes it followed
the building code at the time, and that water fountains were not required so
long as water was available.

The followup at
[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-09-22/news/FOUNTAIN...](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-09-22/news/FOUNTAINS22_1_bottled-
water-coolers-drinking-fountains-water-fountains) is more complete:

> When the stadium was designed, the building codes called for either drinking
> fountains or "bottled water coolers." But the sole source of water for fans
> attending last Saturday's inaugural game was from vendors.

> "Selling bottled water out of a concession stand is not what the code
> meant," said Gregg Gress of the International Code Council in Washington,
> D.C. Water coolers "were supposed to be the equivalent of a drinking
> fountain."

...

> The 2001 plumbing code under which UCF's stadium was designed gave builders
> the option of installing water fountains or "bottled water coolers."

> But several officials who are closely involved with building codes told the
> Orlando Sentinel that bottled-water coolers referred to refrigerated units
> fed by large plastic jugs, commonly found in offices.

> The code, they said, was not meant to include refrigerators containing
> individual bottles of water for sale, such as those that vendors used at the
> stadium last Saturday.

It then says that the university "was not subject to review by another
government agency. That's because the university, like school districts, has
the authority to issue its own permits and can decide whether it meets most
building standards."

as well as pointing to a few previous cases:

> In 2003, the new stadium for the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles opened without
> water fountains for the general public in what was called an oversight. In
> 1962, Dodger Stadium architects in Los Angeles forgot to install drinking
> fountains, though some suspected the team's owner wanted to boost beer and
> soda sales.

In general there was a lot of astonishment over the lack of water fountains.

Oh, and no, you can't bring in your own drinks. They might contain alcohol, so
beer sales would go down ... err, I mean that people might get drunk and rowdy
or violent.

------
jegoodwin3
I was interested enough to follow the link the OP entitled "Across America,
535,000 children ages 1 through 5 suffer lead poisoning, by C.D.C. estimates."

Here it is for convenience:

[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6213a3.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6213a3.htm)
(2013)

As far as I can tell, the CDC regularly tests some children in a malnourished
nutrition program (not a random sample of all children), with sample sizes in
the N=1600 to 1800 range over several years. They divided that data into
several cohorts, and over time the incidence of children above the threshold
reported has decreased in all factor categories, so that by the 2010 cohort it
was one third what the incidence was in the 2000 cohort.

Now I didn't do more than skim the article -- did I miss a smoking gun? Or am
I looking at link bait by a journalist?

I do not wish to belittle whatever crisis the article is about, whatever it
is, but its links backing up the alarm are not, in fact alarming.

"Lead poisoning in poor children decreased 3x over the Augties, CDC said 3
years ago"

The author seems to have done a deep dive and found some alarming numbers. I
wonder if his Iowa data are from the Quad Cities area -- a region historically
known for lead mining. I can well imagine that lead poisoning has a strong
environmental and industrial component, and that some places are worse than
others just because of the soil. That is certainly true of exposure to radon
gas in the home, for example.

------
cavisne
Mark your calendars for the same outrage with the electricity grid in 10 years
or so. I.e. "Life support users die after cloudy day".

Subsidizing inefficient and unreliable energy will put us in the same hole as
water infrastructure in Flint, especially as politicians have the same
unwillingness to increase rates to reflect the true cost of renewable energy.

~~~
yeahOkay
Yeah, okay. So what you're trying to tell the world right now is...

    
    
      "Fear the inevitable nightmare known as solar power, because a half measure avails no one."
    

Is that the alarm bell you're ringing here?

You're right, we should fear for the preservation of vegetables that already
are, rather than prevent the brain damage that would not have otherwise been.

Thanks for the help here, guy.

------
clumsysmurf
Similarly, The Guardian reports "Water authorities across the US are
systematically distorting water tests to downplay the amount of lead in
samples, risking a dangerous spread of the toxic water crisis that has gripped
Flint..."

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/water-
lea...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/water-lead-content-
tests-us-authorities-distorting-flint-crisis)

~~~
themartorana
I don't know if things were different in the 80s when I was a kid, or the 50s
when my parents were, but it feels very much like 2008 set the standard for
"the bigger the crime, the less accountable you will be held." From fixing
LIBOR rates to HSBC laundering money for multinational crime organizations, to
lying to Congress's face, to lead poisoning thousands of people - the bigger
the crime, the less accountability.

GM knew the Flint river water was toxic, so it got to hook back up to the
clean water supply. Poor kids did not.

I'm so very unsurprised and so very jaded.

~~~
maxerickson
GM switched because the water was corrosive, not because it was toxic.

It's a little pedantic, because the corrosiveness is why the water coming out
of household taps has the high levels of lead, but GM switched because the
water wasn't suitable for their process, not because of toxicity.

------
e40
Chelation: I've heard it is expensive and has serious side effects. How do the
people who are affected by the lead, given there are so many, get well?

~~~
leonroy
Seems there are foods which can chelate heavy metals such as dark leafy
greens, chlorella, coriander.

More info here: [http://www.livestrong.com/article/203988-foods-for-
chelation...](http://www.livestrong.com/article/203988-foods-for-chelation/)

I don't know to what extent damage from mercury and lead is irreperable - even
after chelation. Be useful to find out. Sadly with the mass poisonings in
Flint we might be seeing more data on the subject.

~~~
dalke
Chelation therapy is a common alternative medicine therapy. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy#Use_in_alter...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy#Use_in_alternative_medicine)
.

There is very little evidence that those plants are effective. The positive
studies I've seen (based on a few hours of looking in PubMed last year) are
only in animal tests, and are more suggestive than conclusive.

An effective study would also need to show some response curve. Is one leaf of
coriander a month good enough, or do I need to eat 200 grams per day to get a
5% decrease in blood lead levels?

Chelation therapy, like with EDTA and DMSA, can be effective for heavy metal
poisoning, but they have limits and side effects. For example, "From 2003 to
2005, deaths of 3 individuals as a result of cardiac arrest caused by
hypocalcemia during chelation therapy with EDTA were reported to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention" (from Wikipedia) and "The oral chelation
test using DMSA may lead to misleading diagnostic advice regarding potential
mercury toxicity and can be associated with serious side effects" (from
[http://acb.sagepub.com/content/41/3/233](http://acb.sagepub.com/content/41/3/233)
).

------
rdl
Is this worse than it had been before (i.e. did lead go down in the
70s/80s/90s and back up now? Will we see a resurgence in crime in a decade or
two as a result?

------
mrweasel
Could this help explain why the US is more violent that than e.g. European
countries? The removal of lead from gas has been liked to a decrease in
violence, so I would guess that levels could go even lower if lead was removed
from other sources as well.

------
shams93
It would be interesting to see if the TPP hooks up the lead industry to force
more exposure it would seem the lead industry could st

------
ck2
I knew America's infrastructure wasn't being funded so I was just watching for
bridges to start collapsing.

Wasn't expecting it to be in the pipes bringing the water.

Not in 2016.

Make you wonder about violent criminals in the past decade and if lead had any
help in that. We thought we eliminated that decades ago but apparently not.

~~~
Shivetya
America's infrastructure is being funded just fine. The numbers are coming
down and have been doing so since their peaks in the 90s, an example are
bridges are now half their number from before. However the Federal government
cannot do all the required work on bridges or even roads as it does not have
dominion over them.

What that means is that in many areas, same as with water distribution, this
is wholly managed and supported by local authorities. This can be city,
county, or even state level.

