
The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’ - neaden
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/opinion/flint-lead-poisoning-water.html
======
freehunter
I actually find this article to be sickening, and not for the author's
intended purpose. To be fair, I feel the same way every time I see an article
saying that some other city has it just as bad if not worse than Flint.

It's important to note _every_ incident where someone is being poisoned with
anything we know to be toxic, sure. They all need to be cleaned up. But all I
see when I read articles like this is "it's going on everywhere, all the time,
so stop worrying". No one is saying these children need medical treatment,
that's a false argument. People are saying _they need clean water_. Arguing
any other way is just misleading. And comparing it to other cases of lead
pollution like exhaust or paint is again a stupid argument because we banned
lead in gas and paint. Those problems aren't solved, but at least they're not
getting worse. Meanwhile the Flint water situation was caused _directly_ by
the government, who then covered it up until they _had_ to take action. And
then still refuse to fix the problem.

It's like if the government wanted to save money so instead of buying new
paint for their buildings, they came into your house and pulled the latex
paint off your walls. You still have paint on your walls, but it's the lead
paint that the latex was covering. It was a contained problem, but now due to
actions outside your control, it is suddenly a a problem again and _you 're_
expected to fix it. _That 's_ what's bullshit about it.

It's like hearing someone say "black lives matter" and someone else steps in
and says "all lives matter". Well yes, that's true. But there's a reason
people are specifically calling out Flint, and that's because it's a problem
caused by the government that now the people impacted are expected to clean
up, without having any means to actually perform the work that needs to be
done. A mere statement of fact does not begin to describe the situation. It's
a matter of principle, of morals.

They weren't "poisoned" and it's just as bad in other places, sure. Now can we
fix the damn problem already? Or do you just want to keep making excuses?

~~~
candiodari
> They weren't "poisoned" and it's just as bad in other places, sure. Now can
> we fix the damn problem already? Or do you just want to keep making excuses?

Oh yeah, just dig up all parts of the water supply that haven't been touched
in 50 years, nationwide, and replace them.

In other words, can we fix the problem ? No. Aside from the cost, there's
practical problems: we don't even know where half of it is, for one. Parts of
it are under streets, bridges, buildings, etc ... They should be torn down

The problem was created by "our grandfaters" saving a buck and now the
government "must" fix it.

Okay, but that's just the start. Next up, cleaning all riverwater nationwide
of corrosive chemicals.

> It's a matter of principle, of morals.

It could be a matter of life and death, for all the good it'll do. It's
impossible. If it was a matter of life and death, we'd be dead.

This cannot be done, for obvious reasons.

~~~
freehunter
So I guess it's all hopeless and we should all just die then. What's the use
in doing _anything_ if everything is a mild inconvenience?

>The problem was created by "our grandfathers" saving a buck and now the
government "must" fix it.

No, the problem was created by _the existing Flint /Michigan government_, and
yes, it's their problem to fix. This isn't some nebulous "it happened in the
past and we're just getting the bill now".

But you're right, it's completely impossible to replace water pipes. No one in
the history of ever has ever replaced a water pipe.

~~~
candiodari
If digging up all existing water infrastructure, regardless of not knowing
where it is or what is built on top of it is a "mild inconvenience" ... why
don't you just quickly take care of it ?

Hell, I'll help you. We should be done in an afternoon, right ?

------
pnutjam
FTA: If we are to be consistent in the labeling of Flint children as
“poisoned,” what are we to make of the average American who was a child in the
1970s or earlier? Answer: He has been poisoned and is brain-damaged. And
poisoned with lead levels far above, and for a greater period, than those
observed in Flint. \----------

I would posit they have been poisoned, just because we are loath to admit
something doesn't make it less true.

~~~
xeromal
If entire populations were 'poisoned' in the 70s and continued to contribute
to society without noticing a severe decline in productivity, the meaning of
the word loses its meaning.

I'd claim that the lead poisoning from leaded gas caused more issues to the
population than Flint's water crisis or the 70's Detroit water did.

~~~
ummonk
There was a massive crime wave as those generations entered adulthood...

~~~
briandear
Is that a result of lead or the policies created in the 1970s that helped
cause a massive increase in single-parent homes among those in poverty? There
are a lot of factors that contributed to that crime wave. The Great Society
started by Johnson and expanded by Nixon likely has had a far bigger effect
than simply lead. It’s an area of study though that is plagued by politics and
stifled by political correctness. It’s much easier to simply blame it on lead.
But considering that lead was around in unhealthy levels long before that
generation entered adulthood, one must look at what changed in the socio-
welfare-cultural structure preceding that “massive crime wave.” But, to do
that would call into question a generation of social policy which is very
uncomfortable for many.

~~~
Retric
It fairly closely tracked both lead exposure in both time frame and location.
So, while no single factor was completely responsible lead had a major impact.

------
jwess
Adults and children in the US today today are still being poisoned by leaded
fuel. Aviation fuel, or "Avgas" is still leaded, and is a major problem around
municipal airports. Leaded aviation fuel is used by planes which use internal
combustion engines instead of cleaner, more powerful, and more expensive jet
engines. Most of these small planes are for personal use.

In 2011, 483 tons of lead were emitted so a small group of prosperous people
can enjoy private air travel. EPA data from the same year shows airports as
the top source of lead emissions in 42 states [0].

I think the costs of lead abatement should be included in the price of AvGas,
or its use should be discontinued entirely.

[0] U.S. EPA. Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead
for the 2011 National Emissions Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-420-B-13-040, 2013. Page 5

~~~
CompelTechnic
483 tons seems like a very small amount of pollution when you consider that it
is spread over the entire country (even albeit concentrated near airports).

~~~
tzs
16 million Americans live close to those airports, and 3 million kids go to
schools near those airports.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-
aviation-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-
fuel/)

~~~
5580
I live within a mile of one of the busier regional airports in the US.

As an aviation buff, I like seeing the planes go by, but I hate thinking about
what I breathe when they are gone.

My next move will definitely factor in locality to a regional airport.

------
yasp
I'm left feeling perplexed by this article. So was this another situation in
which hysteria got ahead of the facts?

~~~
savanaly
I guess so. My impression from reading media reportage of the incident was
always that due to problems in the water supply the residents of Flint had
lead in their water such that they were even more in danger than Americans
generally were prior to the point in the 70's when we even realized that it
was a problem.

But assuming the numbers here are being presented in a way that accurately
captures the situation, that is not the case and in fact even those "in
crisis" today are only imbibing levels that while too high are not even as
high as Americans were getting on with at all time prior to the 70's.

~~~
wpietri
I am befuddled at this line of argument. We dropped safe levels for a reason.
And reasonable people argue that our current standard is still to generous,
and that it should be low or zero.

That people at some point in the past had it worse does not mean it's ok that
it happens today. When my dad was born, infant mortality in the US was 4x what
it is now. But that doesn't mean that having 4x as many babies die is ok.
Especially when the cause is an undemocratic "emergency manager" trying to
save a small amount of money.

~~~
rmason
I live in Michigan about 45 minutes West of Flint. A lot of the blame rests
with the emergency manager's decisions and it should be. However most of the
other emergency manager appointments were successful. We wouldn't be seeing
Detroit's comeback without the work of an emergency manager. A second
emergency manager cut millions of dollars of waste from the budget of Detroit
Public Schools and then his work led to the successful prosecution of
principals and administrators who were stealing millions of dollars more.

In Flint's case both the state health department and the EPA had they acted
much sooner could have minimized the damage. The health department
administrators are facing jail time for their crimes. Administrators of the
Flint water department are also facing jail time. The EPA staffers so far have
escaped any punishments whatsoever.

~~~
wpietri
I'm not seeing how any of the emergency-manager bit is relevant to what I
said. It's indisputably undemocratic. Some of them surely did some good
things, but that's true about dictators as well.

------
youdontknowtho
People in the 70's were also being poisoned.

I can see why people would want to ratchet down on the rhetoric because words
like "poison" make people think that someone is culpable and can be held
accountable.

I'm certain that there is a class of people in this country that wouldn't want
that.

~~~
eli
In this case I think some people are culpable and should be held responsible.
In order to save money, the city made decisions that caused above-average
levels of lead to be present in the drinking water. And when confronted they
made false claims to reassure the public and underestimate the threat.

I'm gladly, genuinely, that this will not result in a "lost generation," but
there is indeed no safe level of lead exposure.

------
dabockster
> Opinion

Should have been flagged as this.

------
merpnderp
Slightly off topic, but I wish BLM would have been BLMT (Black Lives Matter
Too), because that extra word ends all of the bickering and back and forth
about what the movement was about - that we need public policies that respect
the lives of black lives also.

~~~
sctb
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594996)
and marked it off-topic.

------
ggg9990
Interesting that the article has to frame the reason for combating bad facts
with the idea that the children are harmed by being called poisoned, instead
of just saying that the facts are wrong. Otherwise they’d be vulnerable to
accusations of racism/classism/heartlessness/bigotry.

~~~
danharaj
I think your extrapolation is similar to the sort of bogus inference that the
author is trying to rectify.

------
40acres
If poisoned is analogous to murdered then the children of Flint are victims of
negligent homicide. Either way, there is a very long thread connecting the
events of Flint to other decisions made by government officials which
_probably_ would not have been made if the area(s) most likely to be impacted
where majority white.

~~~
mr_spothawk
> majority white.

s/white/poor

