
US authorities distorting tests to downplay lead content of water - finid
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/22/water-lead-content-tests-us-authorities-distorting-flint-crisis
======
mindslight
It seems to me that "flushing the pipes" in this manner would only affect the
amount of lead due to joints within the house. It wouldn't hide a problem with
the municipal water supply. So if not flushing causes the test to go over, the
implied fix is for the owner to replumb (deplumb?) their house.

It would be nice if the article spent some time detailing the mechanics at
work and resulting implications, rather than only touching upon the actual
specifics once, spending most of the article beating around the bush with
tangentially-related scare stories.

~~~
relevant_thing
The current problem in Flint was caused by the Flint River being more
corrosive than Lake Huron, not by lead contamination at the water source. The
reason lead testing is done in houses instead of just at treatment plants is
to make sure that even the water in houses with lead solder is safe.

>[...] houses built before 1987, when lead was banned for use in water pipes,
often had lead solder joining copper pipes in home plumbing systems. In houses
built before 1983, the solder has had time to build up a mineral coating that
keeps lead from seeping into the water; in homes built between 1983 and 1986,
seepage could occur, so the EPA orders regular testing of their water. [0]

[0]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/04/04/wssc...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/04/04/wssc-
lead-tests-clear-127-of-128-md-homes/fe3d3a17-3bc9-4de7-a9ba-299d6edb436d/)

~~~
mindslight
I suppose it gets to be a public health issue, but the problem still lies with
the individual homes. If the pH is as basic as it can practically be, then
what else can the water dept do? It's ultimately down to those individual home
owners to run their tap before taking drinking water, and/or spend the money
replumbing. And while such a testing bias could mean a public health issue
goes undiagnosed, my problem is that the article is _way_ too ambiguously
alarmist while failing to mention even straightforward steps that individuals
can take.

