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?
> 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.
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.
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 ?
I think it is important to remember that what happened in Flint was bad. But we also know that telling self fulfilling prophecies and stigmatization are a thing. Too much media hype about the damage done can have a real detrimental impact on these children's lives. Too much fear about a generation of lead poisoned teens could lead to punitive policing measures like what we saw in the 90s.
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.
> It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis [in Flint] from other random variations over the previous decade.
Whereas;
> Right now in Michigan, 8.8 percent of children in Detroit, 8.1 percent of children in Grand Rapids and an astounding 14 percent of children in Highland Park surpass the C.D.C. reference level. Flint is at 2.4 percent.
By those numbers Flint was, apparently, another media manufactured hysteria which happen to fit the desired narrative and drive a lot of clicks.
There seems to be an endemic propensity of current mass media to run away with the facts in an effort to see who can express the most virtuous outrage and bring some chosen enemy-of-the-people to justice.
When those in media begin to feel like their job is not so much fact finding as it is to “protect democracy” or some-such, the news writers seem to start acting like over-zealous prosecutors instead of neutral truth seekers.
Without moralizing, I think there’s a clear reason Flint was covered so much by the mass media.
The problems in Flint could be traced directly to an erroneous decision by the Michigan state government to use the Flint river water without introducing anti-corrosion chemicals into it (thus causing corrosion of the existing, safe lead pipes). This creates a clear narrative of good and evil which is attractive to the media.
Other cities suffering from lead problems are often due to legacy lead paint or lead pipes installed on homeowner’s property. It’s much harder to see a narrative in that rather than an existing, systemic problem which would not be seen as newsworthy.
The last time something like Flint happened was the CDC coverup of lead contamination in the Washington, D.C. water system almost 2 decades ago, which did receive national attention although not as much as Flint has. (One could speculate as to the reasons why)
I think this minimizes both the incompetence that led to Flint's water supply to be unsafe for many of its customers and the audacity of the coverup: the government issued false statements to minimize the risk and threatened researchers trying to uncover the truth.
It's great that relatively few children seem to be harmed. It's also true that the city, state and American Red Cross delivered bottled water and filters to the people likely to be most significantly affected.
I think the issue is that residents of Flint cannot possibly drink water from their pipes that is clean. The low levels could be explained by people being required to drink bottled water (which presumably does not have any lead in it).
If I eat a crappy sandwich and get diarrhea from it, have I been poisoned? Certainly. Can I reasonably compare my experience with that of Alexander Litvinenko? No. Degree matters. The crappy day I have is on a totally different level from life-threatening injury.
The numbers matter. Our units today are grams of lead per liter of blood. These children had an increased blood-lead content of 1.2 x 10^-7. One study I found[1] cites a IQ loss of 1.5 points for each 5 x 10^-6. Only the extreme outliers - a percentage point of children - passed that level. That's not nothing, but I would bet (without evidence) that concussions/head injuries from High School Football causes greater IQ loss on average.
Lots of factors, fair and unfair, affect how our lives turn out. This one was unfair. It sucked. There are far bigger fish to fry.
There are always bigger fish to fry, unless you're currently frying the biggest fish. That doesn't mean that the other fish aren't worth frying. Not everyone can or even should work on the biggest issue available; and fixing lots of smaller problems can go a long way.
The standards for what constitutes poisoning have decreased over time. Part is a recognition of long term effects where originally the term was applied only to acute effects. The other is an increased value placed on the individual as society progresses. Its a trend since the 19th century.
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.
"Poisoned" is not defined by your contribution to society though. I could be poisoned by carbon monoxide then get some fresh air and be fine for the rest of my life but it doesn't change that I was still definitely poisoned.
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.
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.
> 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.
There may have been a severe decline in productivity (and peacefulness, well-being, etc). It's easy to see acute direct effects of poisoning; it's really hard to know for sure if these levels of lead exposure caused violent crime, but people have made a plausible argument that they did. See wikipedia:
> A 2007 report published by The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, authored by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, found that between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis
I don't care what word folks use, but I think there's enough evidence of negative consequences that we should ensure that the lead exposure of the '70s is never repeated—in Flint, in the other cities the article mentioned, or anywhere else.
It's much too strongly worded for the point they're making. Sure Flint might not have a "lost generation" but that doesn't mean there's no crisis or that we shouldn't be fixing up Flint and other places with relatively high lead levels.
Poisoned means they require immediate medical intervention, and are at greater risk of brain and body damage. Do all people born before the 80s AND all flint citizens require direct and immediate treatment for those levels?
No, which is part of the point of this article. They are not a generation of brain damaged people, nor are the kids of flint brain damaged and requiring immediate medical attention. Calling them such is harmful for multiple reasons, some of which the article stated.
Another point is that even due to this, lead levels in the people of flint have fallen from 11.x to 3.x percent as per the article.
They don't argue it's not a problem, but they disagree with the hysteria. Not the facts.
It’s a specious argument on its face. “We know that lead is a powerful neurotoxicant, that there is no safe level,” and then go on doctorsplain us why the kids are safe.
And they try to define the length of exposure to when the water source was changed. That might be true but they can’t know that. And it’s likely not true, a water system with lead pipes will have specified an acceptable lead level that can be present in safety samples. Even though there is no safe level.
Yeah, this is some Orwell-level doublespeak framing of the externalities of Capitalism.
Since the logic of the system does not permit individuals to present the damage done to them in material terms that describe the reality of their own experiences, not only is it untrue for them, it’s historically untrue for all similar cases.
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
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).
The problem with lead is that it tends to bio-accumulate in various types of body tissue, making blood lead levels hard to bring down. Chronic exposure builds up over time. I also disagree that 483 tons is "a very small amount of pollution". Lead cannot be compared with more typical pollutants like CO2. A better comparison might be mercury, which measured 52 tons emitted in 2011. I still won't say 52 tons is small, but it's a lot better than 483!
I want to reiterate that small propeller planes that seat 2-6 people make up virtually the entire market for leaded aviation fuel. Larger propeller planes typically have turboprop engines which burn kerosene like most jet/commercial aircraft. There is a big cost upon society caused by a small number of people, for something that is completely unnecessary (private air travel).
This quote from the article does not seem to leave much room for ambiguity:
"Based on this more comprehensive view of the data, we are forced to admit that the furor over this issue seems way out of proportion to the actual dangers to the children from lead exposure."
This is an increasingly serious problem. While everybody will know about the 'Flint Poisoning' because it's an emotional story that spread through social media (and traditional media alike) like wildfire, I imagine in the end only a tiny percent of people will ever hear of this. The old Thomas Jefferson quote is more true than ever: "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.". The sad thing is that that quote's from 1807.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not that I'm not worried in the sense that if I had infinite resources I wouldn't allocate any to improving this particular situation. It's just that previous news coverage made it out like this was a huge crisis when in fact if it is then the greater crime it that we're ignoring several other crises that are even larger (the other cities mentioned where levels are even higher).
The problem is we fixed the lead problem in the 70s. It's not the 70s anymore.
Making that argument is like saying "people used to get polio all the time in the 20s, why are you worried about an increase in polio now"? Because it's polio, not a free puppy. Any amount of polio is too much polio.
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.
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.
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.
> Slightly off topic, but I wish BLM would have been BLMT (Black Lives Matter Too),
“Too” implies afterthought/secondary status. “Too” is, in any case, not part of what BLM is about. That other lives matter is not something BLM as a group denies, of course, its just an issue that is out of scope for the organization.
> because that extra word ends all of the bickering
No, no it doesn't.
> what the movement was about - that we need public policies that respect the lives of black lives also.
No, BLM is not centrally a policy advocacy organization.
If you think simply appending "Too" to the end of Black Lives Matters would fix anything, then you don't really understand the problem. There is a reason why some segment of the population instinctually read BLM as "Only Black Lives Matter", instead of "Black Lives Also Matter".
I disagree that this is a point of confusion. My observation is that the meaning of the phrase (to highlight the disregard for black lives some people hold, not to proclaim that black lives deserve more protection than other lives) is obvious in even the barest of contexts, and a majority of the people claiming otherwise are being willfully naive as a form of attack. I think the idea that the contention is really just simple bickering about semantics is a pretty stark oversimplification.
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.
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.
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?