Virginia Tech Professor Spent $147k to Help Uncover the Flint Water Scandal

It took this level of scientific study to confront the state government "deniers" that there was anything wrong, people had been showing them for months.

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...

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.

Of all things to put in the hands of government, water seems among the worst. Of course, putting it in the hands of Nestle and other huge corporations is probably even worse. We need water anarchy.

1) Flint’s elected leadership makes what is actually a solid, sound decision that will, in the long run, save the city millions of dollars and give it more control over its destiny – and, because it positions Flint as a wholesale supplier of water, possibly enhance revenues for them.

2) Detroit Water Board decides to be spoiled and pissy and leaves Flint with no good options for the two years before its pipeline is built.

3) Flint’s leadership and GOP-appointed EFM make a well-deliberated decision to draw water from the Flint River.

4) Flint’s water staff – the people in Flint who are the experts on this sort of thing – apparently aren’t up to the task. And the people they count on to oversee and help them …

5) The Michigan DEQ, is completely asleep at the switch. And once they discover their mistake, they lie about it and ask Flint to help them lie.

6) US EPA is aware of a problem, but apparently trusted the kids playing in the DEQ sandbox to fix things.

http://gregbranchwords.com/2016/01/17/the-real-tragedy-in-fl...

Most of the steps are understandable mistakes but Detroit's water board acted badly and I think some people in the Michigan DEQ need to face prosecution.

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.

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.

I think it's pretty sensational that he did this, regardless of the exact details. It's all money he could have spent on something else, and instead he uncovered something critical to the lives of many.

So, I would say it is a big deal that he committed his research funds to do this.

It is curious as in why only his personal money would make his effort valiant!

Whether or not he put $2k or $50k is not what we should be discussing but rather, the moral imperative to bring this important matter to the forefront to save thousands of lives..

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

The $166,487 is actual costs incurred, not the volunteers estimated labor

> $180,917 in expenses for sampling, water tests, laboratory supplies, and more.

This is the out of pocket expense they are talking about. It doesn't even involve the hours spent. So unless you can disapprove that sampling costs for water tests didn't cost $166,487 - we have little reason to trust your claim.

Regardless, lets say even if that $166,487 indeed includes their hourly rates for which no one was asked to be paid, their claim is justified. Heck no one asked them to do this in first place.

There is time and place to be cynical but I don't think this is the one. I personally can't applaud them enough for work them have done.

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

> That’s a net deficit of $147,174, which Edwards covered with his own discretionary research and personal funds. The Flint Water Study team of 25 students and research scientists also estimated their total donated labor at more than 6,000 hours, which they valued at over $165,000 based on the hourly rates of the team members.

So it was an estimated $165k in free labor on top of the rest of the costs. You are confused because their lab costs were $166,487, which is a similar number.

>The deficit of $147,174 in out of pocket expenses has been covered by Professor Edwards’ discretionary research and personal funds. We also conservatively estimate that our total donated labor exceeds 3.0 person years (well over $165,000) of effort.

Did you not read the article or did you have some better source where you are getting your data?! Going by the article, the GoFundMe page and the project site itself it seems perfectly clear what money they spent, how they spent it, and also how much volunteer time was also donated.

I don't understand why you would launch a personal attack against Professor Edwards and his team by just making up numbers and trying to stir up controversy where there is none.

The volunteers are not expected to be paid. Their time was freely donated and it's clear in the GoFundMe where the funds are going and how they will be used.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/03/27/no-its-...

I'm not versed on RoundUp's safety, so I'll leave that for others to discuss. I'm just saying that sort of stunt doesn't provide any evidence in either direction.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

> On October 30, 1924, Midgley participated in a press conference to demonstrate the apparent safety of TEL. In this demonstration, he poured TEL over his hands, then placed a bottle of the chemical under his nose and inhaled its vapor for sixty seconds, declaring that he could do this every day without succumbing to any problems whatsoever. However, the State of New Jersey ordered the Bayway plant to be closed a few days later, and Jersey Standard was forbidden to manufacture TEL there again without state permission. Midgley would later have to take leave of absence from work after being diagnosed with lead poisoning.