In 1976, the median amount of lead in the blood of young children was 15 µg/dL. This was considered normal and healthy at the time. In the Flint crisis, the kids who were exposed to lead were generally testing between 5 and 10 µg/dL.
source: https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/22/flint-children-lead-expo...
This is not by way of meaning to be blasé about the situation. More to highlight that even the country's highest authorities on the subject were enough laxer about it until recently enough that you really do need to be on guard about it for yourself. A 7-year-old CDC guideline will almost certainly have trickled down to your pediatrician's practices, but it probably hasn't had enough time to have much impact on your local building codes or any other local government policies. 8 short years ago, what happened in Flint would not have been considered a problem.
This is of course horrible. They’re not the only municipality with lead in its water. But people spend a lot more time and money on the painful wart on their neck than the removed plight of others.
This is a natural and beneficial form of decentralization. I don't expect you to be concerned that my grandmother broke her hip. It's properly a big deal to my family, but not even a blip for yours. I want daily/several times per week updates on her progress; you don't.
We all have a finite amount of time, attention, and money, and while I probably know more about the origin of the Flint water situation than the average American (owing to the latter being near zero rather than deep expertise on my part), I'll be honest that I'm more worried about the water quality in Cambridge, MA and in the schools my kids attend.
There are millions of unfortunate or even tragic events unfolding in the world in any given week. It's unreasonable to assume that everyone should care about all of them or judge the situation to be "of course horrible" when we don't. We'd get nothing done as a society if we stopped to mourn every tragedy everywhere or to get weekly updates on years-long remediation efforts.
I sincerely hope that the city of Flint is able to address the entirely city-inflicted (though funding related) water quality issues for its residents. If they aren't able to do it alone, I hope they ask for and get help from the encompassing county, state, or feds.
At the same time, I conclude that there's nothing with a productive return-on-time that I should be doing, because people who are far more informed, more educated on water treatment specifics, have devoted >100 times the amount of time as I have to understanding the issue, and are in a position (spatially and with authority) to make productive decisions are working on the problem.
Lead map: https://mytapscore.com/pages/the-lead-map
Pfas map: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination...
“Although many small water systems are run well, it's often the case that they lack resources to monitor and update infrastructure in a timely fashion or manage the water's chemistry carefully. In theory, larger city water systems adjust their water's chemistry continuously to prevent health risks, but, as we've learned from Flint, this is not always the case.”
Towns around Flint spent their own money to fix their own pipes. They sacrificed to do the right thing. If a place like Flint now gets upgrades for free, we're rewarding irresponsibility. The voters of Flint choose to be irresponsible for decades.
Do those other towns get paid for what they already did?
The criminal charges have all been dropped give months ago.
Democrats ran Flint into bankruptcy, but they're off the hook...
No, they aren't. A majority of Democrats voted in favor of the switch away from Detroit water, for very good financial reasons. The vote was 7-2.Regardless of which party it was, the executive failures - which is what you agree is the problem when you say "they're just incompetent at their job" - cannot be in any meaningful sense a local problem when the executive is being run by a state appointee and not an official elected locally or appointed by one. The emergency manager system is just another case of the nepotism you mention.
There's no reason to continue reporting on Flint as the water there has met EPA standards for lead for two years now.
https://eng.vt.edu/media-center/articles/2017/flint-water-me...
It's not clear why, but it sounds like the new AG realized there was some irregularity in the investigation that could scupper the prosecution at trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/us/flint-water-crisis-cha...
It's also one of the main reasons why the CDC recommends that everyone take off their shoes when they enter the house.
What do you mean by power? The people, even the adults, of Flint have no power. This is how they ended up with poor water in the first place.
A lot of people don’t realize there was (and maybe still is) a huge outbreak of Legionnaires disease. Somehow the city suppressed the news about it.
Thus all water supplies should be managing to reduce the ability of their water supply to reduce lead. I would also suggest that you should go to your town board and say your number one issue is getting rid of all the lead - and you are fine with reverting major roads to gravel to pay for it. (and seriously consider what other services are can be eliminated to find more money)
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/index.cf...
The city leaded the water supply in april 2014, and the wikipedia timeline says that no one was reporting the elevated lead until february 2015. Even then, the city denied that there was even a lead problem all the way up through september 2015.
Do any medical professions know what "chronic" means in this context? Would 17 months be chronic for someone who was cooking and showering and drinking leaded water?
Admittedly, they did have a way higher exposure than anyone else, but we definitely were spewing enough into the atmosphere to affect everyone.