Minnesota map to find out if your home's drinking water comes through lead pipe | Hacker News Reader

Minnesota map to find out if your home's drinking water comes through lead pipe

startribune.com

77 pointsgnabgib39 comments

https://maps.umn.edu/LSL/

When we purchased our home in Minneapolis, I did the free at home water test for peace of mind.

The whole thing was quite easy: https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiative...

Given the costs and benefits involved, under what circumstances would you not simply run all of your drinking water through a Brita filter? They are inexpensive, solve problems aside from lead, and solve lead problems that emerged after your test (like what happened in Flint).

Brita filters solve lead problems? Carbon alone doesn't do it, Brita filters are basically just for taste and large particulate matter.*

Brita filters don't typically remove bacteria, viruses, or anything truly worrisome from water. If your water is unsafe to drink before a Brita jug, it's unsafe after too.

If you want to remove lead, a little brita filter jug won't do it. You need reverse osmosis, or maybe a fancy super-large, regularly renewed, incredibly expensive filter.

* see followup posts

They do make them and they are readily available:

https://www.brita.com/products/tahoe-water-pitcher-elite-fil...

I've never seen this model before, it seems new to me. I'm quite skeptical of its performance.

I can't seem to find anything other than their documentation, stating the veracity of their claims. I wish I could.

I use the brita elite filter. its about 30$ for 2 of them and they last 6 months.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MU7973W

https://www.brita.com/assets/23601607167498ba405a22f7692b3b8...

It would be nice if you updated your original remark. I rarely see such a combination of total confidence and complete incorrectness, and you're giving advice on a health matter.

> It would be nice if you updated your original remark. I rarely see such a combination of total confidence and complete incorrectness, and you're giving advice on a health matter.

You said "Brita filter". Not "Brita Elite filter", which is a different brand and not what is included in most "Brita" brand filter jugs. Despite you only saying "Brita filter", not all Brita-brand filters are the same.

It would be nice if you updated your original remark to say Brita Elite. :)

I rarely see such a combination of total smugness and incorrectness, and you're making us all stupider for it.

in fairness I think the burden of proof is on whoever is claiming the brita lead filter is safe

Thanks just found that, but again that's their documentation. What were their testing conditions like?

Well anyhow, it does seem like there are filters with lead removal, so fair enough.

NSF standards and testing procedures are typically something you have to pay for, the procedure can be purchased here: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/nsf/nsfansi532023?source...

Also NSF certification for the NSF53 standard here:

https://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?Standard=05...

And I rarely see such a rush to judge someone so harshly over something so relatively innocuous. Setting aside the fact that it's OK for someone to be wrong and for us to correct them in a constructive manner, I'm not even sure that that user being wrong is so dangerous to one's health, as the end of your comment implies.

Now, if the user had said something to the effect of, "Bleach and ammonia are perfectly fine to mix together, I am not aware of any documentation that suggests otherwise," then, yes, that is a tremendously dangerous thing to tell someone and reasonable people should absolutely call them out for spreading FUD. But what happened here is different.

The user simply said, "Hey, I don't know that these kinds of filters can actually work to remove lead". That's it. Anybody reading this, who is concerned that there may be lead in their water, isn't at any greater risk of consuming it now than they were prior to reading the user's statement.

Despite the risk implied by the existence of this water quality mapping, Minneapolis and Saint Paul have some of the highest metropolitan tap water quality in the nation. The concern about lead pipes is local to the individual property, so it’s wise to test (and understand the age of your infrastructure) but the Brita would be a cost without a benefit in my case. The water is clean, and I’ve personally assured that through lab testing.

At least in St Paul they are actively replacing lead service lines in whole neighborhoods at a time. The line replacement itself is free although there may be some costs and logistical hurdles to the homeowner to prepare the house and get the existing line inspected.

This could be rolled out nationally soon. Our lead service line survey was due Oct 16th.

Lived in several suburbs in Minnesota.

All three places I lived were fed with well water in copper pipes. The closer you get to Minneapolis (even in the bougie areas like Lake of the Isles) you see a ton of the infrastructure is still served with lead pipes.

Relevant well water map: PFAS Testing

https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=...

It's wonderful that these maps exist. It's also great that residents can take the initiative to get their dwellings tap water tested. It'd be even better if the local government did random sample testing of residential tap water. Since this is a local thing, it is a change that can be done through local government.

a water test is the only reliable way to know if the lead pipe to your house is a problem. typically they get coated internally, and barring water acidity levels a la Flint, there is no leaching.

But either way, testing the water itself will give you the real story.

Thats the gist in my area; short of testing, never touch the pipes, run the water before drinking, and never drink the hot water

What sort of tests are available?

Talk to your local county health department, most have water test kits or laboratories they can put you in touch with.

Same but for Washington DC: https://www.dcwater.com/about-dc-water/media/news/dc-water-r...

As a European visiting DC this August, I was shocked (among other things) by a) the city being so empty it felt like a zombie apocalypse, b) advertisements for this map to check if your water contains lead, like you are in a developing country.

If anything, lead pipes are a sign of a country that has been developed enough to provide mass water services to the population for a very long time (decades).

Lead hasnt been used for new pipes in years, but old pipes still exist. Paris, France for example has a similar issue: lead pipes used up to 1970, finally banned in 1995, but still needs testing:

https://www.ac-environnement-paris.com/old_concentration-plo...

Those advertisements are a sign someone cares. If you don't have them in your country you should suspect that the locals don't care not that you are better - until proven otherwise. Water quality is something that needs to be monitored regularly, even if you water is safe today if you don't pay attention someone can introduce problems tomorrow.

I was in DC in July and it was miserably hot. Looks like August wasn't as bad, but Congress was in recess all of August, and campaigning was in full swing, so there was a lot of reason for people to be elsewhere.

I have to imagine lead in pipes is less of an issue in developing countries. Many of them have very little water infrastructure and what infrastructure is in developing countries tends to be more recent, so it's should be more likely to have used other materials than lead pipe.

Developing countries are a mix. Some of them have cities that have been around for centuries and at some point someone put in water (not always for the whole city). Worse, since they don't have strong safety standards you cannot be sure that pipes put into today don't have lead in them unless you check (though odds are if it was done today they used plastic which is cheaper, though better depends on if they used a good plastic or not which you can't really know)

> I was in DC in July and it was miserably hot.

That's the regional climate I'm afraid. You get used to it. Doesnt help that downtown is built on a low lying swamp, theres a giant river as a moisture source, and concrete everywhere. Dont let it put you off!

Aug is recess season which matters more than campaign season in terms of emptiness. It also means the entire class of lobbyists, analysts, journos and hangers on evaporate too. Its a good time of year for us locals not in that space.

Central DC often empties out when the legislature is in recess. It's a great time to visit because the restaurants are empty and the hotels are cheaper.

Where were you in DC? IME the combination of tourism and (arguably) acceptable transit makes it feel quite vibrant

The wide boulevards and huge open spaces in some of the touristy areas can feel empty even when there are a normal number of people there. Common problem with planned cities, they have way too much empty space and feel abandoned even when not.

Our house was built in 1931, when they didn't pay attention to that sort of thing. The District has long since replaced the mains, and now household can get the pipes replaced at the city's cost.

People do tend to stay in air conditioning in late summer.

DC—particularly the tourist parts—are extremely exposed. I live outside of DC and I couldn't spend more than an hour there before abandoning it to go back home due to the heat. There were weeks straight of ~95-105°F weather.

Its interesting to see the contrast between DC and say London. London has, like DC: dense traffic along a relatively small number of major thoroughfares, a huge number of heat masses like concrete office blocks, a subway spilling heat onto the street, etc. What really saves London are the vast number of remarkably large parks and tree cover. You really see the difference walking the city. DC has one big blob of mall with little to no tree cover.

Cities are going to have to look at what kinds of shade the future is going to need for their populace if summers continue to get hotter. Interesting article from the NYT on this topic:

Summer in the City Is Hot, but Some Neighborhoods Suffer More https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/09/climate/city-...

> What really saves London are the vast number of remarkably large parks and tree cover.

I don't disagree that shade is a good idea. But what really helps London is it's vastly milder climate [0] caused by the Gulf Stream.

[0] https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/20957~45062/Comparison-of...

Lead piping still far too common in the UK.

https://www.ft.com/content/7107f067-43d5-4030-afbc-123da2313...

My boomer neighbours laugh it off - "never did me any harm".

Given the historical trend of blood lead levels, they're probably right. Airborne lead is more problematic and it wasn't boomers it was Gen X who were poisoned the most.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com