President Biden Wants to Replace All Lead Pipes. Flint Has Lessons to Share

[hislegacy]

Thank you that clears it up. You believe that the federal government is not involved in housing.... er..... Reservoir construction.... and it is a local issue and has nothing to do with the Federal government.

It is an unreasonable power grab for them to set standards for the pipes used to ensure clean water.

Clears it right up.

Evidently I am a complete failure in expressing myself. That is not what I have said at all.

Thank you for trying.

 

[Belk]

Evidently I am a complete failure in expressing myself. That is not what I have said at all.

Thank you for trying.

I apologize for not understanding. Thank you for trying to clear it up.

 

[chilehed]

I referenced my "real" news.

No, you referenced Wikipedia. Instant fail in any class.

Your conflicting opinion is false.

It's not my opinion. Everything I said is a fact:

The move to force Flint back on to the Flint River water supply as a cost saving measure was made necessary by the City of Flint's own financial mismanagement. The water from the Flint River is perfectly fine to use, but for the criminal negligence of the City of Flint in not having and adhering to a legally mandated corrosion control plan, in falsifying records of which structures had lead pipes, and in gaming the water sampling method in order to lower the amount of heavy metals reported.

Had a proper corrosion control plan been in place and followed (as required by law), the Flint Water Crisis would never have happened. The blame lies squarely and solely with the City of Flint.​

If you're not aware of these things, it's because you've been listening to the likes of Michael Moore.

 

[Whyayeman]

If people really cared they would immediately pass a bill that funds free water filters for people with lead problems that would have an immediate effect instead of tacking on about 200 billion on a bill that likely will take 5-10 years to help most of the people with lead pipes so they can ingest lead for that length of time waiting for someone to give their house a good tearing apart while they have to beg a relatives or neighbor to move in for weeks even months before their house is back to livable.

Who cares how the lead is removed from drinking water, so long as it is? There is a certain illogicality about knowingly allowing lead pollution while fitting expensive filters to remove it at the tap. Better by far to remove the source of contamination.

 

[Fantine]

What one says is not necessarily what people hear. That happens all the time here.

What I heard seemed like passing the buck. It seemed Iike saying the state had to handle it solved the problem.

And I said several times, "Children's brains are dying." And each time, without pausing to shed a tear of regret or sorrow, you said, not a federal problem.

So that is what I heard. Perhaps if you had spoken your piece with considerable empathy, proposing "realistic" solutions, we may have heard it differently. But you didn't.

 

[Whyayeman]

People who know they have lead can go to the store and buy a $30 Brita or Pure water filter pitcher and filter 100 gallons of water through it removing the lead for less than a dime a gallon (7-8 cents?).

So you are proposing a charge of $30 per 100 gallons for all the years they live in that house and you think that is cheap? It is a huge cumulative cost for householders with no remedy and no end.

And all this because the people who provide the water don't honour their obligation to supply a wholesome product. I cannot think of any other enterprise which offers an unsafe product and leaves it to the end user to make it fit for purpose.

I think Sophrosyne has it backwards.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What one says is not necessarily what people hear. That happens all the time here.

What I heard seemed like passing the buck. It seemed Iike saying the state had to handle it solved the problem.

And I said several times, "Children's brains are dying." And each time, without pausing to shed a tear of regret or sorrow, you said, not a federal problem.

So that is what I heard. Perhaps if you had spoken your piece with considerable empathy, proposing "realistic" solutions, we may have heard it differently. But you didn't.

That’s exactly how I read it, too.

 

[dqhall]

President Biden Wants to Replace All Lead Pipes. Flint Has Lessons to Share

Mercury is more toxic than lead. They put it in silver amalgam dental fillings. Some European countries have banned the use of mercury in fillings. Mercury and lead are both neurotoxins contributing to brain and nerve damage. They took lead out of gasoline years ago.

 

[Whyayeman]

They took lead out of gasoline years ago.

Yes they did. They did not offer to sell filters to remove it from the exhaust gases of vehicles, the logical extension to the Brita 'fix' above.

 

[Sophrosyne]

So you are proposing a charge of $30 per 100 gallons for all the years they live in that house and you think that is cheap? It is a huge cumulative cost for householders with no remedy and no end.

And all this because the people who provide the water don't honour their obligation to supply a wholesome product. I cannot think of any other enterprise which offers an unsafe product and leaves it to the end user to make it fit for purpose.

I think Sophrosyne has it backwards.

Umm....... try 8 to 10 cents a gallon to filter water. The $30 is about (I think) the cost of the filter pitcher that includes 1 (one) replaceable filter that is rated to filter 100 gallons. You can buy new filters but I'm not sure exactly for how much I haven't bought one in over 10 years but back then they were about $12 for 1 and if you buy 5 in a pack at Sam's club they came out to be about $8 each. You can also buy filters that attach to your faucet that likewise come with a filter and are replaceable that cost around $50 I think and there is inline filters that you can install in water lines with replaceable filters and fridge water line filters that are replaceable.
ALL of these filtering solutions should remove the lead and cost considerably less per gallon than buying bottled water and........ AND...... guess what? YES!.... they are a very GREEN solution as for every 100 gallons you filter for 10 cents you can prevent about 1600 16 oz plastic bottles of water from being bought and very likely end up in the trash and in the seas at a cost of about 10 cents/bottle or $1.60/gallon about 16 times as much as filtering or the better alternative is buying the large 5 gallon bottles that you can swap out at stores for about $6/5 gallons or $1.25/gallon. This can save a struggling poor family MONEY...... likely after 50 gallons are filtered they have paid for the filter system and then cheaper good water. I've taken those small water bottles (I prefer reusing other drink bottles instead) and refilled them with water from my pitcher and taking them with me instead of buying another and another and another bottle. At work places that don't allow you to bring drinks very few of them encourage recycling so hundreds of plastic water bottles a week go to the dump.

 

[Fantine]

Here are some references regarding the charges Michigan state officials, including former Governor Snyder, faced for the Flint Water crisis:

2 ex-health officials charged with manslaughter in Flint

Flint was in chronic financial trouble in 2014 when a Snyder-appointed manager who was running the majority Black city carried out a money-saving decision to use the Flint River for water while a regional pipeline from Lake Huron was under construction. The corrosive water, however, wasn’t treated properly and released lead from old plumbing into homes in one of the worst manmade environmental disasters in U.S. history.

Nine Michigan Leaders Face Charges in Water Crisis That Roiled Flint

 

[Whyayeman]

Wow! How to save money by not buying bottled water! So, I think I have got it right at last. In order to save the utility company the bother of supplying unpolluted water all the households connected to their supply have to buy filters to make their water potable. And the cost is ... well 'I'm not sure exactly for how much'. Quite a proposition!

Brita filters are not recommended for removing lead; and they have to be changed every 100 litres, not 100 gallons. Actual lead filters are expensive. But if they are fitted families can be green by not buying bottled water!

I am convinced. Sophrosyne has got it backwards.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Wow! How to save money by not buying bottled water! So, I think I have got it right at last. In order to save the utility company the bother of supplying unpolluted water all the households connected to their supply have to buy filters to make their water potable. And the cost is ... well 'I'm not sure exactly for how much'. Quite a proposition!

Brita filters are not recommended for removing lead; and they have to be changed every 100 litres, not 100 gallons. Actual lead filters are expensive. But if they are fitted families can be green by not buying bottled water!

I am convinced. Sophrosyne has got it backwards.

Ok, I see Brita has changed things they now have cheaper 40 gallon filters and long lasting 120 gallon filters.
The filters that remove 99% of lead are the longlast ones. As for saving the utility company that wasn't the reason for my post. My post was because of the "emotional appeal" that is along the lines of "we have to replace lead pipes now as they are killing children type thing. My temporary immediate solution is to supply water filters till the issue can be fixed. It is simple, cost effective, economical, and also environmentally friendly. I did make some mistakes on my numbers stupidly thinking there were 16x16 ounces to a gallon instead of 8 which means 800 16 ounce bottle per 100 gallons. Water filters are still considerably cheape even.
I just quickly checked and the brita long last filters are about $10 if you buy 2-3 of them about the same cost of the ones I was equating and supposedly effective against lead. Pur makes filters also that are similarly priced that may be similar in performance and price.
$30 now and have cheap drinking water not requiring you go to the store till the lead piping can be replaced or keep throwing money and plastic bottles away using store bought water. I think 10 million houses at $30 per is about 30 million dollars to help now vs arguing about perhaps 200 billion 5-10 years from now that get pipes finally replaced. Ooops..... my bad 300 million not even a billion dollars.

 

[Whyayeman]

I am glad you think the problem should be fixed by removing the lead piping in the water supply.

You have now made that clear.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Ok, I see Brita has changed things they now have cheaper 40 gallon filters and long lasting 120 gallon filters.
The filters that remove 99% of lead are the longlast ones. As for saving the utility company that wasn't the reason for my post. My post was because of the "emotional appeal" that is along the lines of "we have to replace lead pipes now as they are killing children type thing. My temporary immediate solution is to supply water filters till the issue can be fixed. It is simple, cost effective, economical, and also environmentally friendly. I did make some mistakes on my numbers stupidly thinking there were 16x16 ounces to a gallon instead of 8 which means 800 16 ounce bottle per 100 gallons. Water filters are still considerably cheape even.
I just quickly checked and the brita long last filters are about $10 if you buy 2-3 of them about the same cost of the ones I was equating and supposedly effective against lead. Pur makes filters also that are similarly priced that may be similar in performance and price.
$30 now and have cheap drinking water not requiring you go to the store till the lead piping can be replaced or keep throwing money and plastic bottles away using store bought water. I think 10 million houses at $30 per is about 30 million dollars to help now vs arguing about perhaps 200 billion 5-10 years from now that get pipes finally replaced. Ooops..... my bad 300 million not even a billion dollars.

Oh yeah, so cheap! Pay 33 cents to purify a gallon of water that's supposed to be purified already and costs only $0.0025!!! What a bargain! Only 333 times the cost of tap water! I guess a can of Coke that would normally cost 50 cents would be a bargain at $50 to you, as that's only 100 times the cost? (I've got some cans of Coke for sale if you're interested - half that price, only 25 times the cost!!! LOL)

 

[Sophrosyne]

I am glad you think the problem should be fixed by removing the lead piping in the water supply.

You have now made that clear.

I never implied otherwise.

 

[Whyayeman]

I never implied otherwise.

You have now made it clear. It wasn't clear before.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Oh yeah, so cheap! Pay 33 cents to purify a gallon of water that's supposed to be purified already and costs only $0.0025!!! What a bargain! Only 333 times the cost of tap water! I guess a can of Coke that would normally cost 50 cents would be a bargain at $50 to you, as that's only 100 times the cost? LOL

When you can come up with more reasonable figures based upon reality I will reply to them otherwise this is nonsensical.

 

[Sophrosyne]

You have now made it clear. It wasn't clear before.

You should check the weather forecast before reading my posts then.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

When you can come up with more reasonable figures based upon reality I will reply to them otherwise this is nonsensical.

What is unreasonable about my figures? you're advocating for a massive markup that people must pay for something they're already paying the fair rate for. It's your figures which are unreasonable.