Water in Flint and other general problems in our political environ
- Thread starter Dr. Who
- Start date
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
The river was highly acidic.
Lead is a soft material that’s easy to work with, and many old pipes leading from municipal water mains into homes are made from lead, as was the case in Flint (and possibly your own home, depending on the age of your house). It’s usually not a huge problem to drink water transported through such pipes, because a thin layer of oxidation (basically rust) forms between the pipe and the water, preventing lead from leeching into the water.
That thin protective layer gets stripped away when the water is too acidic, enabling large quantities of lead to contaminate the flowing water. This is what happened to Flint when the city stopped buying water from Detroit, as it had since the 1960s, and began using treated water from the heavily polluted Flint River while it awaited the construction of a new pipeline to a new water provider to save the city money.
The river was way too polluted for the level at which the treatment plant was operating, and additional treatment would cost more than the water authority could afford. The city pumped that under-treated water out, and 18 months later the crisis was declared a federal state of emergency.
Water Treatment for Corrosion ControlPhosphate Inhibitor Addition
This method of corrosion control is based on the theory that the addition of phosphate to a finished water will result in the formation of low-solubility lead-phosphate complexes on interior pipe surfaces. The protective layer acts as a barrier to corrosion, reducing dissolution of lead into the water. Copper solubility is not significantly affected by phosphate inhibitors at reasonable dosages. Phosphate inhibitor products applied to drinking water treatment can be separated into three categories: (reference)
Orthophophates: This is the most common form used for lead control. The simplest source of orthophosphate is phosphoric acid.Polyphosphates: Polyphosphates are commonly considered for use as sequestering agents for treatment of groundwaters with low to moderate levels of iron and/or manganese. Their use for lead control is not recommended.Orthophosphate/polyphosphate blends: A variety of proprietary blends are available, and are typically applied when multiple treatment objectives need to be met.
The pH range at which orthophosphate is most effective for minimizing lead solubility is 7.4 to 7.8. Above pH 7.8, metal phosphate precipitation can become problematic. Orthophosphate can interact with other cations such as calcium or magnesium which may be present in the water. These interactions represent an orthophosphate demand, which reduces the amount of orthophosphate available to complex with lead.
Because phosphates are most effective over a defined pH range, maintaining stable pH throughout the distribution system is critical to success of a phosphate-based corrosion control program. Commercial phosphate-based inhibitors tend to be acidic solutions, and their effect on finished water pH must also be considered.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
Nice job FP you really did your homework here. Who said ships can't make "u" turns, it may take a while but it will happen as long as the Captain has the will.
B4L
B4L
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I alway try to do my homework. When I have time to and know the search terms to use. I remembered reading something in one of the news reports about the additive and started wondering what it was.
Asking questions and asking for links shouldn't be chastised.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
On the flip side I spent years providing detailed research and links that were mostly ignored or just ended up arguing about the source. I gave up on all that because it was simply a waste of my time. Especially on a site like this one where almost nobody is serious about finding out the truth.
In addition, I dont ask for links, I know how to google, I research it for myself. Sometimes I ask for citations when the claims are so far out there they cannot realistically be substantiated.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I hear you. Some people do not click the links.
This feels like an exclusive club at times. All questioners are shot down with scorn. Either buddy up or get out.
I remember you used to post here a lot last couple years.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
yeah source could be a problem. Can't go around believing everything you read on the web, but links do allow to verify and compare against other sources..FYI Fox is a bad source
Blunted 4 lyfe
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is good stuff Pie. I'm wondering what conclusions you drew from looking into the science behind the lead poisoning in Flint?
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I know that most don't click and read a link. Which is why I'll post pertinent bits and then include the link, or at least sometimes I do. This has drawn your accusation of a lie or dishonesty. Anyway, if I disagree with a post of yours and you include a link, I will at least check it out. As pointed out earlier, not everything found on the web is accurate, so don't depend on agreement. However, knowing sources helps in the discourse, in my opinion.
since1991
Well-Known Member
Anyone thats lived here for sometime would tell you that pulling water out the Flint River for using in our homes is flat out crazy. That river (although way less polluted than the GM heyday in the fifties and sixties) is one nasty ass source for water. Should of been a no brainer. That river has had decades of toxic crap flowing through it. I used to catch and release carp and suckers out of there when i was a kid. Festering boils and sores on the fish and shit. Just nasty.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I feel that when GM had Snyder hook them back up to Detroit water, Snyder should of ordered an investigation into the corrosive nature of the water.
Maybe they did and maybe they told him everything was alright. Or maybe they investigated and told him the water needed treatment and he said no.
Still to early to tell.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
are you talking about how the engine blocks were corroding at GM?
sounds like lots of red flags were flying but nobody was paying attention until way too late.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Basically.
We will have to wait to find out about snyder. If he kept ordering the investigations and they were testing improperly then that wouldn't necessarily fall on him.
If however they tested, found problems, informed him of it, and he said no treatment, he deserves to be kicked from office and prosecuted for a range of charges. Anything from criminal negligence to willful fraud and endangerment.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
just have him and his family drink it for a year. why take up time in the court system??
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
A briefing paper on Flint water sent to Snyder on Feb. 1 referenced the fact the Flint River water was "harder" than the Lake Huron water Flint formerly received from the Detroit water system.
"It's why General Motors suspended use of Flint water," the briefing paper from the DEQ said. "It was rusting their parts."
GM's decision in October 2014 to switch off of City of Flint water in favor of Flint Township water, which came from Detroit, is now seen as another missed opportunity to investigate what was wrong with Flint's water. At the time, the company said it was concerned high chloride levels in the treated water would cause corrosion.
"It's why General Motors suspended use of Flint water," the briefing paper from the DEQ said. "It was rusting their parts."
GM's decision in October 2014 to switch off of City of Flint water in favor of Flint Township water, which came from Detroit, is now seen as another missed opportunity to investigate what was wrong with Flint's water. At the time, the company said it was concerned high chloride levels in the treated water would cause corrosion.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
EPA was trying to get the state water quality board to fix it
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I keep finding references to a 2011 report initiated in the early days of Michigan state's emergency oversight of Flint where they assess the use of Flint River water. Over and over again, I find passages like this:
Everyone CNN interviewed for a recent story -- including residents, city workers, Walling, Weaver and Democratic U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee -- said they hold Snyder and the state Department of Environmental Quality responsible.
A 2011 study found that before water from the Flint River could be considered potable, it would need to be treated with an anti-corrosion agent, a measure that would have cost the state about $100 a day.
Experts say that water treatment would have prevented 90% of the problems with Flint's water.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/flint-michigan-water-crisis-five-things/
The link above is just to one article. There are many others but they all point back to other articles. I can't find the source material. I also found one article that said a city employee sent this report to MDEQ. They cited an e-mail that was collected under the Freedom of Information Act. Again, I haven't seen the source document. All this is to say that there is deniability in the record and fact checking at my level is not possible. Whatever.
The conclusion that I made when going through everything I can find about the history of this problem is that the governor's office had to have gotten feedback earlier than 2014 regarding corrosion issues. There was an assessment made in 2011 with the decision not to use Flint River water. The report in 2011 included issues of corrosion and a recommendation to treat the water with phosphate, including the $100/day estimate. From what I can tell, the city while under emergency management and MDEQ knew well ahead of time of the near certainty of corrosion from non-phosphate treated Flint River water if used as a water supply to the city of Flint. Something this big and this well understood would not have been kept under wraps for long. Engineering professionals are very hard to keep quiet. His agencies had the information. An earlier decision to not use river water was reversed, all under the auspices of Snyder's government. Now, Snyder is refusing to testify before Congress.
Whether the Gov had knowledge of corrosion issues in 2012 (my conclusion) or late 2014 (per Pie's preliminary conclusion) is actually pretty good agreement between Pie and myself. Pie is sticking to what's available and I'm willing to extrapolate somewhat more. In any case, its a far cry from October 2015, when Snyder did publicly acknowledge the issue. I smell a rat.
And I see something like this developing:
Replace Norway with whatever high level official you want. I would start with lower level officials and use them to take the trail back to Rattus snyderi. This, I believe is what the FBI is doing.
Last edited:
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
If you wrote this then I am in love.