4 ms·

So Flint didn't pollute their water, they just failed to treat it properly?

ams6110 11y ago
The Detroit urban area has been a disaster for a while. Flint had been getting lake water from Detroit. Detroit, bankrupt, wanted more money from Flint (also bankrupt). Flint was "forced" to switch to river water and yes they did not treat the pH.
- analog31 11y ago
  Detroit and Flint are both under management of the State of Michigan, so it's not like the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
  - nickonline 11y ago
    I don't really understand how this is anyone but the State's problem and why celebrities need to be donating for these people to keep living shouldn't the state be doing that?
    - analog31 11y ago
      Indeed, the state has a sizable slush fund that could be spent on rectifying the problems in both Flint and Detroit, but... Michigan. I grew up in southwest Michigan, and the prevailing view was always that Detroit's problems were its own to solve, period. It didn't help that the city government was openly hostile to the rest of the state too, and plagued with a "machine boss" type of city government.
- osi 11y ago
  Flint was at the end of a long term agreement with Detroit for water. It was going to go in with another municipality for their own pipe to the lake. Except that wasn't going to be completed by the time the contract with Detroit was up. Detroit, being hard for cash, and realizing that Flint was going to be a short-term customer, had proposed higher rates in the short term. Flint thought that was too much and decided to use their river. I don't know if Flint could have negotiated a new long-term agreement with Detroit for water rather than the construction of a new pipe to the lake.
analog31 11y ago
It seems likely that purifying the water up to Lake Huron standards would have erased the cost savings. Something akin to desalination might have been necessary.
- a_puppy 11y ago
  I'm no expert on water engineering, but my understanding is as follows: The Flint river water was safe to drink after treatment, but with a slightly lower pH than normal. This caused the pipes to corrode which allowed lead and iron from the pipes to contaminate the water. If Flint's water engineers had followed standard practices to control corrosion (e.g. by adding orthophosphate to the water) then there would never have been any problem. Corrosion control would have cost peanuts -- about $100 per day [0]. Of course, it's hard to find unbiased sources, and I could easily be mistaken. Do you have a source for your claim that making the water safe would be expensive, or are you just speculating? [0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint-michigan-20160122?page=9 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint...
  - analog31 11y ago
    Speculating. I was thinking of something akin to desalination, but I now realize that the pollutant doesn't need to be removed but just neutralized. Replacement of the lead pipes would seem to be a pretty important safeguard, in any event. All of the lead was replaced in the town where I live.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      It's an old city, with a lot of old infrastructure that was never updated, corrupt government, and no money. Have you seen some of the stories about the Detroit public schools? No heat, leaking roofs, infested with rodents and cockroaches, etc. The place has so many problems that it's hard to focus on any one of them.

The Detroit urban area has been a disaster for a while. Flint had been getting lake water from Detroit. Detroit, bankrupt, wanted more money from Flint (also bankrupt). Flint was "forced" to switch to river water and yes they did not treat the pH.

analog31 11y ago
Detroit and Flint are both under management of the State of Michigan, so it's not like the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
- nickonline 11y ago
  I don't really understand how this is anyone but the State's problem and why celebrities need to be donating for these people to keep living shouldn't the state be doing that?
  - analog31 11y ago
    Indeed, the state has a sizable slush fund that could be spent on rectifying the problems in both Flint and Detroit, but... Michigan. I grew up in southwest Michigan, and the prevailing view was always that Detroit's problems were its own to solve, period. It didn't help that the city government was openly hostile to the rest of the state too, and plagued with a "machine boss" type of city government.
osi 11y ago
Flint was at the end of a long term agreement with Detroit for water. It was going to go in with another municipality for their own pipe to the lake. Except that wasn't going to be completed by the time the contract with Detroit was up. Detroit, being hard for cash, and realizing that Flint was going to be a short-term customer, had proposed higher rates in the short term. Flint thought that was too much and decided to use their river. I don't know if Flint could have negotiated a new long-term agreement with Detroit for water rather than the construction of a new pipe to the lake.

analog31 11y ago

It seems likely that purifying the water up to Lake Huron standards would have erased the cost savings. Something akin to desalination might have been necessary.

a_puppy 11y ago
I'm no expert on water engineering, but my understanding is as follows: The Flint river water was safe to drink after treatment, but with a slightly lower pH than normal. This caused the pipes to corrode which allowed lead and iron from the pipes to contaminate the water. If Flint's water engineers had followed standard practices to control corrosion (e.g. by adding orthophosphate to the water) then there would never have been any problem. Corrosion control would have cost peanuts -- about $100 per day [0]. Of course, it's hard to find unbiased sources, and I could easily be mistaken. Do you have a source for your claim that making the water safe would be expensive, or are you just speculating? [0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint-michigan-20160122?page=9 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint...
- analog31 11y ago
  Speculating. I was thinking of something akin to desalination, but I now realize that the pollutant doesn't need to be removed but just neutralized. Replacement of the lead pipes would seem to be a pretty important safeguard, in any event. All of the lead was replaced in the town where I live.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    It's an old city, with a lot of old infrastructure that was never updated, corrupt government, and no money. Have you seen some of the stories about the Detroit public schools? No heat, leaking roofs, infested with rodents and cockroaches, etc. The place has so many problems that it's hard to focus on any one of them.