6 ms·
The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’
- yasp 8y agoI'm left feeling perplexed by this article. So was this another situation in which hysteria got ahead of the facts?
- savanaly 8y agoI guess so. My impression from reading media reportage of the incident was always that due to problems in the water supply the residents of Flint had lead in their water such that they were even more in danger than Americans generally were prior to the point in the 70's when we even realized that it was a problem. But assuming the numbers here are being presented in a way that accurately captures the situation, that is not the case and in fact even those "in crisis" today are only imbibing levels that while too high are not even as high as Americans were getting on with at all time prior to the 70's.
- wpietri 8y agoI am befuddled at this line of argument. We dropped safe levels for a reason. And reasonable people argue that our current standard is still to generous, and that it should be low or zero. That people at some point in the past had it worse does not mean it's ok that it happens today. When my dad was born, infant mortality in the US was 4x what it is now. But that doesn't mean that having 4x as many babies die is ok. Especially when the cause is an undemocratic "emergency manager" trying to save a small amount of money.
- tedunangst 8y agoLowering regulated safe levels doesn't make equivalent levels more toxic, however. It's just as bad, but no worse, as it ever was.
- rmason 8y agoI live in Michigan about 45 minutes West of Flint. A lot of the blame rests with the emergency manager's decisions and it should be. However most of the other emergency manager appointments were successful. We wouldn't be seeing Detroit's comeback without the work of an emergency manager. A second emergency manager cut millions of dollars of waste from the budget of Detroit Public Schools and then his work led to the successful prosecution of principals and administrators who were stealing millions of dollars more. In Flint's case both the state health department and the EPA had they acted much sooner could have minimized the damage. The health department administrators are facing jail time for their crimes. Administrators of the Flint water department are also facing jail time. The EPA staffers so far have escaped any punishments whatsoever.
- wpietri 8y agoI'm not seeing how any of the emergency-manager bit is relevant to what I said. It's indisputably undemocratic. Some of them surely did some good things, but that's true about dictators as well.
- savanaly 8y agoIt's not that I'm not worried in the sense that if I had infinite resources I wouldn't allocate any to improving this particular situation. It's just that previous news coverage made it out like this was a huge crisis when in fact if it is then the greater crime it that we're ignoring several other crises that are even larger (the other cities mentioned where levels are even higher).
- freehunter 8y agoThe problem is we fixed the lead problem in the 70s. It's not the 70s anymore. Making that argument is like saying "people used to get polio all the time in the 20s, why are you worried about an increase in polio now"? Because it's polio, not a free puppy. Any amount of polio is too much polio.
- castlecrasher2 8y agoThe last two paragraphs of the article answer your question
- yasp 8y agoI read it. I just have a difficult time believing it.
- TangoTrotFox 8y agoThis quote from the article does not seem to leave much room for ambiguity: "Based on this more comprehensive view of the data, we are forced to admit that the furor over this issue seems way out of proportion to the actual dangers to the children from lead exposure." This is an increasingly serious problem. While everybody will know about the 'Flint Poisoning' because it's an emotional story that spread through social media (and traditional media alike) like wildfire, I imagine in the end only a tiny percent of people will ever hear of this. The old Thomas Jefferson quote is more true than ever: "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.". The sad thing is that that quote's from 1807.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ggg9990 8y agoInteresting that the article has to frame the reason for combating bad facts with the idea that the children are harmed by being called poisoned, instead of just saying that the facts are wrong. Otherwise they’d be vulnerable to accusations of racism/classism/heartlessness/bigotry.
- danharaj 8y agoI think your extrapolation is similar to the sort of bogus inference that the author is trying to rectify.
- pnutjam 8y agoFTA: If we are to be consistent in the labeling of Flint children as “poisoned,” what are we to make of the average American who was a child in the 1970s or earlier? Answer: He has been poisoned and is brain-damaged. And poisoned with lead levels far above, and for a greater period, than those observed in Flint. ---------- I would posit they have been poisoned, just because we are loath to admit something doesn't make it less true.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- knuththetruth 8y agoYeah, this is some Orwell-level doublespeak framing of the externalities of Capitalism. Since the logic of the system does not permit individuals to present the damage done to them in material terms that describe the reality of their own experiences, not only is it untrue for them, it’s historically untrue for all similar cases.
- xeromal 8y agoIf entire populations were 'poisoned' in the 70s and continued to contribute to society without noticing a severe decline in productivity, the meaning of the word loses its meaning. I'd claim that the lead poisoning from leaded gas caused more issues to the population than Flint's water crisis or the 70's Detroit water did.
- rhcom2 8y ago"Poisoned" is not defined by your contribution to society though. I could be poisoned by carbon monoxide then get some fresh air and be fine for the rest of my life but it doesn't change that I was still definitely poisoned.
- ummonk 8y agoThere was a massive crime wave as those generations entered adulthood...
- 8y ago
- youdontknowtho 8y agoPeople in the 70's were also being poisoned. I can see why people would want to ratchet down on the rhetoric because words like "poison" make people think that someone is culpable and can be held accountable. I'm certain that there is a class of people in this country that wouldn't want that.
- eli 8y agoIn this case I think some people are culpable and should be held responsible. In order to save money, the city made decisions that caused above-average levels of lead to be present in the drinking water. And when confronted they made false claims to reassure the public and underestimate the threat. I'm gladly, genuinely, that this will not result in a "lost generation," but there is indeed no safe level of lead exposure.
- freehunter 8y agoI actually find this article to be sickening, and not for the author's intended purpose. To be fair, I feel the same way every time I see an article saying that some other city has it just as bad if not worse than Flint. It's important to note every incident where someone is being poisoned with anything we know to be toxic, sure. They all need to be cleaned up. But all I see when I read articles like this is "it's going on everywhere, all the time, so stop worrying". No one is saying these children need medical treatment, that's a false argument. People are saying they need clean water. Arguing any other way is just misleading. And comparing it to other cases of lead pollution like exhaust or paint is again a stupid argument because we banned lead in gas and paint. Those problems aren't solved, but at least they're not getting worse. Meanwhile the Flint water situation was caused directly by the government, who then covered it up until they had to take action. And then still refuse to fix the problem. It's like if the government wanted to save money so instead of buying new paint for their buildings, they came into your house and pulled the latex paint off your walls. You still have paint on your walls, but it's the lead paint that the latex was covering. It was a contained problem, but now due to actions outside your control, it is suddenly a a problem again and you're expected to fix it. That's what's bullshit about it. It's like hearing someone say "black lives matter" and someone else steps in and says "all lives matter". Well yes, that's true. But there's a reason people are specifically calling out Flint, and that's because it's a problem caused by the government that now the people impacted are expected to clean up, without having any means to actually perform the work that needs to be done. A mere statement of fact does not begin to describe the situation. It's a matter of principle, of morals. They weren't "poisoned" and it's just as bad in other places, sure. Now can we fix the damn problem already? Or do you just want to keep making excuses?
- api 8y ago> To be fair, I feel the same way every time I see an article saying that some other city has it just as bad if not worse than Flint. It's indicative of a race to the bottom mentality. "Yeah, we're terrible, but we're not as bad as X."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jwess 8y agoAdults and children in the US today today are still being poisoned by leaded fuel. Aviation fuel, or "Avgas" is still leaded, and is a major problem around municipal airports. Leaded aviation fuel is used by planes which use internal combustion engines instead of cleaner, more powerful, and more expensive jet engines. Most of these small planes are for personal use. In 2011, 483 tons of lead were emitted so a small group of prosperous people can enjoy private air travel. EPA data from the same year shows airports as the top source of lead emissions in 42 states [0]. I think the costs of lead abatement should be included in the price of AvGas, or its use should be discontinued entirely. [0] U.S. EPA. Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for the 2011 National Emissions Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-420-B-13-040, 2013. Page 5
- CompelTechnic 8y ago483 tons seems like a very small amount of pollution when you consider that it is spread over the entire country (even albeit concentrated near airports).
- tzs 8y ago16 million Americans live close to those airports, and 3 million kids go to schools near those airports. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-...
- 5580 8y agoI live within a mile of one of the busier regional airports in the US. As an aviation buff, I like seeing the planes go by, but I hate thinking about what I breathe when they are gone. My next move will definitely factor in locality to a regional airport.
- jwess 8y agoThe problem with lead is that it tends to bio-accumulate in various types of body tissue, making blood lead levels hard to bring down. Chronic exposure builds up over time. I also disagree that 483 tons is "a very small amount of pollution". Lead cannot be compared with more typical pollutants like CO2. A better comparison might be mercury, which measured 52 tons emitted in 2011. I still won't say 52 tons is small, but it's a lot better than 483! I want to reiterate that small propeller planes that seat 2-6 people make up virtually the entire market for leaded aviation fuel. Larger propeller planes typically have turboprop engines which burn kerosene like most jet/commercial aircraft. There is a big cost upon society caused by a small number of people, for something that is completely unnecessary (private air travel).
- 40acres 8y agoIf poisoned is analogous to murdered then the children of Flint are victims of negligent homicide. Either way, there is a very long thread connecting the events of Flint to other decisions made by government officials which probably would not have been made if the area(s) most likely to be impacted where majority white.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago> majority white. s/white/poor
- dabockster 8y ago> Opinion Should have been flagged as this.
- merpnderp 8y agoSlightly off topic, but I wish BLM would have been BLMT (Black Lives Matter Too), because that extra word ends all of the bickering and back and forth about what the movement was about - that we need public policies that respect the lives of black lives also.
- ASalazarMX 8y agoThis would have been great. BLM, feminism, etc. should aim for equality first. That's the main problem.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Slightly off topic, but I wish BLM would have been BLMT (Black Lives Matter Too), “Too” implies afterthought/secondary status. “Too” is, in any case, not part of what BLM is about. That other lives matter is not something BLM as a group denies, of course, its just an issue that is out of scope for the organization. > because that extra word ends all of the bickering No, no it doesn't. > what the movement was about - that we need public policies that respect the lives of black lives also. No, BLM is not centrally a policy advocacy organization.
- happytoexplain 8y agoI disagree that this is a point of confusion. My observation is that the meaning of the phrase (to highlight the disregard for black lives some people hold, not to proclaim that black lives deserve more protection than other lives) is obvious in even the barest of contexts, and a majority of the people claiming otherwise are being willfully naive as a form of attack. I think the idea that the contention is really just simple bickering about semantics is a pretty stark oversimplification.
- jinushaun 8y agoIf you think simply appending "Too" to the end of Black Lives Matters would fix anything, then you don't really understand the problem. There is a reason why some segment of the population instinctually read BLM as "Only Black Lives Matter", instead of "Black Lives Also Matter".
- sctb 8y ago