5 ms·

FTA: 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 ear

FTA: 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
If 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 ago
  There was a massive crime wave as those generations entered adulthood...
  - briandear 8y ago
    Is that a result of lead or the policies created in the 1970s that helped cause a massive increase in single-parent homes among those in poverty? There are a lot of factors that contributed to that crime wave. The Great Society started by Johnson and expanded by Nixon likely has had a far bigger effect than simply lead. It’s an area of study though that is plagued by politics and stifled by political correctness. It’s much easier to simply blame it on lead. But considering that lead was around in unhealthy levels long before that generation entered adulthood, one must look at what changed in the socio-welfare-cultural structure preceding that “massive crime wave.” But, to do that would call into question a generation of social policy which is very uncomfortable for many.
    - Retric 8y ago
      It fairly closely tracked both lead exposure in both time frame and location. So, while no single factor was completely responsible lead had a major impact.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- scottlamb 8y ago
  > If 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. There may have been a severe decline in productivity (and peacefulness, well-being, etc). It's easy to see acute direct effects of poisoning; it's really hard to know for sure if these levels of lead exposure caused violent crime, but people have made a plausible argument that they did. See wikipedia: > A 2007 report published by The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, authored by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, found that between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis I don't care what word folks use, but I think there's enough evidence of negative consequences that we should ensure that the lead exposure of the '70s is never repeated—in Flint, in the other cities the article mentioned, or anywhere else.
sp332 8y ago
It's much too strongly worded for the point they're making. Sure Flint might not have a "lost generation" but that doesn't mean there's no crisis or that we shouldn't be fixing up Flint and other places with relatively high lead levels.
zaroth 8y ago
Except; > It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis [in Flint] from other random variations over the previous decade. Whereas; > Right now in Michigan, 8.8 percent of children in Detroit, 8.1 percent of children in Grand Rapids and an astounding 14 percent of children in Highland Park surpass the C.D.C. reference level. Flint is at 2.4 percent. By those numbers Flint was, apparently, another media manufactured hysteria which happen to fit the desired narrative and drive a lot of clicks. There seems to be an endemic propensity of current mass media to run away with the facts in an effort to see who can express the most virtuous outrage and bring some chosen enemy-of-the-people to justice. When those in media begin to feel like their job is not so much fact finding as it is to “protect democracy” or some-such, the news writers seem to start acting like over-zealous prosecutors instead of neutral truth seekers.
- webkike 8y ago
  I think the issue is that residents of Flint cannot possibly drink water from their pipes that is clean. The low levels could be explained by people being required to drink bottled water (which presumably does not have any lead in it).
- javagram 8y ago
  Without moralizing, I think there’s a clear reason Flint was covered so much by the mass media. The problems in Flint could be traced directly to an erroneous decision by the Michigan state government to use the Flint river water without introducing anti-corrosion chemicals into it (thus causing corrosion of the existing, safe lead pipes). This creates a clear narrative of good and evil which is attractive to the media. Other cities suffering from lead problems are often due to legacy lead paint or lead pipes installed on homeowner’s property. It’s much harder to see a narrative in that rather than an existing, systemic problem which would not be seen as newsworthy. The last time something like Flint happened was the CDC coverup of lead contamination in the Washington, D.C. water system almost 2 decades ago, which did receive national attention although not as much as Flint has. (One could speculate as to the reasons why)
- eli 8y ago
slededit 8y ago
The standards for what constitutes poisoning have decreased over time. Part is a recognition of long term effects where originally the term was applied only to acute effects. The other is an increased value placed on the individual as society progresses. Its a trend since the 19th century.
CodeWriter23 8y ago
It’s a specious argument on its face. “We know that lead is a powerful neurotoxicant, that there is no safe level,” and then go on doctorsplain us why the kids are safe. And they try to define the length of exposure to when the water source was changed. That might be true but they can’t know that. And it’s likely not true, a water system with lead pipes will have specified an acceptable lead level that can be present in safety samples. Even though there is no safe level.
GauntletWizard 8y ago
If I eat a crappy sandwich and get diarrhea from it, have I been poisoned? Certainly. Can I reasonably compare my experience with that of Alexander Litvinenko? No. Degree matters. The crappy day I have is on a totally different level from life-threatening injury. The numbers matter. Our units today are grams of lead per liter of blood. These children had an increased blood-lead content of 1.2 x 10^-7. One study I found[1] cites a IQ loss of 1.5 points for each 5 x 10^-6. Only the extreme outliers - a percentage point of children - passed that level. That's not nothing, but I would bet (without evidence) that concussions/head injuries from High School Football causes greater IQ loss on average. Lots of factors, fair and unfair, affect how our lives turn out. This one was unfair. It sucked. There are far bigger fish to fry. [1]https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/lead-exposure-childhood-linked-lower-iq-lower-status https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/lead-exposure-childhood-linke...
- dolessdrugs 8y ago
  who decides which fish are worth frying? You from your perspective or...
- dEnigma 8y ago
  There are always bigger fish to fry, unless you're currently frying the biggest fish. That doesn't mean that the other fish aren't worth frying. Not everyone can or even should work on the biggest issue available; and fixing lots of smaller problems can go a long way.
Theory5 8y ago
Poisoned means they require immediate medical intervention, and are at greater risk of brain and body damage. Do all people born before the 80s AND all flint citizens require direct and immediate treatment for those levels? No, which is part of the point of this article. They are not a generation of brain damaged people, nor are the kids of flint brain damaged and requiring immediate medical attention. Calling them such is harmful for multiple reasons, some of which the article stated. Another point is that even due to this, lead levels in the people of flint have fallen from 11.x to 3.x percent as per the article. They don't argue it's not a problem, but they disagree with the hysteria. Not the facts.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

knuththetruth 8y ago

Yeah, 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 ago

If 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 ago
There was a massive crime wave as those generations entered adulthood...
- briandear 8y ago
  Is that a result of lead or the policies created in the 1970s that helped cause a massive increase in single-parent homes among those in poverty? There are a lot of factors that contributed to that crime wave. The Great Society started by Johnson and expanded by Nixon likely has had a far bigger effect than simply lead. It’s an area of study though that is plagued by politics and stifled by political correctness. It’s much easier to simply blame it on lead. But considering that lead was around in unhealthy levels long before that generation entered adulthood, one must look at what changed in the socio-welfare-cultural structure preceding that “massive crime wave.” But, to do that would call into question a generation of social policy which is very uncomfortable for many.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It fairly closely tracked both lead exposure in both time frame and location. So, while no single factor was completely responsible lead had a major impact.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
scottlamb 8y ago
> If 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. There may have been a severe decline in productivity (and peacefulness, well-being, etc). It's easy to see acute direct effects of poisoning; it's really hard to know for sure if these levels of lead exposure caused violent crime, but people have made a plausible argument that they did. See wikipedia: > A 2007 report published by The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, authored by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, found that between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis I don't care what word folks use, but I think there's enough evidence of negative consequences that we should ensure that the lead exposure of the '70s is never repeated—in Flint, in the other cities the article mentioned, or anywhere else.

sp332 8y ago

It's much too strongly worded for the point they're making. Sure Flint might not have a "lost generation" but that doesn't mean there's no crisis or that we shouldn't be fixing up Flint and other places with relatively high lead levels.

zaroth 8y ago

Except; > It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis [in Flint] from other random variations over the previous decade. Whereas; > Right now in Michigan, 8.8 percent of children in Detroit, 8.1 percent of children in Grand Rapids and an astounding 14 percent of children in Highland Park surpass the C.D.C. reference level. Flint is at 2.4 percent. By those numbers Flint was, apparently, another media manufactured hysteria which happen to fit the desired narrative and drive a lot of clicks. There seems to be an endemic propensity of current mass media to run away with the facts in an effort to see who can express the most virtuous outrage and bring some chosen enemy-of-the-people to justice. When those in media begin to feel like their job is not so much fact finding as it is to “protect democracy” or some-such, the news writers seem to start acting like over-zealous prosecutors instead of neutral truth seekers.

webkike 8y ago
I think the issue is that residents of Flint cannot possibly drink water from their pipes that is clean. The low levels could be explained by people being required to drink bottled water (which presumably does not have any lead in it).
javagram 8y ago
Without moralizing, I think there’s a clear reason Flint was covered so much by the mass media. The problems in Flint could be traced directly to an erroneous decision by the Michigan state government to use the Flint river water without introducing anti-corrosion chemicals into it (thus causing corrosion of the existing, safe lead pipes). This creates a clear narrative of good and evil which is attractive to the media. Other cities suffering from lead problems are often due to legacy lead paint or lead pipes installed on homeowner’s property. It’s much harder to see a narrative in that rather than an existing, systemic problem which would not be seen as newsworthy. The last time something like Flint happened was the CDC coverup of lead contamination in the Washington, D.C. water system almost 2 decades ago, which did receive national attention although not as much as Flint has. (One could speculate as to the reasons why)
eli 8y ago

slededit 8y ago

The standards for what constitutes poisoning have decreased over time. Part is a recognition of long term effects where originally the term was applied only to acute effects. The other is an increased value placed on the individual as society progresses. Its a trend since the 19th century.

CodeWriter23 8y ago

It’s a specious argument on its face. “We know that lead is a powerful neurotoxicant, that there is no safe level,” and then go on doctorsplain us why the kids are safe. And they try to define the length of exposure to when the water source was changed. That might be true but they can’t know that. And it’s likely not true, a water system with lead pipes will have specified an acceptable lead level that can be present in safety samples. Even though there is no safe level.

GauntletWizard 8y ago

If I eat a crappy sandwich and get diarrhea from it, have I been poisoned? Certainly. Can I reasonably compare my experience with that of Alexander Litvinenko? No. Degree matters. The crappy day I have is on a totally different level from life-threatening injury. The numbers matter. Our units today are grams of lead per liter of blood. These children had an increased blood-lead content of 1.2 x 10^-7. One study I found[1] cites a IQ loss of 1.5 points for each 5 x 10^-6. Only the extreme outliers - a percentage point of children - passed that level. That's not nothing, but I would bet (without evidence) that concussions/head injuries from High School Football causes greater IQ loss on average. Lots of factors, fair and unfair, affect how our lives turn out. This one was unfair. It sucked. There are far bigger fish to fry. [1]https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/lead-exposure-childhood-linked-lower-iq-lower-status https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/lead-exposure-childhood-linke...

dolessdrugs 8y ago
who decides which fish are worth frying? You from your perspective or...
dEnigma 8y ago
There are always bigger fish to fry, unless you're currently frying the biggest fish. That doesn't mean that the other fish aren't worth frying. Not everyone can or even should work on the biggest issue available; and fixing lots of smaller problems can go a long way.

Theory5 8y ago

Poisoned means they require immediate medical intervention, and are at greater risk of brain and body damage. Do all people born before the 80s AND all flint citizens require direct and immediate treatment for those levels? No, which is part of the point of this article. They are not a generation of brain damaged people, nor are the kids of flint brain damaged and requiring immediate medical attention. Calling them such is harmful for multiple reasons, some of which the article stated. Another point is that even due to this, lead levels in the people of flint have fallen from 11.x to 3.x percent as per the article. They don't argue it's not a problem, but they disagree with the hysteria. Not the facts.