4 ms·

> It’s critically important to find out whether tainted water is coming from the city’s water facility or getting polluted in the pipes along the way All of th

by kodah 6y ago

> It’s critically important to find out whether tainted water is coming from the city’s water facility or getting polluted in the pipes along the way All of the above. Water facilities seem to get tainted the way Flints water facility was tainted, cost cutting. Some things, like brain eating amoebas are hard to get rid of in totality, but in the right environment they could thrive. Water mains and lateral lines get damaged from over and under pressurization constantly. Fire hydrants are a big source of this. This damage can be difficult to locate without real time digital water meters because pressurization across the system is constantly in flux. Source: worked at a digital water metering company

Scoundreller 6y ago
Flint's issue was the pipes. When they were supplied by Detroit, anti-corrosion chemicals were added by the water facility. But when they switched to own river's suppliers, the anti-corrosion wasn't added and caused lead in the pipes to flake off/absorb into the water. It takes years to build up the protective layer that retains lead in the pipes. Unsure how long it takes to decay, but I guess Flint was a real-world study of that since it usually isn't removed once added. It's not a 100% regular thing. My hometown just started adding it in 2018: https://www.hamilton.ca/home-property-and-development/water-sewer/corrosion-control https://www.hamilton.ca/home-property-and-development/water-...
- kodah 6y ago
  I think that's a matter of perspective that you're arguing, and a bit pedantic to say the least. People that work in infrastructure will tell you that replacing and repairing infrastructure is an impossibly imbalanced equation, it simply degrades too fast. So, lead pipes are to be expected, among other things. Lead pipes are just fine as long as there's chemicals in the water that build up a rusty layer. Flint, when it switched plants, did not use the chemical they had in their previous plant. I can't remember if it was because a machine was broken or if it was more direct cost cutting, but both come down to cost.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    > Lead pipes are just fine as long as there's chemicals in the water that build up a rusty layer. It only mitigates instead of preventing. But orthophosphate/phosphoric eventually yields a 90% reduction: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18957781 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18957781 In my hometown link, they have replaced lead watermains and are replacing functional lead-based residential supply lines still out there. Replacing lead-lines is the only way to keep water 100% lead-free on its way from supply to tap. Fittings/brass fixtures are another story, but the move from copper to PEX is playing a big role there. In Flint, it was direct cost-cutting/oversight.
    - kodah 6y ago
      Yeah, but lead pipe replacements are only one of numerous improvements that are required to water infrastructure. Additionally, mainly lead lines are lateral lines, which in many municipalities fall under the home owners responsibility to replace and maintain, just like in sewage. > Replacing lead-lines is the only way to keep water 100% lead-free on its way from supply to tap. Sure, but treating the pipes brings lead consumption down to 'acceptable' levels. Acceptable in this case means that it can be filtered through a household carbon-based filter. I've never read your 90% figure anywhere, generally the figure that's cited is: > The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has reduced the maximum allowable lead content -- that is, content that is considered "lead-free" -- to be a weighted average of 0.25 percent calculated across the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures and 0.2 percent for solder and flux. This is not a zero-sum game, so while the EPA and Congress acknowledge that lead is dangerous, there are other components which compound this problem. Hence the search for mitigation. This is common throughout any infrastructure problem, not just water. I'm glad your town raised the funds to do that, but it's certainly not the norm and probably shouldn't be considered an expectation as you'd immediately price out most of America doing that.
sizzle 6y ago
Also I have to pay for water backflow testing every year, which varies by state I believe.

by kodah 6y ago

Scoundreller 6y ago

Flint's issue was the pipes. When they were supplied by Detroit, anti-corrosion chemicals were added by the water facility. But when they switched to own river's suppliers, the anti-corrosion wasn't added and caused lead in the pipes to flake off/absorb into the water. It takes years to build up the protective layer that retains lead in the pipes. Unsure how long it takes to decay, but I guess Flint was a real-world study of that since it usually isn't removed once added. It's not a 100% regular thing. My hometown just started adding it in 2018: https://www.hamilton.ca/home-property-and-development/water-sewer/corrosion-control https://www.hamilton.ca/home-property-and-development/water-...

kodah 6y ago
I think that's a matter of perspective that you're arguing, and a bit pedantic to say the least. People that work in infrastructure will tell you that replacing and repairing infrastructure is an impossibly imbalanced equation, it simply degrades too fast. So, lead pipes are to be expected, among other things. Lead pipes are just fine as long as there's chemicals in the water that build up a rusty layer. Flint, when it switched plants, did not use the chemical they had in their previous plant. I can't remember if it was because a machine was broken or if it was more direct cost cutting, but both come down to cost.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > Lead pipes are just fine as long as there's chemicals in the water that build up a rusty layer. It only mitigates instead of preventing. But orthophosphate/phosphoric eventually yields a 90% reduction: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18957781 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18957781 In my hometown link, they have replaced lead watermains and are replacing functional lead-based residential supply lines still out there. Replacing lead-lines is the only way to keep water 100% lead-free on its way from supply to tap. Fittings/brass fixtures are another story, but the move from copper to PEX is playing a big role there. In Flint, it was direct cost-cutting/oversight.
  - kodah 6y ago
    Yeah, but lead pipe replacements are only one of numerous improvements that are required to water infrastructure. Additionally, mainly lead lines are lateral lines, which in many municipalities fall under the home owners responsibility to replace and maintain, just like in sewage. > Replacing lead-lines is the only way to keep water 100% lead-free on its way from supply to tap. Sure, but treating the pipes brings lead consumption down to 'acceptable' levels. Acceptable in this case means that it can be filtered through a household carbon-based filter. I've never read your 90% figure anywhere, generally the figure that's cited is: > The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has reduced the maximum allowable lead content -- that is, content that is considered "lead-free" -- to be a weighted average of 0.25 percent calculated across the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures and 0.2 percent for solder and flux. This is not a zero-sum game, so while the EPA and Congress acknowledge that lead is dangerous, there are other components which compound this problem. Hence the search for mitigation. This is common throughout any infrastructure problem, not just water. I'm glad your town raised the funds to do that, but it's certainly not the norm and probably shouldn't be considered an expectation as you'd immediately price out most of America doing that.

sizzle 6y ago

Also I have to pay for water backflow testing every year, which varies by state I believe.