4 ms·

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

by 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.

by kodah 6y ago

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.