4 ms·

Look at what happened in flint Michigan. Lead pipes were calcified, but then the water bureau stopped adding an agent to reduce the natural ph of the river wate

Look at what happened in flint Michigan. Lead pipes were calcified, but then the water bureau stopped adding an agent to reduce the natural ph of the river water. This caused the calcification to get stripped and for lead to start leaching into the water. All it takes is a change in ph of your water supply to put you at risk.

james-redwood 5y ago
Beat me to it. Always replace your lead pipes.
beerandt 5y ago
Similar fiasco when EPA did a showcase project converting DC water supply away from chlorine treatment. Hugely embarrassing and expensive "fix" for a non-problem, that created a much worse problem. (ETA: It also caused lead to be released- non-lead pipes had actually leached lead from the water over many years, acting as a filter. The lead was chemically bound to both lead and non-lead pipes. Changing the chemistry caused the process to reverse and dump all that lead back into the water at much higher concentrations than would occur just using a 100% lead pipe system.) And lead paint is similar. In-situ it's pretty harmless. It's the removal that's dangerous and is more likely to poison. This is why people arguing for "do-something!" actions using "What harm could it do?" reasoning should always be fought until safety is confirmed experimentally the field. "What harm could it do?" should always be a red flag for "don't know what you don't know" ignorance, and responded to as if it's a real, non-rhetorical question.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  > And lead paint is similar. In-situ it's pretty harmless. It's the removal that's dangerous and is more likely to poison. This is not completely true. I remember some studies looking at lead accumulation in dust. It's not just macroscopic paint chips on the outside of houses that children ingest, it's dust in the house as well.
lkbm 5y ago
Good point. Perhaps one cheap way GP could monitor it themselves might be to just monitor pH and do a lead test if that changes. Just replacing the pipes seems like the optimal solution, but half-measures are better than nothing.

james-redwood 5y ago

Beat me to it. Always replace your lead pipes.

beerandt 5y ago

Similar fiasco when EPA did a showcase project converting DC water supply away from chlorine treatment. Hugely embarrassing and expensive "fix" for a non-problem, that created a much worse problem. (ETA: It also caused lead to be released- non-lead pipes had actually leached lead from the water over many years, acting as a filter. The lead was chemically bound to both lead and non-lead pipes. Changing the chemistry caused the process to reverse and dump all that lead back into the water at much higher concentrations than would occur just using a 100% lead pipe system.) And lead paint is similar. In-situ it's pretty harmless. It's the removal that's dangerous and is more likely to poison. This is why people arguing for "do-something!" actions using "What harm could it do?" reasoning should always be fought until safety is confirmed experimentally the field. "What harm could it do?" should always be a red flag for "don't know what you don't know" ignorance, and responded to as if it's a real, non-rhetorical question.

R0b0t1 5y ago
> And lead paint is similar. In-situ it's pretty harmless. It's the removal that's dangerous and is more likely to poison. This is not completely true. I remember some studies looking at lead accumulation in dust. It's not just macroscopic paint chips on the outside of houses that children ingest, it's dust in the house as well.

lkbm 5y ago

Good point. Perhaps one cheap way GP could monitor it themselves might be to just monitor pH and do a lead test if that changes. Just replacing the pipes seems like the optimal solution, but half-measures are better than nothing.