4 ms·

I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that privatization played a significant role in the Flint water crisis. For example The Intercept headlined "FR

I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that privatization played a significant role in the Flint water crisis. For example The Intercept headlined "FROM PITTSBURGH TO FLINT, THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING PRIVATE COMPANIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR AILING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS".[1] That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it. [1] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-privatization-public-water-systems-lead/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-...

radlad 3y ago
If you read The Intercept article, you'll see that the company was hired to test the water after the Flint water crisis began, in response to citizen complaints. This is entirely separate from the federally mandated requirements around testing that was performed by government agencies. > That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it. We arrived here in response to your misinformed claim that "A disaster like Flint could not happen here" because "Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here." I've demonstrated that the US has similar policies in place, and neither the water supply nor the mandated testing for metals were privatized, yet the Flint disaster did happen. People and governments are fallible. Corruption and criminal negligence happens everywhere.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  I don't think my claim is misinformed and I don't think the US and Germany are similar at all when it comes to water supply. Here we have multiple levels of security that would definitely have prevented a crisis similar to the one in Flint, even considering that corruption and criminal negligence could be at play. I also think we have different views what privatization means. Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. There is just no scenario where something like in Flint could play out because the incentives are not there. If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis
  - radlad 3y ago
    Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water. > Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing. Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap water has been an issue in Europe. From an initial search, here's evidence to the contrary. Ctrl+F "Germany": https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-tap-water/ https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-...
    - weinzierl 3y ago
      "As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing." If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation. "Although lead pipes have not been used here since 1973, they can still be found in old buildings." As long as it is not a rental building the state's responsibility ends where the pipe enters the house. We do not have any lead pipes in public water supply anymore and for rental buildings we have mandatory water analysis. Also we are talking about a limit of 5 μg/l where the us limit is three times that. The occasional home owner that refused modernization could hardly be described as a water crisis.
      - radlad 3y ago
        Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up. Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't. I wish you the best.
        weinzierl 3y ago

radlad 3y ago

If you read The Intercept article, you'll see that the company was hired to test the water after the Flint water crisis began, in response to citizen complaints. This is entirely separate from the federally mandated requirements around testing that was performed by government agencies. > That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it. We arrived here in response to your misinformed claim that "A disaster like Flint could not happen here" because "Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here." I've demonstrated that the US has similar policies in place, and neither the water supply nor the mandated testing for metals were privatized, yet the Flint disaster did happen. People and governments are fallible. Corruption and criminal negligence happens everywhere.

weinzierl 3y ago
I don't think my claim is misinformed and I don't think the US and Germany are similar at all when it comes to water supply. Here we have multiple levels of security that would definitely have prevented a crisis similar to the one in Flint, even considering that corruption and criminal negligence could be at play. I also think we have different views what privatization means. Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. There is just no scenario where something like in Flint could play out because the incentives are not there. If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis
- radlad 3y ago
  Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water. > Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing. Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap water has been an issue in Europe. From an initial search, here's evidence to the contrary. Ctrl+F "Germany": https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-tap-water/ https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-...
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    "As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing." If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation. "Although lead pipes have not been used here since 1973, they can still be found in old buildings." As long as it is not a rental building the state's responsibility ends where the pipe enters the house. We do not have any lead pipes in public water supply anymore and for rental buildings we have mandatory water analysis. Also we are talking about a limit of 5 μg/l where the us limit is three times that. The occasional home owner that refused modernization could hardly be described as a water crisis.
    - radlad 3y ago
      Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up. Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't. I wish you the best.
      - weinzierl 3y ago