3 ms·

I think it's ridiculous that landlords are able to rent properties that will give tenants lead poisoning as long as they provide a warning. I have a feeling tha

I think it's ridiculous that landlords are able to rent properties that will give tenants lead poisoning as long as they provide a warning. I have a feeling that many people think tbe warning is just for legal liability and don't realize that their landlord is knowingly poisoning them.

bell-cot 1y ago
Unfortunately, "lead in the water" is not a boolean, and is extremely dependent on things the landlord doesn't control - especially the chemistry of the municipal water supply. But our legal system makes it easiest to sue the landlord. Sure, you could rip out all the old metal pipes and replace them with (say) PVC. Even handwaving the expense and issues of that - did you just replace "lead" with "microplastics"?
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >is not boolean There is a concentration of it where it becomes harmful. >dependent on things the landlord doesn't control They have the ability to filter water.
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    > There is a concentration of it where... Unfortunately, lead seems to follow a "anything above 0.000000000000% is harmful, though more is worse" rule. > They have the ability to... True, but there are a lot of filter-worthy things which can be found in drinking water - https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national... - so how much filtering, for which contaminants, should they have to do? How often should they have to re-test the (probably municipal) water supply, to verify that their filtering is doing the job? And how much will they mark up the price of water for their tenants, to cover the expenses of all their extra filtering and testing?
potato3732842 1y ago
Nobody is being "actively" poisoned except perhaps the consumers of your rhetoric. The lead develops a layer that keeps it from dissolving into water (much like aluminum develops an oxide layer) and won't hurt anyone as long as the water source doesn't pull a Flint. This is true for pipes both in houses and city pipes upstream. Is it more dangerous than not, yes. But it's not really an "active" problem.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Nobody Anecdotaly, a landlord tried to rent me an apartment with lead. After receiving the warning that complex was built before lead was banned for construction, I asked if they used lead pipes and was ghosted. When I tested the water and it came back positive with lead.
quickthrowman 1y ago
Lead service lines are like asbestos, they’re fine if they aren’t disturbed. A layer of minerals builds up on the inside. It’s still best practice to replace them, but excavation and plumbing for one house can be $15-20k. The city I live in is replacing lead service lines across the entire city and offers low interest financing for homeowners. Crucially, the water treatment chemistry needs to remain consistent. Changing the process is what caused the lead pipes in Flint to start leaching lead into the water. They changed water suppliers during a budgetary crisis. From the Wikipedia article: > In April 2014, during a financial crisis, state-appointed emergency manager Darnell Earley changed Flint's water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River) to the Flint River.[7] Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water. Officials failed to apply corrosion inhibitors to the water, which resulted in lead from aging pipes leaching into the water supply, exposing around 100,000 residents to elevated lead levels.[8] A pair of scientific studies confirmed that lead contamination was present in the water supply.[9][10] The city switched back to the Detroit water system on October 16, 2015.[11] It later signed a 30-year contract with the new Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) on November 22, 2017.[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis

bell-cot 1y ago

Unfortunately, "lead in the water" is not a boolean, and is extremely dependent on things the landlord doesn't control - especially the chemistry of the municipal water supply. But our legal system makes it easiest to sue the landlord. Sure, you could rip out all the old metal pipes and replace them with (say) PVC. Even handwaving the expense and issues of that - did you just replace "lead" with "microplastics"?

charcircuit 1y ago
>is not boolean There is a concentration of it where it becomes harmful. >dependent on things the landlord doesn't control They have the ability to filter water.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > There is a concentration of it where... Unfortunately, lead seems to follow a "anything above 0.000000000000% is harmful, though more is worse" rule. > They have the ability to... True, but there are a lot of filter-worthy things which can be found in drinking water - https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national... - so how much filtering, for which contaminants, should they have to do? How often should they have to re-test the (probably municipal) water supply, to verify that their filtering is doing the job? And how much will they mark up the price of water for their tenants, to cover the expenses of all their extra filtering and testing?

potato3732842 1y ago

Nobody is being "actively" poisoned except perhaps the consumers of your rhetoric. The lead develops a layer that keeps it from dissolving into water (much like aluminum develops an oxide layer) and won't hurt anyone as long as the water source doesn't pull a Flint. This is true for pipes both in houses and city pipes upstream. Is it more dangerous than not, yes. But it's not really an "active" problem.

charcircuit 1y ago
>Nobody Anecdotaly, a landlord tried to rent me an apartment with lead. After receiving the warning that complex was built before lead was banned for construction, I asked if they used lead pipes and was ghosted. When I tested the water and it came back positive with lead.

quickthrowman 1y ago

Lead service lines are like asbestos, they’re fine if they aren’t disturbed. A layer of minerals builds up on the inside. It’s still best practice to replace them, but excavation and plumbing for one house can be $15-20k. The city I live in is replacing lead service lines across the entire city and offers low interest financing for homeowners. Crucially, the water treatment chemistry needs to remain consistent. Changing the process is what caused the lead pipes in Flint to start leaching lead into the water. They changed water suppliers during a budgetary crisis. From the Wikipedia article: > In April 2014, during a financial crisis, state-appointed emergency manager Darnell Earley changed Flint's water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River) to the Flint River.[7] Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water. Officials failed to apply corrosion inhibitors to the water, which resulted in lead from aging pipes leaching into the water supply, exposing around 100,000 residents to elevated lead levels.[8] A pair of scientific studies confirmed that lead contamination was present in the water supply.[9][10] The city switched back to the Detroit water system on October 16, 2015.[11] It later signed a 30-year contract with the new Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) on November 22, 2017.[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis