A lot of these cases seem to be borderline, and many times the maladies are only loosely ascribed to lead poisoning. Reading the articles, you see things like "16ppb, 1ppb above the level that the CDC requires you to take action"
And, in the linked article, the line that sz4kerto quoted "In Baltimore, a two-year-old boy...can’t speak, apparently because of lead poisoning."
Hardly a smoking gun.
Many of the outrage-inducing headlines, when you read further, aren't nearly as bad as what they seem. If 15ppb requires no action, why is 16ppb an outrage? Or even 30ppb. Usually 'safe' levels of a substance are set at least an order of magnitude below the point they become a problem in most circumstances.
Obviously lead poisoning is a real thing, and the government cover-ups and selective testing are a problem, but I foresee an entire generation of Flint descendants that will start blaming any and all of their problems on this Flint issue, of course, looking for a $$ handout as well. It would be nice for the media(and the general public) to apply even the lowest evidence bar "greater weight of the evidence" -- meaning at least a 50% probability -- to the situation. It seems the current bar is "a slight chance in hell."
A two year old, exposed to an unknown amount of lead, who can't talk, does not seem to be a definitive victim of lead poisoning. He is, however, a great tool for the media to use to invoke the "won't you think of the children" hysteria, which will surely prompt a knee-jerk reaction that will waste millions of dollars.
There is no safe level of lead. That's the problem. There is a threshold because they had to draw a line somewhere, but lead causes detectable impairment of brain development in proportion to concentration, at any concentration. It's not like you can have 15ppb of lead in your blood and not suffer from it.
It's easy to see this in terms of statistics if it's not _your_ 2-year old with the speech delay. Not all individuals tolerate lead at the same level. Lead was commonly used in the middle ages and not everyone suffered from the neurological damage that lead can cause.
Statistics are the best tool we have but it's also important to realize that when the incidence rate is low enough, you need a lot of data for statistical methods to be reliable. We see this in A/B testing of conversion rates. If your base conversion rate is only 0.1% and you are looking for a 15% lift (e.g. 15% higher chance of lead poisoning), then you need a sample size of over 700,000 for each branch (i.e. 700,000 kids "exposed" to lead and 700,000 not exposed). That kind of sample size is hard to come by.
I agree -- I wasn't trying to show that there wasn't enough affected cases to indicate definitive lead poisoning, just that it's likely not nearly as widespread or causing as much damage as is currently being ascribed to it.
From the article "4.9 percent of children tested for lead turned out to have elevated levels." What is 'elevated'? Is that 30ug/dl? or 3ug/dl when the average is 2ug/dl. When specific information is absent, I generally doubt the accuracy.
But I guess that's typical news media anyways. If it's not bursting in to flames, then it isn't news.
'So the Virginia Tech researchers took 30 different readings at various flow levels. What they found shocked them: The lowest reading they obtained was around 200 ppb, already ridiculously high. But more than half of the readings came in at more than 1,000 ppb. Some came in above 5,000 -- the level at which EPA considers the water to be "toxic waste."'
As I understand, it the City of Detroit basically kicked them out (or raised the rates prohibitively high). Flint was already on track to transition to a regional water system (not the Flint river system), but it wasn't completed yet. This statement places all of the blame onto Flint for pulling out of using Detroit's water system.
The details have been posted in several earlier threads, but the TL;DR version is:
1) Detroit was gouging Flint, well into 7 figures per year, (plus the supply pipes from Detroit to Flint have lead)
2) Flint signed a new deal for a new supply direct from Lake Huron with lead-free supply lines at an 8-figure cost savings per decade (or less) -- better water, much cheaper. Construction to take ~4 years.
3) Detroit hears this, cuts off Flint at earliest opportunity (1-year notice opt-out), apparently assuming that they could later gouge even more under the assumption that Flint had no alternative;
4) Flint resorts to using Flint River in the interim (until new Huron feeds from new water system are complete), prepared for the bacterial risks but unaware of lead risks.
And, in the linked article, the line that sz4kerto quoted "In Baltimore, a two-year-old boy...can’t speak, apparently because of lead poisoning."
Hardly a smoking gun.
Many of the outrage-inducing headlines, when you read further, aren't nearly as bad as what they seem. If 15ppb requires no action, why is 16ppb an outrage? Or even 30ppb. Usually 'safe' levels of a substance are set at least an order of magnitude below the point they become a problem in most circumstances.
Obviously lead poisoning is a real thing, and the government cover-ups and selective testing are a problem, but I foresee an entire generation of Flint descendants that will start blaming any and all of their problems on this Flint issue, of course, looking for a $$ handout as well. It would be nice for the media(and the general public) to apply even the lowest evidence bar "greater weight of the evidence" -- meaning at least a 50% probability -- to the situation. It seems the current bar is "a slight chance in hell."
A two year old, exposed to an unknown amount of lead, who can't talk, does not seem to be a definitive victim of lead poisoning. He is, however, a great tool for the media to use to invoke the "won't you think of the children" hysteria, which will surely prompt a knee-jerk reaction that will waste millions of dollars.