“The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’” is interesting because it comes from the same nytimes that maintains a “Flint Water Crisis” section.
What are the boring statistics?
Right now in Michigan, 8.8 percent of children in Detroit, 8.1 percent of children in Grand Rapids and an astounding 14 percent of children in Highland Park surpass the C.D.C. reference level. Flint is at 2.4 percent. A comprehensive analysis of blood lead levels across the United States reveals at least eight states with blood lead levels higher than Flint’s were during the water switch.
Flint did hit 3.7 percent at the height of the “crisis,” but never reached anywhere near the level of Detroit, which is not in a “crisis”. But perhaps the measured increase did not correspond to an underlying change?
Moving from evaluating percentages to examining actual blood lead levels in children, we found that levels did increase after the water switched over in 2014, but only by a modest 0.11 micrograms per deciliter. A similar increase of 0.12 micrograms per deciliter occurred randomly in 2010-11. It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis from other random variations over the previous decade.
Obviously any amount of lead is bad, but given that other cities have worse issues with lead and these data are readily obtainable, why the focus on Flint?
Related:
- see this mini-site about our suburban neighbors’ plan to spend $100 million on a new school because they think there is lead in the drinking water in the old school; people cannot be convinced by negative lab tests nor can they be convinced to buy $75 filters that take out 99 percent of any lead (so these environmentalists have been trucking in jugs of water every week for the last 10+ years, but that isn’t Green enough so it is time to push the 1994-built/renovated school into a landfill)
I wonder how dangerous this lead stuff really is. I read somewhere that eastern Europe had very high levels of lead but didn’t have high levels of brain damage or whatever the issue is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/15/this-is-how-toxic-flints-water-really-is/
https://www.pbs.org/video/poisoned-water-jhhegn/
And read the comments to the article, e.g. this one:
“This seems to be a foolish column, that is twisting the meaning of words. Whether it is intentional or by neglect or by an act of nature, if poisonous material is caused to be ingested, the person is “poisoned”. To say that someone has been poisoned, does not convey whether the poisoning will have serious or permanent effects or whether the poisoning can be neutralized or limited by the body’s natural defenses or by prescribed medications and procedures.”
IIRC, the water looked, smelled and tasted so foul that people turned to bottled water. So blood levels are meaningless in evaluating the culpability of the authorities.
IOW this smells bad in more than one way.