The lead levels in Flint’s water were far higher back in 2011 than they were during the so-called “Flint Water Crisis” beginning in 2015 and extending, apparently, to the present day and far into the future.
At least, that’s what the prominent environmental scientist who first brought Flint’s plight to national attention is claiming.
Here is a link to an article Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards has published about the Flint Water Crisis (FWC) — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135419304865?via%3Dihub
Edwards used records of biosolids kept by the Flint water utility to see how much lead was in the drinking water, since the testing of drinking water by the utility was sometimes questionable. He concluded:
(1) Lead biosolids reached levels in 2011 significantly higher that those during the FWC;
(2) The spike in lead biosolids and blood lead levels during the FWC lasted three months in the summer of 2014 while, the rest of the time, neither lead biosolids nor blood lead levels were unusual; and
(3) Biosolids lead and predicted human water lead exposures during the FWC were in the range of what was considered normal back in 2011.
In the paper discussing 2011, Edwards states: “We speculate that this anomaly may have been somehow linked to treatment upsets or other events during record Detroit rainfall, which was national news in that exact time period (Bienkowski, 2013). Regardless, a key point is that both biosolids lead and %EBLL5 spiked higher in 2011 that at any other point reported in this research, including during the FWC (the boldface is in the article).”
The last line of the article states: “Biosolids lead and predicted water lead exposures, during the FWC of 2014-2015, were in the range of what was considered normal in 2011.”
Edwards thanks Hurley Hospital pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha for providing blood lead data and does not expressly criticize her work, but the implication of the boldface language and the last sentence of Edwards’s article are rather clear. Boldface language in a peer-reviewed article is the equivalent of shouting
In sum, Edwards’s finding that, in 2011, there were higher lead lead levels in Flint’s water that at any time during the FWC subverts the “emergency manager/environmental racism” narrative because the 2011 water flowed directly from the Detroit Water and Sewer Department with its millions of customers. Finding a worse lead contamination of drinking water in 2011 suggests such contamination events are not uncommon. What was uncommon in Flint during the FWC was not contamination but its “observation” by those who wanted to see it.
************************************************************
“6000/8000 Brain Damaged Children in Flint”.
Uncommon observation by those who wanted to see it !
Another very stable Genius ? !,,,,,,,
TOXIC TORTS as in Flint are not Junk Science.
And Juries will decide if Crimes where Perpetrated on Flints Citizens !
Not Willian Ballenger.
As doctors and scientists and Marc Edwards know, not trial lawyers …
Nice try Bill but your comments in 2014 will not be forgotten
Nor should they be, although they were in 2016. They were right-on, as the scientists and doctors know …
Is tbreport president of Dow or maybe IG Farben ? , No no Nestles ?
GET REAL!
Query: Are the results in 2011 from water at the tap where consumers actually drink from, or were the results from testing at the point where the water is sent to consumers by the water department? As I understand it, the FWC occurred when water was untreated causing the exposure of lead in service lines at the consumer level. This would be a different thing than the status of the water where it is treated and distributed, as it would be cumulative. Either would be a problem, but if we are questioning whether the 2015 events really changed anything, we need to make sure we are comparing the same thing, not apples and oranges.
I don’t claim any expertise in this field, but after skimming Dr. Edwards’ report and the reference to 2011, it seems to me that he is analyzing the biosolids (metals) from sewage in Flint to estimate the lead levels in drinking water, an indirect method of measurement. The 2011 high levels he “speculates” are caused by an anomaly occurring when the Detroit water system (which Flint was a part of at the time) had its sewage disposal capacity overwhelmed. Edwards may be saying that his methodology would not measure the lead in the drinking water in 2011, as the results were affected by sewage overflows, and would not reflect lead in the drinking water at that time.
You raise thoughtful questions. We’ll try to get answers …
We’ll pursue answers to your questions …
There is little doubt that finger pointing is warranted with the unfortunate FWC. But the larger question is: at whom? Democrats insist on the “class warfare” / racism narrative since the FWC story erupted on the watch of GOP governor Snyder. If politicization / blame game is the Democratic modus operandi, why not also point out that the city of Flint itself has been overwhelmingly dominated by the Democratic Party. Do the local officials bear no blame?
And if 2011 water contamination really was worse, then by that definition doesn’t that mean that Democratic Governor Grandholm is on the hook? And if the water diverted to Flint from Detroit was that bad in 2011, it should be pointed out that the Democratic Party local officials have similarly dominated Detroit’s government.
Fair is fair. First ye remove the plank out of your eye!