Flint Municipal water 89

[moon161]

So, Flint has been MI lead poisoned and exposed to legionella bacteria because the water supply was switched from Detroit municipal to the Flint River. Since the polluted river is corrosive and iron rich, lead was leached from pipes and solder into the water of thousands of homes, and legionella bateria (legionaire's diseased) apparently thrived on the dissolved iron.

It was done to save money, it stayed that way because people who knew of the crisis sat on the information and obstructed inquiry.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/e...nation-for-months-without-telling-the-public/

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15874

There HAS to be a (ir)responsible engineer in that chain. What are their duties, did they fail to perform? Would whistleblower action have been appropriate?

 

[IRstuff]

Again, Reuters had more information in only ONE sentence. AP's missive is very anomalous, relative to that.



TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

John, I would argue that it is all relevant information. In order to find out what's going on, I have to read through all of it and learn that a) the supreme court made a decision (though not a ruling), b) there have been widespread lawsuits, and c) a basic overview of the "two" sides' cases.

It's been five years. Most people aren't following this, so when a news article pops up it's useful to include the background as a reminder or, in some cases, the initial exposure. This is presented in a manner that, more or less, forces the reader to be reminded of the pertinent information. Provide background, give the punchline. Seems like a logical arrangement to me.

obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible; bewilder (someone)

I fail to see how it meets that definition. The information is provided without commentary. The provide background information in a neutral fashion (or possibly a little skewed toward the plaintiffs as they don't expand at all on the reasons city officials thought themselves immune) and then provide the effect. Seems like a logical arrangement.

I'm not saying they presented perfectly, or that it was better than any other news agency. I simply take issue with the accusation that this is "terrible" journalism when I see no evidence to back it up. I would agree if, as I said before, this was a long essay style piece that extolled the virtues of the Flint officials in their quest to provide clean drinking water to the people with the relevant facts buried deep within. That would absolutely make the meaning unintelligible or unclear. But it isn't. I read those 7 sentences and have a clear idea of what was decided.

 

[davefitz]

I think the primary reason the supreme court rejected review was that they want to maintain a strong " sovereign immunity" policy , to shield all officials from any responsibility for any action that occurred in office. This policy has a large influence in allowing officials to pursue egregariously corrupt actions without any fear of retribution; witness the current reports of million dollar payments to family members of elected official related to government payments to foreign project ( eg, Ukraine).

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

 

[phamENG]

dave - if that were case, they would have taken the appeal and overturned the lower court ruling. The lower court ruled against the officials, denying them immunity and allowing the citizens to sue them.

 

[davefitz]

OK, you win that one.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

 

[IRstuff]

journalism = who, what, where, why, and how.

The AP article stunk on the why. You can barely infer the why, but it's not explicitly spelled out, and certainly way less clear than the Reuters article. I've read the AP's 7 sentences and cannot find anything that clearly says, or implies, what was specifically rejected by SCOTUS, except possibly the 6th, which could have been made the linchpin with something "The city and officials have argued they should be immune from being sued, but lower courts have disagreed, as did the Supreme Court"

The justices turned away two appeals by the city and the state and local officials of a lower court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to move forward. The lower court rejected a demand for immunity by the officials, finding that they violated the residents’ right to “bodily integrity” under the U.S. Constitution by providing the tainted water after switching water sources in a cost-cutting move in 2014.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

But the Supreme Court did not explicitly agree with the lower court's decision (though you could say that they implicitly agreed). They simply decided that there was no conflict of law or other reason that they should hear that case over the thousands of other petitions they receive annually. The Reuters article gives no more insight into the decision of the supreme court than the AP article does. They provide more information on the "why" of the lower courts' decisions, but don't give the "why" for the Supreme Court's decision to not hear the case. But, again, my point isn't that the AP/ABC article is better than anyone else's, just that it doesn't warrant the label of "terrible journalism."

 

[dik]

According to Reuters, " The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let residents of Flint, Michigan pursue a civil rights lawsuit against the city and government officials that accused them of knowingly allowing the city’s water supply to become contaminated with lead."

Dik

 

[JohnRBaker]

For what it's worth...

Cases of bottled water found inside another vacant building in Flint

https://nbc25news.com/news/local/ca...found-inside-another-vacant-building-in-flint

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[IRstuff]

Any water bottles that old would need to be checked for BPA and other chemicals leaching into the water, particularly if the ambient temperature was uncontrolled.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm