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?

 

[QualityTime]

I would prefer to have experts prepare graphs of the situation in Flint

 

[JNieman]

The data is expert-derived:

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm

My experience with 'experts' is that they are no better at creating graphs than a layman, unfortunately. Luckily the graphs are simply comparing simple numbers as percentages or trends over time. There's no truncated axes or other devious chart tactics to visually mislead the viewer. I didn't check the numbers, though, either. The point seems simple, though.

What is it you find lacking in the charts other than URL?

 

[bimr]

While there may be some long term effects that are yet to be discovered, I tend to agree that the lead issue has been exaggerated. Nonetheless, this is another Hurricane Katrina moment when the nation’s problem with the poor are brought out into the open.

Leaded gasoline has been a problem for years and there were many who protested when the government called for the lead to be removed. It is interesting that the moron who invented leaded gasoline was also the inventor of the ozone destroying chlorofluorocarbons.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...WcEhksBlEDmA2Bozg&sig2=PGTOHCDKn1ka1UO1YNqlRg

There may be a fix for the lead problem, but there are bigger societal issues than the water.

The level of incompetence and corruption in Michigan government is appalling.

In addition, the war on the poor and working class has been going on for years. The quiet life of misery and desperation that America’s version of capitalism bestows upon so many of the poor and working class is unacceptable .

 

[QualityTime]

I am not an expert in the RATE of lead absorption of lead into the bloodstream but logic says there must be a link. Therefore simply showing these graphs do not show the entire picture. To keep it simple, it is about what the lead and copper levels are in the tap water. By consistently keeping the lead and copper levels in the water down one does not have to worry about eventually getting elevated lead levels in a bloodstream. The public outcry MADE the City switch back to Detroit water

 

[boo1]

Quality if only we could remove the politics

 

[SwinnyGG]

"Quality if only we could remove the politics"

Ironic.

 

[bimr]

"Nearly a year before Michigan governor Rick Snyder publicly admitted his knowledge of the city of Flint’s lead-contaminated water crisis, advisers in his office had advocated moving Flint back to its prior drinking water source “before this thing gets too far out of control”, newly released emails reveal.

And nearly seven months before Snyder’s announcement in October 2015, his former chief of staff had internally proposed purchasing bottled water for Flint’s residents – even as the governor’s administration publicly rebuffed any characterization that Flint’s water wasn’t safe to drink."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...r-crisis-rick-synder-advisers-emails-michigan

Would seem that it is rather odd to blame the EPA for not acting promptly when you knew about the problem for so long.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Mistakes made by one party do not absolve other parties of their own errors.

 

[bimr]

Agree with you, maybe now Rick Snyder will resign.

 

[swall]

Bimr--I would disagree with you that the government called for lead to be removed from gasoline. It was the auto makers that needed lead free fuel for catalytic converters to function. Charles Kettering was the father of leaded gasoline. Hardly a moron--he had many inventions that enhanced the practicality of the automobile.

 

[IRstuff]

"It was the auto makers that needed lead free fuel for catalytic converters to function."

But, catalytic converters were required to be compliant to the ever more stringent federal smog standards.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[cranky108]

I don't think catalytic converters were specificly required. The federal smog standards were required.

 

[IRstuff]

What I meant was that the catalytic converters were required the car companies' solution to meet the smog requirements. They wouldn't have used them otherwise, given the relatively high cost of installations. They simply had no other way to meet the smog requirements, so, in essence, catalytic converters were required.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[bimr]

Figure 1—An artist’s depiction of a lead-poisoned worker, New York Journal, October 31, 1924, page 2.


I was referring to Thomas Midgley, who "discovered" that the addition of Tetraethyllead to gasoline prevented "knocking" in internal combustion engines, not Charles Kettering.

"In 1924, dissatisfied with the speed of DuPont's TEL production using their "bromide process", General Motors and Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now known as ExxonMobil) created the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation to produce and market TEL. Ethyl Corporation built a new chemical plant using a high-temperature ethyl chloride process at the Bayway Refinery in New Jersey.[7] Within the first two months of its operation however, the new plant was plagued by more cases of lead poisoning, hallucinations, insanity, and then five deaths in quick succession.

On October 30, 1924, Midgley participated in a press conference to demonstrate the apparent safety of TEL. In this demonstration, he poured TEL over his hands, then placed a bottle of the chemical under his nose and inhaled its vapor for sixty seconds, declaring that he could do this every day without succumbing to any problems whatsoever.[5][8] However, the State of New Jersey ordered the Bayway plant to be closed a few days later, and Jersey Standard was forbidden to manufacture TEL there again without state permission. Midgley would later have to take leave of absence from work after being diagnosed with lead poisoning.[9] Midgley was relieved of his position as vice president of GMCC in April 1925, reportedly due to his inexperience in organizational matters, but he remained an employee of General Motors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

However, Charles Kettering may be more despicable for knowingly promoting something that he knew to be lethal. He did this to obtain a patent that allowed his company a monopoly position in the market and to make his company very profitable. At best, that would be unethical.

"While use of ethanol could not be patented, TEL’s use as an additive could. Kettering and Midgley secured its patent and proceeded to promote the use of TEL as an additive in lieu of other options. Kettering became the first president of the newly founded Ethyl Corporation that started to produce TEL in 1923. One year later he hired Robert A. Kehoe as the medical expert to proclaim that leaded gasoline was safe for humans. That its use was an ecological disaster leading to a global lead contamination was not acknowledged until many decades later."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Kettering

"Although other anti-knock additives were known, researchers at General Motors’ (GM’s) Dayton, Ohio, facilities believed that they could make more money with leaded gasoline. In 1923, Thomas Midgley calculated that it would be possible to capture 20% of the gasoline market and make 3 cents per gallon, for about $36 million per year. Within a decade the profits would be ten times that amount, and by the 1950s the profits would be in the billions."

"A flurry of correspondence between GM and the public health community preceded the public controversy by two years. Warnings about the danger of leaded gasoline came directly to Midgley and Kettering from Robert Wilson of MIT, Reid Hunt of Harvard, Yandell Henderson of Yale, and Charles Kraus of the University of Pottsdam in Germany. Kraus had worked on tetraethyl lead for many years and called it “a creeping and malicious poison” that had killed a member of his dissertation committee."

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf

Figure 1—An artist’s depiction of a lead-poisoned worker, New York Journal, October 31, 1924, page 2.



1970 – US Environmental Protection Agency created. Car manufacturers ordered to begin building engines to run on unleaded gasoline by 1975. Ethyl Corp. unsuccessfully opposes phase-out of leaded gasoline in courts.

1970 – US auto makers develop catalytic converter as a stop-gap technology while they develop cleaner engines. TEL poisoned the catalytic converters so the pressure was on to get lead -free gasoline (petrol) on the market to permit catalytic converters. In response to this the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders introduction of unleaded gasoline and issues an order for lead-gasoline-free cars by 1975, thus beginning the world’s first national phase-out of leaded petrol. A health model predicted that the effect of the introduction of unleaded gasoline on lead concentrations in the blood of US residents would be minor. Ref and graph (adapted from USCDC) (Murdoch 2005)

http://www.lead.org.au/Chronology-Making_Leaded_Petrol_History.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/

http://www/Newell.pdf

 

[swall]

Midgley worked for Kettering. There is an SAE paper on Kettering's role in the widespread adoption of TEL as an additive to increase motor fuel octane. Despite TEL being a deadly poison, there was a long and safe history of leaded gasoline use in the U.S. With the adoption of the catalytic converter, leaded fuel was on a big down turn as older vehicles were replaced. Remember, cars did not last as long as they do today. It wasn't until later (around 1985) that studies were conducted that showed health issues with airborne lead. By then leaded fuel was nearly extinct except for aviation and racing applications.

 

[bimr]

I started the response with the cartoon from the New York Journal, October 31, 1924.

Have you read any of the posted links? The only thing correct in your post is that Midgley worked for Kettering.

There was a NEVER a long and safe history of leaded gasoline use in the U.S. In fact, the promoters of lead in gasoline only promoted lead because of the fact that it was patentable (and highly profitable). There were alternatives that were not used because there was no profit.

The dangers of lead were well known in the 1920's and not "discovered" in 1985. In fact, the Romans were aware that lead could cause serious health problems, even madness and death.

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective

If you take the time to read the Kovarik paper:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf

"We are often led to expect that technologic choices are made by a scientific method that reveals the most important properties of a technology. As historian T. P. Hughes said, good scientists systematically work through all available options when developing a new technology.10 But, in fact, there are very few knowledgeable representatives of the public interest looking over the shoulders of industry when such decisions are made, and with 20–20 historical hindsight, it is clear that the decisions are often not being made with the public or even the best possible technology in mind. Lead poisoning was among the most obvious and historically well known occupational diseases, and even though, as Alice Hamilton noted, alternatives were perfectly obvious, the industry opted instead for profitable poison."

Kettering's decision to promote the use of lead in gasoline was driven by greed.

 

[swall]

No, I did not read all of the links. I was aware of some of the content from other sources, though. I will read the Kovark paper. It looks interesting. As a metallurgical engineer, I am aware of the dangers of lead from various sources. I stand by my original point--the advent of the catalytic converter drove the need to remove lead from automotive fuel rather than a concern for public health. Follow up--I read the Kovark paper. I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know on the subject of lead in automotive fuels and lead, in general, as a hazardous material. The subject of alternatives to TEL as an anti-knock additive is prominent in the paper. We witnessed this in action when high octane leaded fuel went away. The alternatives did arrive after refinery investment in catalytic crackers and reformers. And blending of aromatics such as toluene into the fuel. All of these come with their own costs and risks. And ethanol as an octane enhancer--yeah, it works but that could be a whole separate topic.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

I like the site in general, but I remember reading a lot of these details in this specific story:

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[bimr]

Regarding "I stand by my original point--the advent of the catalytic converter drove the need to remove lead from automotive fuel rather than a concern for public health."

That is not an entirely correct memory. While it is true that catalytic converters become fouled with leaded gasoline, there were many other things in play at that time. Concern for public health was a factor and that concern brought the Clear Air Act in 1970. Lead was also under scrutiny as a hazardous material.

A large proportion of the eventual phasedown of lead in gasoline is in fact attributable to the decreasing share of leaded gasoline that resulted from the transition to a new car fleet.

There were other methods to meet the emission standards. Some of the German engines with fuel injection could meet the early vehicle emissions standards without the use of catalytic converters. I personally owned a 1978 BMW with no catalytic converter. The Big Three automakers thought catalytic converters were less expensive than fuel injection and other methods.

1970: Congress passes the first major Clean Air Act, requiring a 90 percent reduction in emissions from new automobiles by 1975.

1971: President Richard Nixon signed the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, which restricted the lead content in paint used in housing built with federal dollars and provided funds for states to reduce the amount of lead in paint. Subsequent legislation created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which effectively banned leaded paint in 1976.

1973: EPA releases a study confirming that lead from automobile exhaust poses a direct threat to public health. Later that year, EPA issues final regulations to gradually reducing lead in gasoline.

1975: Unleaded gasoline is also introduced because lead in gasoline may cause disintegration of catalytic converters. This results in dramatic reductions in ambient lead levels and alleviates many serious environmental and human health concerns associated with lead pollution.

1975: The first widespread introduction of catalytic converters was in the United States automobile market. To comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's stricter regulation of exhaust emissions, gasoline-powered vehicles starting with the 1975 model year most vehicles are equipped with catalytic converters.

1984: The U.S. Senate considered banning the use of lead in gasoline, with Vernon Houk, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Environmental Heath, reporting that “if no lead had been allowed in gasoline since 1977, there would have been approximately 80 percent fewer children identified with lead toxicity.”

1985: The EPA discussed a total ban on leaded gasoline by 1988.

1990: In amendments to the Clean Air Act, lead was banned from gasoline. The measures would take effect in 1995, giving gasoline companies five more years to completely phase out lead.

If you considered all of the things that were going on at that time, it is a simplistic notion to say that the advent of the catalytic converter drove the need to remove lead from automotive fuel rather than a concern for public health

 

[swall]

Leaded gasoline is still available--aviation gas (100LL) and race gas. My buddy and fellow retired engineer bought some of the former within the last couple of years and I purchased leaded race gas well past the stated 1995 ban. I was an engineering student in the early '70's and I do not recall a concern about exhaust emissions from leaded fuel being a widespread health concern. Perhaps it was to the health and safety professionals, but these concerns did not seem to make there way into the mass media. I recall a discussion in Chem 101 about bromide scavenging agents in leaded fuel/how these worked and there were no question or concerns raised by any of those in the class about potential health issues of lead in motor fuel. Leaded fuel was an accepted product. I have a problem with statements like those attributed to Vernon Houk, as there is no way of knowing if the lead related health issues among children were due to lead from exhaust emissions, ingestion of lead paint or other sources (like lead plumbing). Re the phase out of lead in motor fuel--those of us with vintage automobiles and motorcycles struggled with this due to valve seat recession caused by the use of unleaded fuel. If you revisit some of the comments made in the history of leaded fuels that have been presented in the links, there is mention of "alternatives" to leaded fuel. None of these alternatives would have dealt with valve seat recession and we would have had a whole new concern about engine longevity.