Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, let's talk about Flint's water. As a scientist who professionally works with water quality issues and environmental contaminants, I like to correct the misinformation I see all over the internet on this subject.
As of June 20th, 2018 - Overall, Flint probably has about as much or likely less lead in its water than whatever water you got from your tap this morning. That is to say that something like 98% of homes are below the EPA compliance level. A home is not out of compliance with the lead and copper rule unless this falls below 90%, as it may have back in 2015. As of 2016 5,300 municipal water systems were out of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule - Flint is not, and officially has not ever been among these 5,300.
The state stopped bottled water delivery in Flint because the water has been below action levels for two years. TWO YEARS!! And yet still people on the internet are calling the city "poisoned" when at its worst about 10% of homes had elevated lead levels in the water, ... similar to 5,300 other municipalities in the county.
There are still issues with lead in the water of certain cities throughout Michigan and the entire United States, but as of June 20th, 2018 - Flint is not one of them. To say otherwise at this point lacks objectivity and is nothing but a partisan talking point. Yes, this can be a partisan forum, and I ideologically side with liberals, but I can't put agenda before data, and I'd hope the Independent in all of my liberal-leaning friends on here can respect that.
Lead paint is indeed the far greater issue -- way more than water. This has been a topic of environmental concern for decades. Sealing or removing lead paint or painted windows has been dropping lead levels in kids' blood for decades. In fact, in 2016, immediately after this so-called "water crisis" data showed that Flint children's blood lead levels hit a historic low!! The kids there have less lead in their blood than they ever have! Ever! Despite all this water business. Why? Because first of all 90% of homes were never impacted by the water issue, there's less lead paint today than ever before, and finally water is not as good of a transport mechanism for getting lead into blood as inhaling lead dust is.
Despite all this, Flint has gotten $100m from the EPA and a $97m settlement from Michigan and repairs are underway as we speak to replace lead service pipes to tens of thousands of homes. They are fixing the aged infrastructure that was brought to light by the 2015 lead issues.
You guys think maybe this whole situation was maybe a bit politically motivated?
Last edited by Geo-Aggie; 06-20-2018 at 07:37 AM..
Sure, let's talk about Flint's water. As a scientist who professionally works with water quality issues and environmental contaminants, I like to correct the misinformation I see all over the internet on this subject.
As of June 20th, 2018 - Overall, Flint probably has about as much or likely less lead in its water than whatever water you got from your tap this morning. That is to say that something like 98% of homes are below the EPA compliance level. A home is not out of compliance with the lead and copper rule unless this falls below 90%, as it may have back in 2015. As of 2016 5,300 municipal water systems were out of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule - Flint is not, and officially has not ever been among these 5,300.
The state stopped bottled water delivery in Flint because the water has been below action levels for two years. TWO YEARS!! And yet still people on the internet are calling the city "poisoned" when at its worst about 10% of homes had elevated lead levels in the water, ... similar to 5,300 other municipalities in the county.
There are still issues with lead in the water of certain cities throughout Michigan and the entire United States, but as of June 20th, 2018 - Flint is not one of them. To say otherwise at this point lacks objectivity and is nothing but a partisan talking point. Yes, this can be a partisan forum, and I ideologically side with liberals, but I can't put agenda before data, and I'd hope the Independent in all of my liberal-leaning friends on here can respect that.
Lead paint is indeed the far greater issue -- way more than water. This has been a topic of environmental concern for decades. Sealing or removing lead paint or painted windows has been dropping lead levels in kids' blood for decades. In fact, in 2016, immediately after this so-called "water crisis" data showed that Flint children's blood lead levels hit a historic low!! The kids there have less lead in their blood than they ever have! Ever! Despite all this water business. Why? Because first of all 90% of homes were never impacted by the water issue, there's less lead paint today than ever before, and finally water is not as good of a transport mechanism for getting lead into blood as inhaling lead dust is.
Despite all this, Flint has gotten $100m from the EPA and a $97m settlement from Michigan and repairs are underway as we speak to replace lead service pipes to tens of thousands of homes. They are fixing the aged infrastructure that was brought to light by the 2015 lead issues.
You guys think maybe this whole situation was maybe a bit politically motivated?
While i agree with the sentiment, you need to look at the basis for some of the data. Many of the 5300 municipalities are out of compliance for failing to report properly or at all. The failure to turn in some Federal report does not put lead in the water. It just means they did not feel like filling out the report.
This does not mean the concept is invalid, just the numbers are exaggerated for dramatic impact. Same ting being done ont he other side of the table is dong with regard to Flint. There goal is to make Snyder look bad, on the other side the goal is to downplay the EPA F*#& up with regard to Flint. Everyone exaggerates. The only thing that seems to be consistent is not reported "facts" are actually true, accurate and not spun or exaggerated. However that seems especially true when it comes to Flint and was from day 1.
It is not unheard of for a State to accidentally poison a few people by mistake. Being poisoned does not mean you die, it does not mean you are even harmed. I have been poisoned many times in many different ways. I recovered each time if I had any effect at all. Truly high lead levels a child is not likely to recover from, however these marginally high levels - no one know whether there is actually any harm or not. They will likely never know since Flint school children traditionally under-perform anyway, and the media circus may end up causing them to under-perform because they think they will even if the lead did nothing to them. Not too long ago acceptable level of lead in water were considerably higher. Then they lowered them. Did the find they were wrong before? No it is just being extra safe. What they found is there were now more practical ways to reduce lead levels so why not do it?
Lisa Brown is an obnoxious, but smart person. It seems that all of the candidates are similar in that regard. Very egotistical, of course...and I suppose that they can all take it to the point of rudeness.
I do not bother to fret over who might get elected and I completely ignore the pools. Anything can happen. Oprah may well be our next president. Vote your conscious, maybe get active and try to convince others to agree wit you and then just watch the antics and be amused. Unless you are going to step up and run, there is not a lot you can do about it.
Abdul El-Sayed is another one beating the fix-the-roads drum, but there is also a "no new fossil fuel infrastructure" line on his site. That is the most sensible position I could find among the candidates. He may get my primary vote for being the least wrong.
Brian Calley - really nice guy, moderate, too focused on a few issues h has a personal attachment to and no real big picture platform. Roads dude roads. Whatcha gonna do? What about the other issues? At least he has some good idea for his six or eight very specific issues. He would probably be a significant benefit to 2.2% of the population impacted by his pet issues. At least he knows how things work and is realistic, if a bit overly skeptical, about what a governor can actually do.
Colbeck - more concerned with being conservative than being realistic. I am going to fix the roads without increasing spending or obtaining any revenue. I will eliminate State income tax (which can only be done by bumping sales tax to 8% to higher). Both a dreamer and a trickster who avoids difficult issues by redirecting back to statements of dreams.
Jim Hines. - Who? Seems like a guy looking for a retirement job. Governor might be fun to try.
Bill Schulte. I like some of what he has to say, but he is too slick politician for me. I have had enough of slick politicians from both parties.
Abdul El Sayed. Are you kidding? His platform reads like a child wish list. He clearly has not focus and no understanding of the issues. Trying to ride on the novelty of an ethnic governor. No broad appeal Not electable. This is a guy who just wants to get elected, either for some undisclosed agenda or for his ego. Do your homework, grow up a lot, think more and maybe in a couple of decades you possibly could be a real candidate.
Shri Thanedar. Listening to this guy talk gives me the shivers. He exudes oiliness in my opinion. "Together, we will bring a new governing culture to Lansing," Thanedar said on his website. "We will require ethics and transparency and fight back against the influence of billionaires." - Now there is a plan!. Shall we start the investigations now? On the other hand, this would be a good name for a character on Game of thrones. Probably a bad guy though.
Gertchen Witmer. Clearly the most solid of the democrats, but that is all she is. She says sensible things because she is reading them off the Demoractic party web page. A party line democrat with no real ideas or thoughts of her own. No plan. Maybe she should run as Granholm Redux. "Vote for me, you'll be blown away!"
John Tatar. Seems to be copying a page out of the Snyder playbook. "I want to work for the people of Michigan as my employer" Otherwise, not much substance. Did not seem to really understand how the government works.
Keith Butkovich - I need a job. I do not know what this is, but I really need a job and I know this pays pretty well. "I just like running for things. Maybe I will get lucky and get a paycheck without working."
Ryan Cox. Another guy just looking for a job. A freelance writer who has developed a teaching system but who has not learned to spell write or speak correctly. Not seriously running.
Larry Hutchinson. Cannot even get elected to City Council or school board. Not actually running for governor, just trying to increase name recognition so he has a chance at getting elected to something . . . anything. . . please?
Jennifer Kurland. Wants to put "Gubernatorial Candidate" on her resume. It sounds impressive. Also maybe it will give her talk show some credibility. "Flint must be made whole? What is that supposed to mean? Glue?
Todd Schlieger. Never heard of him. Never heard him speak. No idea he was running. Didn't get beyond high school. Didn't get beyond dispatcher. But he has 7 children. Well he will certainly be supportive of welfare. Looking at his website, he has no idea how our government works, or for that matter how our society works. Also likes to generalize - which to me = stupid. Not to say we should not have a stupid governor. A chain of smart people for governor has not worked out super well.
So Whitmer, Schulte, or Calley?
Seems to me Calley will do the least damage. Plus he is a genuinely nice guy (even Steve Innskeep said so, and he is a left of Ann Arbor liberal). I just cannot get past Whitmer and Schulte as party hacks.
Fellow Michgian voters, what do you think? (requesting no responses please from people who do not live and vote in Michigan).
Well stated, and I agree with your final three. Even though I am disgusted with the Democratic party at the moment, Whitmer stands out. She appears to be much more moderate and I think that is what that party needs right now. If it wasn't for her stance on firearms, I might of even given my vote to her. So that leaves us with Schulte or Calley. Of those two, I'll vote for Calley.
As far as Shri.... I love his commercials, they just crack me up. I'm thinking he should try and become an comedian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
