[Jswee]

Originally Posted by magellan

Apparently they didn't treat with orthophosphate (the Detroit system does) and instead instituted a rolling 6 month testing period for any signs of corrosion of lead and copper, starting 3 months after they made the switch.

Which really begs a really stupid question: If you're just going to use the Flint River in the interim, and you have a pretty good idea that chloride exists in a river like the Flint River, why wouldn't you just spend the little bit of extra money and treat with orthophosphate? Why chance it? Or a really simple chloride test on Flint River water during the year that Detroit water system gave them before making the interim switch?

My understanding is that they did not treat with phosphates initially because the phosphate levels that need to be added to a system are specific to that system. Flint was not treating the Detroit water, it was already treated at levels that were specific to the Detroit water system. Those levels were determined after a 5 year water optimization process of repeated testing in Detroit. Flint couldn't just take the amount of phosphates added to Detroit water, as it was not specific to the Flint system.

Keep in mind that Flint had already had issues during the first year resulting from adding too much chlorine to the system, to curb Coliform bacteria, so the idea of just chucking in loads of phosphate willy-nilly was probably not met with much support.

EPA regulations under the Lead & Copper rule, called for 2 six month testing periods, where lead and copper levels are measured and then if those levels are shown to exceed the EPA maximums, then the city would engage in optimization by adding phosphates, followed by subsequent additional periods of testing to determine the type of optimization needed and to insure that levels fall below the allowed levels.

The EPA regulations state that those 6 month test periods run from July 1st to December 31st and January 1st to June 30th, regardless of when the system starts drawing water. In Flint, the river water started being used in April of 2014, so the first test period started on July 1st 2014 and the second one ended on June 30th, 2015. Both series of tests showed lead and copper levels below the allowed maximum, which technically meant that Flint did not have to initiate corrosion control to be in compliance with EPA regulations.

All of this was further compounded by the fact that the Flint River water was an interim source and both Flint, the DEQ and the EPA knew that the entire optimization and corrosion control process would have to start over in 2016, when the KWA pipeline became the new source of water.

The other factor that played into this was that up until late September of 2015, there was no indication of any negative health impact. The Department of community health was doing lead monitoring that indicated that there was no trend of elevated lead levels in Flint residents after the switch to Flint River water, so the staff at the DEQ had no reason to think that the lack of optimization was causing a serious threat to human health. It was not until the Hurley Doctor took the DCH data and sorted it in a different manner, by zip code instead of just Flint as a whole, that the finding of an increase in lead blood levels in 2 specific areas of Flint, came to light. From that point, the Snyder administration acted very quickly and within a month Flint was back on Detroit water.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Jswee

My understanding is that they did not treat with phosphates initially because the phosphate levels that need to be added to a system are specific to that system. Flint was not treating the Detroit water, it was already treated at levels that were specific to the Detroit water system. Those levels were determined after a 5 year water optimization process of repeated testing in Detroit. Flint couldn't just take the amount of phosphates added to Detroit water, as it was not specific to the Flint system.

Keep in mind that Flint had already had issues during the first year resulting from adding too much chlorine to the system, to curb Coliform bacteria, so the idea of just chucking in loads of phosphate willy-nilly was probably not met with much support.

EPA regulations under the Lead & Copper rule, called for 2 six month testing periods, where lead and copper levels are measured and then if those levels are shown to exceed the EPA maximums, then the city would engage in optimization by adding phosphates, followed by subsequent additional periods of testing to determine the type of optimization needed and to insure that levels fall below the allowed levels.

The EPA regulations state that those 6 month test periods run from July 1st to December 31st and January 1st to June 30th, regardless of when the system starts drawing water. In Flint, the river water started being used in April of 2014, so the first test period started on July 1st 2014 and the second one ended on June 30th, 2015. Both series of tests showed lead and copper levels below the allowed maximum, which technically meant that Flint did not have to initiate corrosion control to be in compliance with EPA regulations.

All of this was further compounded by the fact that the Flint River water was an interim source and both Flint, the DEQ and the EPA knew that the entire optimization and corrosion control process would have to start over in 2016, when the KWA pipeline became the new source of water.

The other factor that played into this was that up until late September of 2015, there was no indication of any negative health impact. The Department of community health was doing lead monitoring that indicated that there was no trend of elevated lead levels in Flint residents after the switch to Flint River water, so the staff at the DEQ had no reason to think that the lack of optimization was causing a serious threat to human health. It was not until the Hurley Doctor took the DCH data and sorted it in a different manner, by zip code instead of just Flint as a whole, that the finding of an increase in lead blood levels in 2 specific areas of Flint, came to light. From that point, the Snyder administration acted very quickly and within a month Flint was back on Detroit water.

Again I say, you know an awful lot for a layman. Which leads me to believe you're a plant on this forum. Sorry man, but I'd like you to provide links to any sources that corroborate what your claims are. Otherwise your posts will be deleted and your account suspended.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by magellan

Again I say, you know an awful lot for a layman. Which leads me to believe you're a plant on this forum. Sorry man, but I'd like you to provide links to any sources that corroborate what your claims are. Otherwise your posts will be deleted and your account suspended.

A plant?

[Jswee]

Originally Posted by magellan

Again I say, you know an awful lot for a layman. Which leads me to believe you're a plant on this forum. Sorry man, but I'd like you to provide links to any sources that corroborate what your claims are. Otherwise your posts will be deleted and your account suspended.

A plant? Wow, dude, wrap the tin foil a bit tighter!

Everything that I've said is based on either media sources or the emails and documents made public through the FOIA process, which are available on the water study website that you linked to. I've just taken the time to read through all of the source material that's available instead of relying on media interpretations.

Tell me what claim that I've made that you are suspicious of and I'll be happy to provide source material, it's all available on the net.

And exactly what term of service have I breached that would justify having my account suspended, the fact that I disagree with you on some things? Wow. Just wow.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

A plant?

Chicago style politics. It's certainly been done before in Michigan (the Acme Meijer fight where a PR firm created fake letters to the editor and hired actors to go to planning commission hearings).

This is the most heat I've seen any Michigan governor get in the 40 some years I've lived in Michigan. It's certainly a possibility and no layperson speaks with such authority on a scientific topic without being involved in its dealings, especially when they refuse to provide sources.

Just sayin.

I should probably just close this thread but I don't think that does anyone any good. And a new one will just pop up in its place.

[Jswee]

Originally Posted by magellan

Chicago style politics. It's certainly been done before in Michigan (the Acme Meijer fight where a PR firm created fake letters to the editor and hired actors to go to planning commission hearings).

This is the most heat I've seen any Michigan governor get in the 40 some years I've lived in Michigan. It's certainly a possibility and no layperson speaks with such authority on a scientific topic without being involved in its dealings, especially when they refuse to provide sources.

Just sayin.

I should probably just close this thread but I don't think that does anyone any good. And a new one will just pop up in its place.

So I joined this forum 8 years ago, just to stay in deep cover, waiting for the right chance to come in from the cold?

Is this the cold war with soviet moles? Wow.

When did I refuse to provide sources? When I posted a source for much of what I've said, you deleted it.

Again, what have I said that you are skeptical about being beyond the mental capability of a "layman"?

[Geo-Aggie]

If you want to read about the lead and copper rule, it's not hard to find. Here's the summary:
Lead and Copper Rule | Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems | US EPA

More detail can be read in the legal mumbo jumbo here:

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
and
eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

It's long, it's vague in places and though it had worked for years, it turned out to be insufficient for this case. It will likely be revised to be even longer and more vague. While I agree that jswee does indeed know a lot more about the topic than your typical dude across the table at Starbucks, his/her knowledge isn't necessarily greater than someone with an interest or background in environmental regulation and/or consulting wouldn't know.

The fact that we're throwing accusations that this politician or this department or this something-something was trying to do harm and that now we have posters on the board who are government plants makes me agree. Maybe we're not mature enough to discuss these kinds of topics on the interwebs.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Jswee

So I joined this forum 8 years ago, just to stay in deep cover, waiting for the right chance to come in from the cold?

Is this the cold war with soviet moles? Wow.

When did I refuse to provide sources? When I posted a source for much of what I've said, you deleted it.

Again, what have I said that you are skeptical about being beyond the mental capability of a "layman"?

You posted a link to another forum. If that's your "source," that's not much to stand behind. And against forum rules.

[magellan]

Please everyone, as moderator of this forum, I would like to reiterate the following guidelines that have kept this forum (city-data) going for more than a decade:

) If you have an opinion on this topic, go ahead and share it. If your opinion carries a lot of hyperbole, go ahead. If you think so-and-so should be arrested, go ahead. As long as it is your opinion, we won't have a problem.
) DO NOT ATTACK OTHER MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM. You can attack public figures as much as you want. You can attack political parties.
) If you state something as a matter of FACT, please provide a source. Due to the contentious nature of this subject, I will be doubling down on this. If you can't provide a direct link to your "factual" information, it will be deleted.

Thanks. Have a good night.

[openmike]

The only immediate answer is bottled water , Seychelle water filters ( 1 gallon size and pint). Good for
100 gallons. It's the only water filter that removes heavy metals and contaminants PERIOD!