←back to thread

102 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.217s | source
Show context
analog31 ◴[] No.45111518[source]
My town in Wisconsin had a big program to replace all of the lead service lines. As I understand it, the alternatives they considered included installing some sort of filter in each home, and they decided on total replacement of the pipes.

My home was outside of the zone where lead pipes were present.

replies(1): >>45113842 #
spwa4 ◴[] No.45113842[source]
> My home was outside of the zone where lead pipes were present.

That doesn't really matter, sadly, if it's connected to the same network. Lead has very bad effects on children in trace amounts, and in a network the water comes from everywhere (it takes all paths, not the shortest path, when you open the tap)

Trace amounts inhibit brain development in children, and there is no treatment possible once it happens. Damage is permanent, even if you remove the lead (which is expensive and has serious side effects). In adults removing lead "works", if you don't mind the price and side effects. Normal concentrations of lead are toxic, as in they will cause your body to lose energy and die if the concentration goes up. Additionally, lead leads to kidney failure and cancer, years and even decades after exposure, in adults and children (though doubtless the Trump administration will shout "the cancer effects have only been proven in mammals".

So you really need to hunt and replace the last lead pipe in the entire network. Because of how the water system works, that includes forcing landlords to remove old lead pipes inside houses.

Oh and don't ask the forbidden question: "isn't the basis of our legal system that if an entity causes damage, intentional or not, it is financially responsible for the consequences. This includes government, and would seem to include both the medical damage done to people and replacing whatever is doing the damage"

replies(1): >>45114249 #
robertlagrant ◴[] No.45114249[source]
Is this definitely true? The water company we have came and tested and they said the lead level was too low to worry about.
replies(3): >>45114331 #>>45114638 #>>45114912 #
iamtedd ◴[] No.45114331[source]
Was it measurable and below a certain threshold, or was it undetectable, but they legally can't say there's zero lead content?
replies(1): >>45114378 #
1. robertlagrant ◴[] No.45114378[source]
Good question - I can't remember. I've just looked up the UK guidance[0] on this, and it seems to talk more about reduction than removal. What do you think?

[0] https://www.dwi.gov.uk/lead-in-drinking-water