←back to thread

102 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cma ◴[] No.45112118[source]
>Chicago has the highest number of lead water service lines in the nation, with an estimated 412,000 of about 491,000 lines at least partly made of lead or contaminated with the dangerous metal.

Sounds like a crisis, but it's the third largest city and much older than LA. Isn't a per-capita, above a certain city size, the more relevant number?

> A plumber estimated it would cost about $26,000 to replace the private side of the home’s service line. Swapping out his internal lead plumbing would cost thousands more. At this point, having just purchased the home, the couple doesn’t have the money to replace their service line. For now, they’ll keep testing and filtering their water.

Reverse osmosis systems for the main drinking water sources are around $200 each now, 100X less than the cost of fixing if it's just the kitchen sink that they drink out of. They do require maintenance that many won't do, but it seems like there could be an app for that or some kind of automatic timed shutoff with a reminder to buy at least one extra filter at a time.

Annual filter costs are 10X-15X less than interest earnings on $26,000. I think you can usually install easily with no plumber with a couple shark bite press fittings and a pipe cutter.

It sounds like that may be what they are already doing, but isn't it basically a good enough solution?

replies(3): >>45112235 #>>45112281 #>>45118040 #
antif ◴[] No.45112281[source]
Seems like continuous edge testing would be a critical first step.

End users seeing water content in real time would absolutely motivate fixes.

Via ChatGPT, some groups of Chicago children are average 6-8 µg/dL blood lead levels, guaranteeing they’ll face challenges related cognitive disability. 100+ years of this—and all they need is good water filters.

This should be a class action to get fixed. No way the government can fix this alone in a reasonable time frame without focusing on end-users first.

replies(2): >>45112448 #>>45117830 #
1. rafterydj ◴[] No.45117830[source]
Could you link a real source instead of ChatGPT, please?