CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by noobermin on Friday December 30, 2016 @04:31PM (#13287644)

Are you advocating that no one be held responsible? Of course things can be complicated, but in light of the evidence, it isn't as hard to disentangle as you suggest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by maxerickson on Friday December 30, 2016 @04:45PM (#13287733)

Not at all. In a case like Flint there will be people with clear culpability for the poor decisions that were made.

But there are millions of lead service lines elsewhere in the US (the pipes from the street to the house).

Who's "responsible" for them?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by pessimizer on Friday December 30, 2016 @05:40PM (#13288120)

Wouldn't the answer to this question depend on which pipes you're talking about? Are you arguing that Flint is the only place where lead had a cause?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by tedunangst on Friday December 30, 2016 @07:31PM (#13288696)

Kind of amazing that somebody twice asks "who's responsible?" and instead of an answer to a straightforward question, they're accused of claiming nobody is responsible. Why not just answer the question?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by JumpCrisscross on Friday December 30, 2016 @11:56PM (#13289564)

> a straightforward question

It's not a question with an objective, simple and thus straightforward answer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CDC considers lowering threshold level for lead exposure by tedunangst on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:42AM (#13289689)

All the more reason not to attack the person asking it.

[ Parent | on HN ]