News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’ by zaroth on Monday July 23, 2018 @03:07PM (#17595036)
Except;

> It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis [in Flint] from other random variations over the previous decade.

Whereas;

> Right now in Michigan, 8.8 percent of children in Detroit, 8.1 percent of children in Grand Rapids and an astounding 14 percent of children in Highland Park surpass the C.D.C. reference level. Flint is at 2.4 percent.

By those numbers Flint was, apparently, another media manufactured hysteria which happen to fit the desired narrative and drive a lot of clicks.

There seems to be an endemic propensity of current mass media to run away with the facts in an effort to see who can express the most virtuous outrage and bring some chosen enemy-of-the-people to justice.

When those in media begin to feel like their job is not so much fact finding as it is to “protect democracy” or some-such, the news writers seem to start acting like over-zealous prosecutors instead of neutral truth seekers.

Re:The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’ by javagram on Monday July 23, 2018 @03:26PM (#17595207)
Without moralizing, I think there’s a clear reason Flint was covered so much by the mass media.

The problems in Flint could be traced directly to an erroneous decision by the Michigan state government to use the Flint river water without introducing anti-corrosion chemicals into it (thus causing corrosion of the existing, safe lead pipes). This creates a clear narrative of good and evil which is attractive to the media.

Other cities suffering from lead problems are often due to legacy lead paint or lead pipes installed on homeowner’s property. It’s much harder to see a narrative in that rather than an existing, systemic problem which would not be seen as newsworthy.

The last time something like Flint happened was the CDC coverup of lead contamination in the Washington, D.C. water system almost 2 decades ago, which did receive national attention although not as much as Flint has. (One could speculate as to the reasons why)

Re:The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’ by eli on Monday July 23, 2018 @03:30PM (#17595248)
I think this minimizes both the incompetence that led to Flint's water supply to be unsafe for many of its customers and the audacity of the coverup: the government issued false statements to minimize the risk and threatened researchers trying to uncover the truth.

It's great that relatively few children seem to be harmed. It's also true that the city, state and American Red Cross delivered bottled water and filters to the people likely to be most significantly affected.

Re:The Children of Flint Were Not ‘Poisoned’ by webkike on Monday July 23, 2018 @03:15PM (#17595103)
I think the issue is that residents of Flint cannot possibly drink water from their pipes that is clean. The low levels could be explained by people being required to drink bottled water (which presumably does not have any lead in it).