Only took, what, 6 years? And still nobody has been held accountable?

6 years does feel too long, but it does seem like a case is still making its way through the courts. The former governor (and other officials) just had charges against them announced a few weeks ago: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/us/michigan-flint-water-forme...

Are you moving the goalposts here? You seemed to be bemoaning that things don’t get fixed after a single crisis (n=1), not that fixes are good but move slowly. Flint got fixed.

Also other cities won't upgrade their infrastructure until they have an equally public event, at which point it'd be too late.

Currently the case is ongoing and up to 9 face charges: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956924155/ex-michigan-gov-ric...

To be fair, public works projects (especially replacing pipes and water treatment facilities) takes a long time.

The government drags it's feet as much as possible when it comes to holding the government accountable.

I think it's surprising it's even going to trial.

former governor goes to trial this year

A “great job fixing it” is an exceedingly generous characterization. And the link you’ve provided makes it clear the issue hasn’t been “fixed” just by replacing the pipes. The people of Flint don’t trust their drinking water. (With good reason!) As long as these (predominantly low-income) people feel the need to spend money on bottled drinking the water the issue isn’t fixed just because a lab has determined the water is safe to drink again.

So with the weight of contrary scientific evidence, the people still don't believe the water is safe? This sounds like the same arguments about climate change and election fraud that get dismissed out of hand.

> So with the weight of contrary scientific evidence, the people still don't believe the water is safe?

That is what a reasonable human would expect "the people" to do when multiple agencies overseeing the utilities were initially so irresponsible/incompetent/negligent that water superheroes from three states over had to swoop in to warn residents their fucking pipes are poisoned[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Virginia_Te...

Edit: clarification

That's not at all equivalent. The issue is they were lead (heh) to believe the water was safe before. So when you're told the water is safe, but then it isn't why would you believe them next time?

safe -copper- pipes?

LOL, copper is poisonous in presence of corrosives. They are just replacing a poison with other.

Not even in the same ballpark. Humans actually need trace amounts of copper. Regulations for safe copper levels are almost 100 times that of lead.

All pipe materials are poison if enough is ingested, lead is however is toxic in extremely low amounts, while copper is actually needed in low amounts. You think PVC is better?

Lead is the worst by a mile, but If you expect to have water in the very low or very high PH rank, or water with a lot of chemical activity or too hot, copper is not totally safe either.

We, mammals, are relatively well protected to deal with it, but the real problem here is in the long term exposure. Can produce several forms of inner bleeding in the gut, and harm permanently the liver and kidneys. There is a lot of copper messing around for some reason in Alzheimer's patients also.

Moreover copper is particularly toxic for all aquatic life and invertebrates also causing an acute poisoning. I would not use that water in an aquarium for example. I had seen the stuff in action and is devastating for fishes.

Fish tanks require copper to maintain proper levels of nitrifying bacteria, the first two nitrifying stages require copper to convert stuff to the "safe" nitrogen that requires flushing to remove (unless you have real plants in the aquarium, then you rarely need water changes) - furthermore, copper is used to cure several fish diseases[0], so it it's impossible to be as bad as you claim.

[0]https://smile.amazon.com/Seachem-67105650-Cupramine-Copper-1... for example

This is a myth. Fish tanks definitely don't require a surplus of copper. Not unless they are hospital tanks. I have experience using copper to cure fish diseases and cant guarantee you that is a notoriously treacherous stuff to work with it

What is, what I'll call from my layman perspective, the leeching factor of copper vs lead pipes though? As in, how much copper vs lead ends up in the water being transported?

The choice is not between copper or lead, is between copper or pvc, steel... or even ceramics. Lead is unsuitable for drinking water.

Stainless steel would be better, excluding exotic materials. You cant really get iron poisoning.

Turns out you can, though probably not from water pipes (if I skim the article correctly, it'll need to be ferrous iron).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_poisoning