Flint Water: A Political Football. Part 1

Note: My usual approach to writing this blog is to take on a current event and research it so that I understand it better. I hate reading stuff that leaves out the fine points of "why" and, in particular, when they fail to cite where they got their data or when the misrepresent a regulation.

I also always write these posts in what I call real time.  I don't know what the ending will be and I go where the data and research takes me.  I try to keep the post reasonably short.  I write on technical issues so you get a wall of text.  Because it - let's face it - can be boring, I try to add stupid humor and stupid slang to liven it up.

This series of posts went a different route.  I was nine into them before I got to the point of wanting to go back, reread and edit. There goes the real time aspect.  So with that, let's start.

I was driving home from San Antonio Thursday listening to NPR's All Things Considered when an interview with the new Mayor of Flint, Michigan, Karen Weaver, came on.

I want to read to you from one of the emails which was from the governor's chief staff to the governor and others. And this was from late-September. And the chief of staff, Dennis Muchmore, writes, the DEQ and the DCH - that's the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Community Health. 

 The interviewer, Ari Shapiro, said.

[Dennis Muchmore] says, the MDEQ and MDCH feel that some in Flint are taking the very sensitive issue of children's exposure to lead and trying to turn it into a political football.

This got me thinking about what the data says about all of this.  We know what the the paper's have been writing, and we know what the advocates state, but what does the actual data show?

Let's get the color of the water out of the way first.

Reddit

Which brings me to the conclusion of how this blog will end:

'Looks, smells, and tastes bad" is an issue, but its not a public health issue.

What does the data show as it relates to public health?

First though, we need to establish a timeline in order for this to make sense. I know what the data shows roughly because I looked at it Thursday night while trying to fall asleep.  The timeline is very important for understanding it as it supports the who knew what and when. Once you establish that, you can discuss what should have been done more objectively instead of only with hindsight.

From the New York Times we are told this:

Let's make "Time 0" as April 25, 2014.  This means that prior to this date, the water was not from the Flint River, it was from the Detroit water system.

From an EPA memo written June 24, 2015, we learn this:

Following a change in the water source, the City of Flint has experienced a number of water quality issues resulting in violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) including acute and non-acute Coliform Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations and Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) MCL violations... 

Up until June 24th there is no data known to the public showing lead being an issue with the water.  What is public knowledge is that Coliform and TTHMs - but not lead - exceeds drinking water standards.  The EPA memo does, however, state this:

The purpose of this interim report is to summarize the available information regarding activities conducted to date in response to high lead levels in drinking water reported by a resident in the City of Flint, Michigan.

 The EPA memo author, Miguel A. Del Toral, then writes:

Recent drinking water sample results indicate the presence of high lead results in the drinking water, which is to be expected in a public water system that is not providing corrosion control treatment. 

From this memo we have knowledge that there are water samples that show high levels of lead. Del Total continues:

The lack of mitigating treatment is especially concerning as the high lead levels will likely not be reflected in the City of Flint's compliance samples due to the sampling procedures used by the City of Flint for collecting compliance samples. The instructions from the City of Flint to residents direct the residents to 'pre-flush' the taps prior to collecting the compliance samples. 

The issue over the "pre-flush" will be addressed later.  Its important to understand that protocol as it determines the course of operation for the City of Flint.

This is June 24th.  One month later the Governor's office is getting frustrated:

From Time 0 to the June 24th EPA memo we can learn about what is known at the time by a number of parties all with public health responsibility. This data on lead is known, prior to June 24th, by the EPA, by the MDEQ, and by the City of Flint.  It will then be known by the ACLU who writes a critical article on this data.

 What I don't know is if the Governor's office was aware of the EPA memo. It appears that by July 22, Muchmore had been told a bunch of contradicting information about the safety of the water in Flint

This Saturday morning on my run I changed my mind about what I thought the data said.


Next post: Flint Water: A Political Football.  Part 2

.