JoeWras
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 12,443
I had always heard that the lead pipes in Chicago were not a big problem, because the somewhat alkaline water had enough minerals to coat the pipe, reducing the amount of lead leached into the water. The big problem in Flint MI was that they switched water sources to one that was more acidic.
I didn't come up with anything conclusive in my searches and most of the data was pretty hard to parse, but it does seem that there are lead levels that exceed standards in many areas of Chicago. But, my searching also showed that the blood levels of lead in the population are pretty low and most importantly, decreased by a large % from 1990's to 2010's. As I understand it, not much has changed in the water supply in that time, but major strides were made in getting rid of lead paint/residue.
So it seems that lead paint was a big culprit, not so much the water? But as I said, the sources I found were a bit hard to decipher.
Her'es one:
https://data.cityofchicago.org/Heal...tatistics-Screening-for-elevated-bl/v2z5-jyrq
-ERD50
ERD: doesn't matter. The Man wants to get rid of lead pipes everywhere, despite the small risk.
All that you say is correct. It has been known for a long time that the oxidized lead provides a good protective coating, as long as you are not running acidic water.
But this is not enough with the new thinking. And yes, some of it is political. In case you haven't noticed, everything now swings to 110% despite the most minimal of risks.