The proposed rule, aimed at protecting children, would require water systems nationwide to replace lead pipes carrying tap water to homes, schools and offices.

The proposed rule, aimed at reducing exposure to a potent neurotoxin, would require water systems nationwide to replace lead pipes that carry tap water to homes, schools and offices

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      Nah. That’s not the playbook.

      Whenever kids (actual, post birth kids) need protecting, it’s all about “who’s going to pay” or “taxes are already high” or “but that will be really inconvenient to the upper middle class”.

      The best excuse I’ve heard for a bill that would protect kids from pedophiles was “the bill would unfairly target conservatives”. I can’t remember if this was a federal bill or a local bill but I remember it coming up and people saying “You’re telling on yourself.”

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        You’re going to see a map of older areas, that is, urban cores and inner-ring suburbs. In other words, I don’t think you’re going to find the correlation you’re probably hoping for.

        To be fair, though, the official government line – uh, until today, I guess – is that lead water mains weren’t actually a problem because of the large volume of water flowing through them relative to the rate of corrosion, unless you did something stupid (like the Republican governor-appointed emergency manager did to Flint) to cause them to corrode abnormally rapidly. Hopefully there isn’t much of a widespread correlation between political affiliation and brain damage from exposure to lead via plumbing at all.

    • Buffaloaf@lemmy.world
      121·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure lead is what makes people conservatives. Look at when there was lead in things like paint and every car burned leaded gas.

      • Jessvj93@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        Biologist here, it gives you adhd (60% chance), autism, and cerebellar Hypodysplasia (cant remember the incidence rate for these last two, but want to say CH is 8%). Child abuses causes conservativism lol, but lead causes developmental defects starting as early as the embryo.

        Source: “Half of US Population Exposed to Adverse Lead Levels in Early Childhood,” Michael J. McFarland, Matt E. Hauer, Aaron Reuben. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 7, 2022. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118631119

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          To believe what current US conservatives are claiming now, you have to be developmentally defective at this point.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        212·
        1 year ago

        Chicago proves you wrong. Chicago mandated lead pipes long after everyone else was phasing it out. They have high levels of violence now, often believed in part because of that lead, and they are known as a place where liberals have been in control for forever.

    • almar_quigley@lemmy.world
      71·
      1 year ago

      Flashbacks to watching republican politicians eat that pink goo filler crap they put into meat that was controversial for a minute.

      • Patches
        61·
        1 year ago

        This?

        Reminder these kids are all adults now. Though they are about 60 years away from being politicians.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comEnglish
    271·
    1 year ago

    Although the infrastructure law dedicated $15 billion for lead pipe removal, the largest investment ever, there is still a shortfall. While advocates and federal officials estimate the total cost for lead removal at about $45 billion, the drinking water industry’s estimate runs as high $60 billion.

    So, who’s going to foot the bill for replacing the pipes while Marxists turn kids trans with their critical race pedagogy? Is replacing lead pipes really protecting kids?

    Okay, but really, this is probably a strategically good idea. My proposed solution is to get the richer areas of the city/state to help pay for the poorer areas. Everybody has skin in the game as far as the benefits, so why not the costs?

    • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      1 year ago

      There’s a solid line of argument here. Lead toxicity creates more psychopaths. And if they turn into serial killers, they don’t care if you’re rich or poor. We also don’t have good mental health services available everywhere, so prevention is the most plausible solution.

      This leverages fear, which is the primary lens some people view the world through. “You don’t want more serial killers like we had in the 70s, do you?” basically.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        9·
        1 year ago

        The politicians won’t care because they have gated communities and armed guards, and you’ll never get through to the voters because Faux and the even worse places like OAN will be bombarding them with propaganda about how this is horrible big government overreach.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      9·
      1 year ago

      Because you’re not thinking like a kleptocrat Republican. The government is only allowed to spend money when it can be used to increase the bank account of someone rich, and never under any circumstances if it benefits poor people (unless someone rich receives a significantly greater benefit).

      Republicans will fight this tooth and nail because the rich receive no direct or immediate benefit from this. Also they’ll denounce any suggestion of rich areas subsidizing poor areas as the dreaded socialism which they’ll argue is the same thing as communism which is the same thing as fascism. No that doesn’t make any sense at all, but that’s never stopped them before.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        5·
        1 year ago

        The government is only allowed to spend money when it can be used to increase the bank account of someone rich, and never under any circumstances if it benefits poor people (unless someone rich receives a significantly greater benefit).

        So, the EPA’s (and other people who want lead pipes removed, their) communication strategy should be convincing Republicans that the removal of leads pipes directly causes their wealth to increase.

        That shouldn’t be that hard. Make it a business analogy, their favorite.

        Like, in the same way business make capital investments to increase production, take advantage of economies of scale, and pay lower taxes, so too does making a capital investment in the removal of lead pipes, which lead to increased production, a happier workforce, and more trainable employees.

        Or some soul-sucking shit like that.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          That’s only because their buddy is the one selling the napalm and makes sure they get their kickbacks.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      2·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, this is a real discussion we do need to have.

      So many municipalities have over-expanded things like their water systems beyond the point that communities can afford to maintain them using the tax revenue generated by those communities.

      Is it really doing right by a place to saddle them with a massive, expensive system they cannot afford to maintain? The federal dollars are going to show up, replace the system with a state-of-the-art one of at least the same size if not bigger, and then what? 30, 40 years from now, who will be there to give them the critical fixes they will still need? And in the meantime, their community will need to devote even more of its revenues (tax dollars) to maintaining the water system – but that means neglecting other things that ALSO need spending.

      The shit happening in Jackson and Flint isn’t MERELY idiot government incompetence. It’s also a sign of urban decay affecting so many municipalities. And it’s going to get worse before it gets better at the rate we’re going as a society because we keep build build build-ing while pretending cities don’t need to be productive or have balanced budgets. But they do. Cities aren’t national governments. They can’t print money. If they issue bonds, they need to pay those bondholders back using real money collected from taxes. If they don’t have the money to do city things, they just stop being able to do city things. And it doesn’t look like bankruptcy when they cease to be able to do city things – it looks like potholes and busted, toxic water systems.

      That’s not to say we shouldn’t get these systems fixed so they aren’t poisoning people. Of course we can’t be poisoning people. But the discussion needs to be more sensitive than just “spend the money fix the shit no matter what it costs.” Every city needs to think very, very carefully about how they may fix their systems to make them more sustainable in the future. No matter what they do, it is going to be financially devastating on some time horizon, but cities need to stop buying more infrastructure than they can maintain on debt and just shrugging the problem off to the next generation because that’s how we got to this problem in the first place.

      side-note:

      My proposed solution is to get the richer areas of the city/state to help pay for the poorer areas. Everybody has skin in the game as far as the benefits, so why not the costs?

      Backwards from reality. The richest parts of town, with the new, state-of-the-art infrastructure and the vastly inferior and less productive land uses typically generate a lower or even negative ROI compared to the poorer parts of the city. The poor neighborhoods more often subsidize the rich ones. Look at e.g., the case studies made by Urban3, which Strong Towns and other urbanist organizations often write up. The older developments are funding the spending on new infrastructure even while their own infrastructure is so neglected it is poisoning people. And just throwing federal dollars on it is not going to force a change in behavior in the cities.

      Personally, I’d like to see any fixes for these old water systems attached to e.g., adding land use taxes (that would affect large lot R1A single family homes FAR worse than traditional (poor) communities) or dis-incorporating unproductive (wealthy) suburban areas from the city to fend for themselves (since they can afford it, unlike the productive, poor neighborhoods).

  • June@lemm.ee
    5·
    1 year ago

    Wait, someone doing something for the kids that’s actually for the kids?

  • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    62·
    1 year ago

    You know if they say it’s for the good of the children they are up to something