DescentBB

....does Michigan's leadership bear responsibility for poisoning children, essentially wiping out the mental potential of an entire community's younger generation? Admittedly, my link below is from a 'progressive' site, but have any of you followed this matter? Flint, Michigan was literally FORCED to stop buying proven clean water and made to utilize water loaded with lead and other heavy metals. A true disgrace. To my mind, the governor, the manager and everyone else responsible for this decision should face jail time, and a lot of it. Further, the taxpayers of Michigan should be forced to pay damages to the citizens of Flint, and perhaps they will think twice before putting an uncaring fool into high office. Perhaps.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... ialnetwork

So you are lunatic enough that the state knowingly switched water supplies with the full knowledge that the new water supply was corrosive to old pipes and that it would leech lead from them?

They knew long before the tragedy became news because the health department is still stalling the release of public records to Virginia Tech researchers who want to see those records. If they're hiding something, stalling is a great tactic. From the linked story below:

Nancy Kaffer wrote:But here's the thing: For months, state officials worked diligently, NOT to investigate the brewing public health crisis in Flint, but to discredit outside experts presenting test results contrary to the state's assertions that everything was fine. And all that time, data that would have shown what was happening was ignored.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/colu ... /77365380/

woodchip wrote:So you are lunatic enough that the state knowingly switched water supplies with the full knowledge that the new water supply was corrosive to old pipes and that it would leech lead from them?

and that no one bothered to test this before demanding the switch? Nothing lunatic about that expectation. Do your public officials take an oath to uphold the welfare of the citizenry?

Not when it's for profit or cost cutting apparently, which is why they switched their water source from Detroit's to the Flint River in the first place. There was probably a good reason they never took water from the Flint River for Flint drinking water in the first place, and the reasons had long since been forgotten.

Assuming all of the date is correct…where is the proof that the poisoning was a deliberate act?

All I can see from the article is the typical government reaction after something goes wrong, and the typical incriminations from the usual suspects.

Spidey wrote:Assuming all of the date is correct…where is the proof that the poisoning was a deliberate act?

I'm not suggesting knowing in advance the scope of poisoning, but given the data, and inquiries and past history, it was GROSS negligence.

How about WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. The cover-up is always worse than the original screwup too, so now by trying to hide their mistakes, they've made things look worse for themselves.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Assuming all of the date is correct…where is the proof that the poisoning was a deliberate act?

I'm not suggesting knowing in advance the scope of poisoning, but given the data, and inquiries and past history, it was GROSS negligence.

What past history? This was a one off event.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Assuming all of the date is correct…where is the proof that the poisoning was a deliberate act?

I'm not suggesting knowing in advance the scope of poisoning, but given the data, and inquiries and past history, it was GROSS negligence.

What past history? This was a one off event.

1. Why, then, did Flint start using Detroit water. They once did use the Flint river water.
2. There was a study that had been started prior to the forced switch.

so, while the actual forced switch was a one-off event, knowledge of potential acidity in the Flint River was not unknown, and the effect upon older metal piping should be close to Civil Engineering 101.

Moore didn’t say anything about acidity, he said something was being added…

Ha Ha so much for the truth.

Spidey wrote:Moore didn’t say anything about acidity, he said something was being added…

Ha Ha so much for the truth.

who brought Moore up?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Assuming all of the date is correct…where is the proof that the poisoning was a deliberate act?

I'm not suggesting knowing in advance the scope of poisoning, but given the data, and inquiries and past history, it was GROSS negligence.

What past history? This was a one off event.

1. Why, then, did Flint start using Detroit water. They once did use the Flint river water.
2. There was a study that had been started prior to the forced switch.

so, while the actual forced switch was a one-off event, knowledge of potential acidity in the Flint River was not unknown, and the effect upon older metal piping should be close to Civil Engineering 101.

sorry but you'll have to provide a link before I believe a word you are posting.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Moore didn’t say anything about acidity, he said something was being added…

Ha Ha so much for the truth.

who brought Moore up?

The article you posted.