Talk:Flint water crisis

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Teresachiyannebeamon.

So where is the historical content of this Talk page?

I was surprised to discover no comments on this talk page. Sure, the answer could be blamed on "archiving", but that only explains the "how", not the "why" part of it. In my experience, I notice that usually where Talk pages are virtually empty, it is because somebody wants to conceal past controversies, and that reason is often because somebody is trying to manipulate the page according to his desired POV. For example, the Synopsis points out that the iron and lead content of the water was due to the lack of "corrosion inhibitors", but strangely the article does not state that the cost of these corrosion inhibitors would be between $100-150 per day. (An approximate figure I've frequently seen in articles.) Who, exactly, decided to omit those corrosion inhibitors, and expose the city to a cost of perhaps tens of millions of dollars? And why does this WP article fail to mention this? https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Water.html 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "manipulate the page according to his desired POV". Everything on this article is factual and well sourced. The talk page is archived so people don't resurrect months (or even years) old threads, not to "conceal past controversies". It's better to open new threads for new concerns. If you think something is missing from the article, add the information where you think appropriate after you find a reliable source to back it up. I'm not finding the "$100-150 per day" figure in the article you linked to either. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/flint-water-crisis-corrosion-pipes-erosion-trust/ "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. But the inestimable costs of the errors made in Flint will reverberate through the community for a long time and their magnitude will dwarf the original planned savings." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I added this info and your source to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to have to complain about the archiving. I just checked Archive 3, and it contained comments dated as early as October 15, 2017, and as late as December 29, 2017. To archive just that material is utterly insane. I think it might have been reasonable to archive material prior to mid-2016, leaving everything else in the Talk page. Further, I went back to Archive 2, and found a specific and detailed reference to the issue of the cost of the anti-corrosion chemical, which was stated to be "$100 a day". (I am not the person who made that comment.) Why wasn't that suggestion acted upon? I will include a copy of this material below. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[material found in Archive 2]

Fix would have cost $100 per day. The article should mention this.

Upon skimming this article, I saw no indication that it explained that a fix would have cost $100 per day. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/internal-email-michigan-blowing-flint-over-lead-water-n491481 "Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn't take action." Or: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead-poisoning-flint-edition/#42932fd4212f "In April, 2014, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager changed the city’s water supply from Detroit’s Lake Huron treated water with anti-corrosives to water from Flint River, in a poorly thought out cost-saving maneuver. They did not add anti-corrosives to the Flint system, as that would have cost $100/day." I have seen many people try to blame state officials, or even Federal officials, and ignore the omission of adding material to the water to balance its pH, and to make it non-corrosive to pipes. That could even be done today. Why did the locals, the people actually in immediate charge of the water system, not do that? 75.164.162.8 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [end of material copied from archive 2 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I added your info already. The previous edit must have been accidentally overlooked. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)