IamA Lead Environmental Investigator and Water Expert with Erin Brockovich, Bob Bowcock. AMA!

Is the damage to Flint, MI 100% reversible, or un-doable?

The damage to the infrastructure in many areas will be permanent, requiring the pipes and fittings to be replaced with new construction. What causes me a great deal of concern is the consumers have not been given proper direction or assistance to replace their damaged plumbing in their homes and businesses. We have all seen the red, brown, and black water in the distribution systems... this sludge has settled in every hot water heater in town. The sludge is also full of heavy metals which feed bacteria... which will also cause recontamination... again and again until serviced or replaced.

So basically everything the water touches a lot has to be replaced?

No... anything the water corroded, or filled with sludge or sediment. Much of the system is in great shape. But inside homes and businesses... pretty much a total loss.

>heavy metals feed bacteria

What bacteria eat metal?

http://www.efcweb.org/efcweb_media/mechanisms.pdf

You are correct... this is an excellent report.

As Erin said Flint is the tip of the iceberg for lead. I noticed that most of the cities in the news recently that are showing high lead levels are using chloramine. Are some of these cities using orthophosphates with the chloramine and still finding high lead levels? If yes, can you name some of the cities please.

About a third (rough estimate) of the communities Erin and I are working with are using phosphates to counter corrosive water leaching. Those that do not are significantly contributing to the leaching of lead in their Drinking Water... Many people look to lead service lines as the only problem, today we are hearing about all of the school drinking fountains... that is lead leaching from brass fixtures... water meters are 17% lead!!! The USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act Lead & Copper Rule was designed to allow utilities to game the numbers and reporting. The Lead action level is 15 ug/L and yet in Hannibal, Missouri a home had a test result of 280 ug/L and the system still reported compliance... (new math). How would you like to be that homeowner? As far as other communities... Tyler, TX, Washington, DC... I could go on and on... we know of hundreds.

What are your suggestions to the people who live in these areas?

We must all ban together to demand REAL compliance with the intent of the Disinfection Byproduct Rule and the Lead & Copper Rule. The cheating and dangerous practices that have been allowed must stop... we are fooling ourselves. The money we have saved is going to cost us a 1,000 times more to fix later.

I admit, I have never even thought about this. I did look into a water testing kit, but most seem to be the 'turns a color if dangerous levels' sort of kit, nothing with exact numbers.

I know this is late, but do you think that infrastructure all together is a bigger problem? I feel that water is THE resource to have, so this really should trump all the others.

tbh, most of us rely on people like you to shine the light on these dangerous practices, so thanks. :)

There are not really any good field test kits available on the market... so don't waste your money.

There are so many aspects to providing safe drinking water. Source protection, treatment technologies, storage, and distribution are all very important in their own right.

Two questions:

1) How big of an issue is prescription medicine in our drinking water? 2) How long before South Florida is completely underwater?

1. Prescription and non-prescription drugs are becoming a very significant issue in the Drinking Water in the United States.

2. As for South Florida... not in our life time... much of it is below sea level now and engineering still fights back mother nature.

[deleted]

California's water problem is REAL... but also political, seasonal, and cultural. The concept of large lawn is growing to be culturally unacceptable... and politically unlawful. It has taken time.

[deleted]

More to the point... I live in California on an acre... I took out ALL of my lawn area and am on drip irrigation to native plants. I recommended this as a place to start.

Is there any precedent to the Flint crisis and how were those resolved?

Actually yes... Washington, D.C., 2001-2004...

But history repeats itself... Washington, D.C. is in CRISIS TODAY... but they are lying and denying!

The discovery of widespread lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water resulted in a U.S. Congressional investigation that damaged the scientific reputation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), left thousands of children with lifelong health risks, and led to a re-evaluation of the use of chloramine in public drinking-water systems.

Our same Dr. Marc Edwards (Flint-Crusader), an expert in plumbing corrosion, discovered lead levels at least 83 times higher than the accepted safe limit while performing research into premature pipe corrosion for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA).

Dr. Edwards found that the decision to change from using chlorine to chloramine as a treatment chemical had caused the spike in lead levels. After the Washington Post ran a series of front-page articles about Edwards's findings, resulting in widespread public concern, the United States House of Representatives conducted an investigation. The House found that the CDC had made "scientifically indefensible" claims in a report that had indicated there was no risk from the high lead levels. The Post investigation uncovered evidence of widespread misreporting of lead levels at water agencies across the United States, leading to regulatory crackdowns and changes in Environmental Protection Agency policies.

The problem was addressed in 2004 by adding additional treatments to the water, preventing the chloramine from dissolving lead in the water mains, solder joints, and fixtures.

In 2010, the CDC reported that 15,000 homes in the Washington, D.C. area might still have water supplies with dangerous levels of lead.

Thanks for the response!

Certainly.

Can one protect themselves from the water problem by drinking distilled water (made from a distiller machine)?

What other methods should one employ to protect themselves in the meantime?

I do not like the idea of distilled water. We need some mineral in drinking water to keep it balanced and safe... Zero Water is dangerous.

There is a correlation between the consumption of distilled water and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Cells, tissues, and organs do not like to be dipped in acid and will do anything to buffer this acidity including the removal of minerals from the skeleton and the manufacturing of bicarbonate in the blood.

The longer one drinks distilled water, the more likely the development of mineral deficiencies and an acid state.

Would you recommend any type of water filters then? I'm afraid of consuming lead and other harmful long term substances in the water supply.

Also, is there a map where one could visualize the data to see how problematic this has become regionally ?

An Ion Exchange filter specifically designed to remove lead is best.

As for a map, there really isn't one. Erin and I are working on one, but the data is just overwhelming.

Have you and Erin gotten any invitations from TV shows to speak about chloramine and the health symptoms it causes?

No... but we welcome them. Television really hates complex topics... but Erin and I can explain it in understandable terms.

Utilities that have switched to chloramine as a means of complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act Disinfection Byproduct Rule have really pulled a dirty trick on their consumers.

Rather than cleaning the water of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as the USEPA has directed... utilities are feeding ammonia to sequester reactions with chlorine. The "combined chlorine" chloramine is very dangerous when used this way... Not only does it form its own more toxic byproducts, it also:

1. Causes Immediate and Long-Term Medical Problems.
2. Destroys plumbing, fixtures, and rubber gaskets. Destroys Real Property.
3. Causes Nitrification and Distribution System Biofouing, leading to bacteriological outbreaks in communities.
4. Reduces Water System Security.
5. Causes Environmental Damage.

What is the root cause of contaminated water in shale plays that have been frac'ed? In Texas they have been frac'ing for decades with no noticeable consequences, so is the cause poor drilling practices, or terrible oil and gas corporations who are only concerned with the bottom line? Are companies deliberately cutting corners, or are they hiring companies to drill that cut corners?

That is a massively complex question...

Fracking is as old as me and Erin... it is a baby boomer too, 1964.

When you say shale plays... I am thinking Pennsylvania/Ohio. So, first response is... the complex geology is not understood and so many things could go wrong. You cannot compare geology in Texas with the shale plays. Not Oklahoma/Kansas or California's Central Valley; they all are different.

Most of the contamination out there is caused by bad practices, bad people, cheaters, and midnight dumpers.

There is a great deal of corner cutting going on... and Big Oil companies are "aiding and abetting" bad behavior.

I will tell you... in the early years, 1964 to 1994, oil development companies’... "Specialty Chemical" suppliers destroyed many of the drinking water aquifers in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Kansas.

[deleted]

Worse...

I visited Port Lucie last year... and literal just cried. Erin and I will be focusing on that issue for the coming year.

[deleted]

[email protected]

Thank you for doing this AMA. I drink the tap water in Cleveland and in Morrow County Ohio. Should I feel safe doing so?

Cleveland has some issues... I'd rate it about a 6 on a scale of 1-10.

First... their Annual Water Quality Report gets an "F" because it is full of useless information and devoid of anything meaningful.

Second... they use Powdered Activated Carbon in the water for absorption of organic material that can cause unpleasant tastes and odors... when they should really change out their filters and use granular activated carbon which will remove so much more... and really protect against Lake Erie algae blooms.

Third… they are still adding Fluoride to the water above NIH/CDC recommended doses... and frankly the fact they add it at all is ridiculous.

I have mixed feelings about them adding Orthophosphate to the water to inhibit lead corrosion of plumbing fixtures. If it is needed great... otherwise, fix the underlying problem before adding more chemical. I think they are trying to balance the fact that they make the water corrosive over using coagulant aid Potassium Permanganate, an oxidant.

Do you have any thoughts on the federal government recreating the Civilian Conservation Corp to address the country's severe infrastructure problems - including century plus old crumbling storm and sanitary lines? If not a federally guided CCC or similar initiative, what would be the best route in update these systems?

Amen... you are singing my song. I have talked about infrastructure replacement using a "bounty" program. We give tax intensives to people for putting solar panels on their homes... why not rebates for lead water line replacements.

As for the larger municipal distribution systems... let’s look to real property tax assessments (done right). Too many big corporations move to town... causing distribution systems to be over built... then close down and stop paying the water bill. If it were tied to the property... and not the commodity.... the people wouldn't get stuck with the bill.

As for the larger municipal distribution systems... we need to look to real property tax assessments (done right). Too many big corporations move to town... causing distribution systems to be over built... then they close down and stop paying the water bill. If it were tied to the property... and not the commodity.... the people wouldn't get stuck with the burden.

That's an interesting concept. It's hard for me to wrap my head around that in respect to industries that are already established (or long since shuttered), especially in places like Detroit and Flint. If it's tied to property tax assessments, where is the incentive to reduce use and conserve water? If tax values decrease, how do budgets handle that since presumably there wouldn't be a direct correlation between water consumption and tax value? Thinking industrial operations here. Unless the tax assessments are just another tool to utilize to increase funding.

I like the concept Minnesota has with their Watershed districts that have taxing authority - although that's more surface water, groundwater, and drainage. But it's an entity with taxing authority over a resource instead of just a watchdog group.

The key phrase was "done right"... open, transparent, and approved by the local community!

Take a City Master Plan with all of the lot sizes, then measurements for all of the frontages. You then do a calculation of lot size and frontage.

Lot size and zoning determine water duty and the frontage... how much pipeline the property has dedicated to it. The result is a "share" factor.

Add up all of the infrastructure and water duty components, use the water model to calculate frontage... and divide them out proportionally.

Water commodity charges will then go to the water bill. The monthly basic service charge should account for all fixed charges... (salaries, insurance, overhead). The commodity charges are for the water purchases, treatment, and delivery costs (chemicals, electricity).

You pay for what you use... period. If you exceed the zone demand charge quantity, a premium will apply.

The concept is based upon a shut in GM Factory in Flint... the property has value because it can be resold as "On City Water"... which has value that is inherent to the property... and thus should be borne by the property. If a factory can just turn off the water and walk, the community must make up the difference… which isn't right.

The concept is based upon a shut in GM Factory in Flint... the property has value because it can be resold as "On City Water"... which has value that is inherent to the property... and thus should be borne by the property. If a factory can just turn off the water and walk... the community must make up the difference, which isn't right.

Thank you for expanding on that. It's an interesting concept and creates an ownership of the resource infrastructure. (But maybe being on Flint City water isn't such a great selling point at the moment?)

I sadly see many of these abandoned industrial and brownfield sites sit idle while new facilities are constructed on green space since financial institutions are refusing to lend if there's a hint of environmental issues on a property. There's another former GM property (Willow Run) south of Flint and west of Detroit (dealt out in the GM bankruptcy and has a trust to finance clean up). They tried saving the building for reuse, but for many reasons, couldn't. Not nearly enough money in the trust to clean up the multiple contaminated groundwater plumes. So maybe now they're trying to sell it as a testing ground for self-driving cars. Don't know if "On City Water" is a good selling point on that one.

It's a complex issue, no doubt. I'm not trying to poke holes in the concept. It's intriguing and has me thinking. Which ever way we go, it's going to take money to fix this because it's a big problem.

Please poke holes... I believe that makes all ideas better. It is almost impossible to cover every point in an AMA. This is just a place to toss out ideas and get people thinking... so it is a success. It is my first one and I don't type so fast!

Ah, you're doing good. Thanks for taking the time to do this and to address my questions.

I've had the fortune (or misfortune?) to work on some large environmental remediation and compliance projects in Michigan in recent years. Seeing the poor state of infrastructure, issues dealing with legacy sites, issues dealing with current operating sites - there's a lot to address and money is a big issue. Funding isn't the only issue, but it's a big part of the feasibility of tackling these issues. We need to get money in the pot somehow.

Yes we do... and no two water utilities will have the same answer for the same question. Local control and local solutions is key. We are all equally responsible to become informed and participate in the process. Those in-charge have an obligation to be truthful...

How is the overall state of our water and the attitude towards the importance of clean water today vs twenty years ago, from both corporations and individual citizens?

The Safe Drinking Water Act is a baby at just 40-years old.

When I started... we were concerned with a handful of contaminants and simple disinfection. Back then, we talk about the hardness of water... now we work about how hard the water will make us. (Bad Viagra in drinking water joke)

Drinking Water is ultimately where everything will end up... pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products; all present new challenges.

The good news is we can treat for virtually everything...

The bad news is... as an industry, we are in denial.

For some unknown reason... Drinking Water is not treated as the priority it should be. In some instances Drinking Water professionals are getting into bed with corporate polluters when rationalizing a problem away suits both of their interests.

Today... I think the average citizen is beginning to become more educated about the importance of safe drinking water as are many corporations. Sadly... the federal government and the defense industry are still the biggest polluters of our water.

Thank you for the response and thank you for doing what you do.

You're most welcome... thank you for the question.

This seems to be a problem all over America right now. Are there cities/states that are more concerning to you than others, like a top ten? And if so, what are they and what is being done to warn those that live there?

Yes... some states are really BAD: Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, and Oklahoma. Some states are getting better: Ohio, New York, California, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

Sadly... some states actually recommend practices to cheat to the utilities they regulate.

Very little is being done to inform... we must learn to be more self reliant. Demand your utility tell you everything they sample for... regardless of the result. You'd be shocked... if you don't test for it, you're guaranteed not to find it.

What solutions can we pursue to ensure our drinking water is best case scenario regardless of where we live?

Get a copy of your system’s Annual Water Quality Report. Then ask the utility to tell you what industrial pollutants, pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals they test for. Ask them what chemicals the water system is vulnerable to. Figure out where you are located in the distribution system (how old the water is). What chemicals does the water utility use.

INFORMATION IS KEY.

Then, if you identify concerns for your family, investigate ways to remove those concerns from your water supply. (filtration, ion exchange, or additional disinfection)

Good day!

I am not too sure if you could help me with my question but since it is related to hydrogeology, you might be able to help me.

I am currently studying geothermal energy recovery, but lately, I met more and more people, that believe that geothermal energy just won't be as important and as prevelent in the future, as I might think.

What do you think about it? Do you think that geothermal will play a considerable part in our future energy supply? Would you recommend going into the geothermal business or is it a dead end?

Any answer is much appreciated. Best regards.

Tough question... but I strongly support renewable geothermal energy. There are several locations in California that are working out very well.

Why was this ignored in Flint before the crisis even happen? Also, let's say a year ago, could have measures been taken to stop Flint from being so bad?

Yes... I was on the ground in Flint last year. I presented them with a list of very easy, cost sensitive alternatives for them to follow. Most were ignored. Money, complacency, and pride are always what get in the way.

It seems like the municipal fire fighting is just an exercise in frustration and the Safe Water Drinking Act on the national level is too abstract, as well as ignored. Should be be addressing water on a state level, and if so, how do we go about it?

All of the states have a Safe Drinking Water Act program... they are administered differently in each state. Some are much better than others. Find out who your state administrator is and get after them. Since the Flint Crisis has been unfolding, many states have stepped up their game... if yours has not, you need to find out why.

Do you think there will be a mass exodus of people who have no choice but to leave the southwest United States?

No.

I think there are a number of solutions... we just have to start getting serious about them.

How does Pittsburgh PA's water rank?

Poor. The city sequesters chlorine disinfection reactions with ammonia which is causing biofouling and legionella outbreaks. They are in a serious stage of denial right now.

Brita filter does at least something right? :|

Chlorine and some organics removal... change it frequently or it does more harm than good.

Are there any other brand filters that you would recommend? I live in an apartment so buying a whole hard core water filtration setup isn't really an option.

edit: What about lead? Any filters that also deal with that?

I don't recommend any one in particular. I would go with an under the sink ion exchange filter for the heavy metals and granular activated carbon for chlorine and organics.

Will definitely look into it, thank you for answering all of my questions, shame people don't take WATER seriously. :/

Most definitely.

what is your favorite song by Queen?

Bohemian Rhapsody... unless I'm out at the pub with the guys... Fat Bottom Girls

Do you know what toxic chemicals are in the Flint River (ones that contributed to the lead leaching and health effects)?

There are no specific chemicals in the Flint River that contribute specifically to the water leaching lead. The Flint River is definitely polluted... but the corrosive nature of the water is from the overuse of chemicals at the treatment plant; this is what caused the corrosion.

I have been doing research on the possibility that lead poisoning can be transferred from a blood donor to a recipient through blood transfusion. I am speaking of donors who have lead poisoning and donate blood to blood banks. It appears as though there are no means of detecting lead in blood prior to donation. They do however detect diseases of course. I have high concerns due to the fact that blood is leaving Flint or other high lead areas, and going out into the world for blood transfusions etc... The thought has haunted me, thus the research on this topic. 'I do work with blood and plasma daily and familiar with the whole process' I also feel something should be in place to detect lead levels before donating blood. Im sure costs may be a bit stifling. I understand that hospitals may test blood before the blood transfusion to the recipient. But are they checking for lead? I will list some information below.
'Can lead be transferred from a blood donor to someone who will be receiving a blood transfusion?'

Please give me your thoughts on this research. Thank you. 1. Bearer CF, Linsalata N, Yomtovian R, Walsh M, Singer L. Blood transfusions: a hidden source of lead exposure. Lancet (London, England). 2003;362(9380):332. Epub 2003/08/02. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13989-x. PubMed PMID: 12892977;

1.  Bearer CF, O'Riordan MA, Powers R. Lead exposure from blood transfusion to premature infants. J Pediatr. 2000;137(4):549-54. Epub 2000/10/18. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2000.108273. PubMed PMID: 11035837. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the exposure of premature infants to lead from blood transfusions.
   

2.  Ettinger AS, Wengrovitz AM. Guidelines for the identification and management of lead exposure in pregnant and lactating women: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/leadandpregnancy2010.pdf.
   

3.  Gehrie E, Keiser A, Dawling S, Travis J, Strathmann FG, Booth GS. Primary prevention of pediatric lead exposure requires new approaches to transfusion screening. J Pediatr. 2013;163(3):855-9. Epub 2013/04/16. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.003. PubMed PMID: 23582137. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate further assessment of transfusion-associated lead exposure by designing a procedure to test packed red blood cells (pRBCs) prepared for transfusion.
   

4.  Mycyk MB, Leikin JB. Combined exchange transfusion and chelation therapy for neonatal lead poisoning. The Annals of pharmacotherapy. 2004;38(5):821-4. Epub 2004/03/18. doi: 10.1345/aph.1D475. PubMed PMID: 15026564. OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of combined exchange transfusion and chelation therapy in a neonate with an elevated blood lead level (BLL).
   

5.  Rhainds M, Delage G. Health risk assessment of lead exposure from blood transfusion. Epidemiology. 2006;17(6):S492.
   

6.  Sundararajan S, Blatz AM, Dearborn DG, Varnes AW, Bearer CF, El Metwally D. Toxic Metal Contamination of Banked Blood Designated for Neonatal Transfusion. Journal of Clinical Toxicology. 2015;2015.
   

7.  Zubairi H, Visintainer P, Fleming J, Richardson M, Singh R. Lead exposure in preterm infants receiving red blood cell transfusions. Pediatric research. 2015;77(6):814-8. Epub 2015/03/12. doi: 10.1038/pr.2015.53. PubMed PMID: 25760547. BACKGROUND: Preterm infants may inadvertently be exposed to lead from the packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions with almost no or very limited data available. The aim of the study was to quantify this exposure in preterm infants </=30 wk gestational age (GA).
   

PubMed is not a full text database. Many citations have abstracts available. Some citations in the summary display may have FREE ARTICLE or FREE PMC ARTICLE links to free full text. Contact local libraries for other needed articles.

This is fascinating research... but I am not a doctor.

I will tell you that they do not test for environmental toxic exposure in blood donors... so this research could be true for lead, mercury, PFOA, and any other exposures the donor may have experienced.

Of all of the cities/ countries you have visited, what location do you believe is in the worst state as far as drinking water?

St. Charles Parish, LA, Tyler, TX, Hugo, Ok...

How long or how many severe contaminations do you believe it will take before our nation truly recognizes the problems and demands change?

As Americans, it's seems as though we really take this resource for granted and neglect the fact that it is a precious precious one at that.

My home town of Bloomington, Indiana has problems the community isn't willing to event bat an eye at.

I think that as a nation we are as close as we have ever been. I believe we will either turn the corner very soon or all will be lost within the next generation.

Yes, I am familiar with the TTHM violation in Bloomington... they too are aware of the problems they are causing... but just won't step up and do the right thing.

Do you think Mobil/Exxon honestly care about all the pollutants (MTBE specifically) their underground storage tanks have leaked over the years? Are they for the people in this situation, or is it more of a "here is some money, leave us alone"?

Also, when a company has polluted the ground water, are they in charge of the environmental testing, or does the city/town hire their own firm and recoup money through a lawsuit if it gets there?

I think that Exxon/Mobil has gotten off very cheap on addressing all of the contamination they have caused with the waste chemical they blended back into gasoline.

Traditionally... the polluter controls the process. We are working to change that. Damaged water utilities need to step up and take the bull by the horns and make sure the water is safe... then, afterwards, they can recover expenses through either a settlement or lawsuit.

Hello, thank you for doing an AMA. What do you think about the situation with the gas leak in Porter Ranch, CA? Do you believe that the wells should ever be operating again knowing that the risk for a repeat of what has already happened is possible?

Sadly, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility near Porter Ranch is the largest storage facility for the 8th largest economy in the world... it cannot be replaced.

That being said... all of the wells in it should be immediately reconstructed to 2016 standards and all those that cannot be should be immediately sealed. What happened was 100% due to neglect. The regulators were lazy and complacent... and, as a result, we all suffered. Society needs to start seriously punishing bad behavior when it comes to environmental crimes.

[deleted]

Crisps... someone been out a little late in the pub tonight?