Lead in the drinking water is still a problem in the U.S. — especially in Chicago

In Chicago, about 400,000 homes still get their tap water through lead service linespipes that connect individual homes to the main water line.

And nearly 70 percent of young children are getting exposed to lead from their home tap water, according to recent estimates published in https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2815850. The study also finds that Black and Hispanic neighborhoods are more likely to have lead exposure, but less likely to be tested for lead.

“The concerning thing here is that [lead exposure] is happening at such a population level, and we don’t know which houses have small levels of exposure and which ones have large levels,” says study co-author Benjamin Huỳnh, assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, though he notes that even low levels of lead can cause health problems.

Lead in the drinking water is still a problem in many parts of the U.S. This toxic metal has been banned from water pipes since 1986, but many homes were built before that. Lead exposure is especially high in Chicago, which has the most lead pipes out of any U.S. city, largely because the city code required the use of lead service lines until the year they were banned.

partial_accumen,

I would think that one of the biggest barriers to fixing this would be costs to perform remediation work on all the houses that still have lead service pipes. Both in the article here and for Chicago, the solution is, what I would imagine, the expensive path of digging up the pipes and replacing them.

Why is it we don’t employ the European method of lining the inside of the pipes first as a lower cost way to reduce harm to these homeowners? The process doesn’t require digging up the old pipes as can be seen here.

steal_your_face,
@steal_your_face@lemmy.ml avatar

Thanks for sharing, I’ve never heard of that. I think the water itself in the US has some sort of calcifier to put thin layer on the inside of the pipes but an actual physical lining would probably be better.

partial_accumen,

think the water itself in the US has some sort of calcifier to put thin layer on the inside of the pipes

That is what is referenced in the article. The downside that approach is physical impacts (such as servicing the lines) break that protection free for a time. Additionally, it also means VERY CAREFUL control of what water is allowed to go through the lines. This was the problem in Flint Michigan. The water from one source was fine, but when the city switched to drawing water from the Flint river (which was safe) the properties of that water caused the calcifier to break down in all the city’s pipes releasing massive amounts of lead into drinking water for homes. Since such a simple and stupid mistake is possible with such large impacts, I don’t think that approach should be a viable long term mitigation strategy.

AA5B,

first

Looking at EPA search results, I didn’t see anything specific to lining pipes. However there was a lot of content recommending against “partial replacement”. It may not succeed, you have to keep monitoring, and you still have that huge bill hanging over your head.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t try to save a couple bucks at the risk of brain damage for my kids or anyone else’s. I’m happy the previous owner of my house did a full replacement and would not have bought if they didn’t

partial_accumen,

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t try to save a couple bucks at the risk of brain damage for my kids or anyone else’s. I’m happy the previous owner of my house did a full replacement and would not have bought if they didn’t

I wouldn’t either, but as the article points out, lots of folks affected by these pips are low income. They likely don’t have the choice to spend the money to do full replacements. Further, while the city covered the full replacement costs for the homeowner, the city may not have enough funds to do the same for everyone quickly, which leads to the reaction to not publicize the problem or the solution as a cost saving measure. So if the mitigation with lining the pipes was substantially cheaper, it would mean the funds available could go to correcting many more homes than are addressed today in silent isolation.

givesomefucks,

There’s no real “cure” for lead poisoning…

Like, there’s a treatment to remove lead from blood, but not organs or undoing the brain damage.

It takes about 20 years to see the effects of getting rid of lead. And that’s not really fixing anything, it’s just waiting a generation for new people to not have lead poisoning.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • health@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • cisconetworking
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines