Pete Buttigieg forced to explain that lead is poisonous to obtuse Republican

To be fair, it's harder to understand the negative consequences of lead poisoning if you suffer from lead poisoning.

“But if my constituents stop drinking lead, they will become woke and will stop believing the bullshit I’m pouring down their throats”

So, Kobach et al's complaint is that the plan to replace lead pipes is underfunded and so probably won't cause enough of an impact on lead levels in drinking water to even bother, and yet the reason it's underfunded is because Republicans specifically voted to not fund it properly. So instead of funding it 100% (or close to 100%), they chose to only fund about 1/3rd of what it would cost to replace all of the lead pipes.

It almost seems like Republicans want potential voters to imbibe neurotoxins that will negatively impact their IQ, harm their ability to concentrate, and make them more easily swayed by emotional appeals. I wonder why that could be?

One of the problems with lead poisoning is you end up too stupid to know what lead poisoning is

He makes a logical argument with sound reasoning, logical conclusions and a definitive solution. The facts are clear and there is no ambiguity.

No wonder they dont understand, because its not the immigrants, trans- or black-people at fault here.

Fitting how the average republican consistently behaves exactly like a person suffering from lead-poisoning...

I was listening to Know Your Enemy's recent podcast titled Why the Right Loves Foreign Dictators (would definitely recommend a listen), and I came to a realization:

American conservative beliefs are not based on reality. That seems obvious, especially to this crowd, but like, the conservative dispossession of reality-based beliefs goes deep. Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the beliefs of others.

In this case, it manifests as opposing the removal of lead water pipes in the honest belief that, regardless of their danger—which is speculative to this idiot—it's too expensive and "infringes" on rights. The value of lead pipe removal derives from whether its economically beneficial and its comportment with his idea of what infringes on rights, rather than on...you know...the scientifically proven damaging effects of lead.

Because he interprets the beliefs of others as perceived adherence to some ideology (which he almost certainly doesn't understand), he dismisses the solid scientific evidence as speculative. It's ideology vs ideology for him. Scientific claims are just another ideology.

To generalize, that's why the pro-life movement "helps" women, that's why be against welfare "supports" the nation, that's why supporting Putin "defends" liberty, and that's why voting for Trump makes America "great". It's not about real results, it's just pure ideological adherence from the bottom to the top. It's fitting that Trump is their messiah. He's the greatest bullshitter modern politics has ever seen.

My conspiracy theory is on some level, conservatives are aware that their worldview is at least in part a symptom of lead poisoning induced brain damage, so they rely on lead poisoning for votes.

Lead paint was banned in the U.S. in 1978 because of its toxicity. This stuff can and will kill you.

Conservatives need to stop treating every deadly poison like a "who can chug the most beer contest." This isn't a game (unless you're a company seeking to bypass lead restrictions, in which case it's totally a game to YOU).

As an actual water service professional, I kind of get it. If you control pH and add corrosion inhibitors like orthophosphate, lead pipe are not a problem. Flint fiscal managers decided to skip this to save money.

Unfortunately the plan is a largely unfounded mandate ($15B won’t even cover 10% of lead lines) with a timeline that will further jack up the price due to everyone competing for materials and contractors.

The vast majority of lead poisoning comes from old paint, not lead water pipes (and leaded gasoline before that … or now if you live downwind from a general aviation airport as piston aircraft STILL use leaded gas. Yet we won’t ban that ‘cause rich people own those planes).

Not that it isn’t good to remove lead. It’s just the aggressive timeline. It would be smarter to have a longer timeline where it is paired with replacing the main as well, as it is a smaller marginal cost to do both at the same time. The corrosion control can buy us plenty of time. I personally have a lead connection and a state licensed lab detected zero lead in my water.

But to phrase it as a state’s rights issue and claim the benefits are speculative is stupid.

The Brookings Institution, a social policy think tank, noted that the actual cost of replacing all of the nation’s lead pipes is closer to $47 billion. The Biden administration originally requested $45 billion for the project, but congressional Republicans negotiated the amount down to $15 billion. The institute also noted that replacing pipes in crowded urban cities like Chicago could take 40 to 50 years.

Rhymes with "I love the poorly educated"

"I love victims of lead poisoning"

Cue the lead truthers.

How is this real. Yikes.

To be fair, it's poisonous to anyone.

After removing lead from gasoline, crime statistics declined years later. This happened in multiple countries

Did no one read the article? All of his complaints are correct! Replacing old city pipes, that are almost assuredly covered in years of internal layers to mitigate lead leaking, will have a negligible to possibly even negative effect on lead at the tap. Even Brookings said so in their study! Buttigieg is getting a total pass here ignoring the real issues raised by just rebutting about how lead is bad, when they're both saying that. So tired of people scoring cheap political points on soundbites, and Buttigieg doesn't usually fall prey to that sort of thing.

Yes, the funding should have been higher, but if we've only got 15 million to work with, it might actually make more sense to do targeted fixes in low income communities in old residential buildings, where you're most likely to have lead effects actually being felt at the tap from (relatively) newer lead pipe still in walls. But that would be expensive and much harder than just replacing water mains, so they're doing the easy less-important work first, rather than getting the biggest bang for their buck.

The KS AG has a point; if it's expected to cost $47B, but the actual funding amount is $15B (...which is the fault of Republicans), then the plan may not have a significant effect for the families that are most at-risk, e.g., poor families in old, poorly maintained homes. The obvious solution is to increase the appropriation.

sigh there is a science about this, and the ppm of led content is not enough to be harmful. I'm not looking it up, but I read it in a Canadian report, because we have led pipes in my city as well in places.

No one likes lead pipes, but it is very debatable if there is an actual harm here.

From what I have heard the inside of old lead water pipes is usually covered in several layers of calcium carbonate, at least in areas with hard water, these layers prevent the water from getting in contact with the lead. So if you live in an old house with lead pipes you do not need to panic. New lead pipes that lack this calcium carbonate layer are what is in fact dangerous to health and therefore should not be installed anymore.

Edit: Downvotes for stating facts that do not fit the popular narrative, really? Reddit moment ...