See Flint as an example.
They know this stuff is bad but they are confident their wealthy town or county will not allow it to impact the drinking water supply. It'll be "someone else most likely poorer areas" problem.
They know this stuff is bad but they are confident their wealthy town or county will not allow it to impact the drinking water supply. It'll be "someone else most likely poorer areas" problem.
> Many in the media have parroted the absurd claim that the water crisis was caused by austerity, as if the government cared more about saving pennies than saving lives. The truth is exactly the opposite: Keeping DWSD as Flint's water provider was a cheaper option, but one that would have created zero new infrastructure jobs
Btw, it’s absolutely unacceptable to justify the degradation of water quality with jobs. Regardless the reasoning it was entirely irresponsible given the infrastructure in the area.
Anyway it’s not like there’s any shortage of examples that austerity leads to loss of life.
Also ran: Chrome-6 https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-brockovich-carcinogen-found-...
Cheers!
that is the strangest re-telling of the Flint water-quality story that i've ever heard.
Nearly everything indicates that the steps in Flint were cost-saving measures that the citizens either 1) didn't know about, 2) were told that there wouldn't be problems, and 3) were promised health concerns wouldn't be a factor.
Where exactly does this 'wealthy town that's overly confident" narrative fit? That hasn't been my perception at all with Flint.
Even as detailed by the left-leaning NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378...