Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton's idea to remove lead from 'everywhere' is 'not financially feasible'
During the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan on March 6, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders spent much of the two hours discussing domestic policy, from gun-control to race relations and economic equality.By far, the topic du jour was the environment: specifically, the alarming levels of lead that have crept into our nation's water supply and homes a problem highlighted by the recent contamination crisis in Flint itself.
When an audience member asked the candidates if they would support an effort to remove all lead service lines in the nation within the first 100 days in office, Clinton had a bold response:
"I want us to have an absolute commitment to getting rid of lead wherever it is, because it's not only in water systems. It's also in soil, and it's in lead paint that is found mostly in older homes."
She went on: "We will commit to a priority to change the water systems, and we will commit within five years to remove lead from everywhere."
This indeed is a responsible and noble endeavor, but is it economically feasible? Not so much, says Marc Edwards, a water quality expert and engineer at Virginia Tech who played a critical role in exposing the lead crisis in Flint (and, years earlier, in Washington, D.C.).
"Dont get me wrong. I want the lead sources removed as bad as anyone else," Edwards told Tech Insider via email, "but doing so will carry a very high price tag."
How high? On the order of trillions of dollars, according to Edwards.
http://www.techinsider.io/hillary-clinton-remove-lead-expensive-democratic-debate-2016-3
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1070 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton's idea to remove lead from 'everywhere' is 'not financially feasible' (Original Post)
insta8er
Mar 2016
OP
onehandle
(51,122 posts)1. Bernard Sanders' idea to give us all unicorns is not financially feasible.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)2. So now we want to talk about what is financially feasible?
Please, this is so hypocritical it's not even funny.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)3. However challenging it might be, I applaud the idea of getting the lead out.
Fine. It will take longer than five years and cost a bunch. (Some of it will be replaced as a matter of course.)
But I don't see a need to pick on her for this.