President Joe Biden announced Thursday $3 billion toward identifying and replacing the nation’s unsafe lead pipes, a long-sought move to improve public health and clean drinking water that will be paid for by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Biden unveiled the new funding in North Carolina, a battleground state Democrats have lost to Donald Trump in the past two presidential elections but are feeling more bullish toward due to an abortion measure on the state’s ballot this November.
…
The Environmental Protection Agency will invest $3 billion in the lead pipe effort annually through 2026, Administrator Michael Regan told reporters. He said that nearly 50% of the funding will go to disadvantaged communities – and a fact sheet from the Biden administration noted that “lead exposure disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income families.”
That’s not what I’m talking about and this sentence too reaches the “Soviet lecture for kolkhozniks” level of cringe.
By 0 do you mean “under 10^(-10)”, or “under 10^(-13)”, or what?
I know what lead is.
You’re being pointlessly semantic and making no actual argument here.
Didn’t have an opportunity to make it clearer due to opponent’s smartassing tone, so: the argument was that it does matter how much probability there is of lead getting into your water.
Since, as even people under this post explain, it happens differently with different water composition, whether there is vibration, whether some sharp item floats through the pipe etc.
So a lead pipe doesn’t necessarily poison all water passing through it. Just sometimes does that.
Same as a punctured cast iron pipe doesn’t leak always, only when the pressure is right, when some coating of various nature over the puncture gets dissolved or damaged by vibration, etc.
A single molecule of lead in a human body is too much. Does that answer your question?
And I’m aware the chances of a specific person consuming lead are slim for most pipes, the problem is there are so many lead pipes throughout the country, that I’d be willing to bet money there are a number of people drinking lead contaminated water right now.
It’s like the lottery, just because the chances are exceedingly small that you will win, doesn’t change the fact that it’s almost guaranteed someone will win.
OK.
Ooh, nice. Coming in hot with the ethnic slur against Ukrainians, and then continuing on with some delightfully obnoxious pedantry.You should stop while you’re behind.It is a different word, and I misread it; as was pointed out, it’s a Russian cultural anecdote/idiom that non Russians would not necessarily understand. My apologies for starting a kerfluffle with my misunderstanding.
You shouldn’t write anything on subjects requiring knowledge of Russian without that knowledge.
Колхозник means, naturally, someone living and working in колхоз .
And “лекция для колхозников” is a reference to a well-known (in ex-USSR) anecdote.
And you are an idiot.
So I was going to apologize for my misinterpretation and express some appreciation for giving me some new knowledge, but then that last sentence happened.
Sorry for insulting you.
But how else do you call a person who finds an ethnic slur in a word they don’t understand? I’d understand if I’d say anything about Ukrainians at all.
If I do something like that (happens regularly) I admit that I’m an idiot. I’m actually glad to discharge some of the frustration through that.
Well, if you liked the clarification part, the anecdote itself is:
"That’s a skull of Alexander when he was 5, that’s when he was 25, that’s when he was dead. Any questions?
How can one person have 3 skulls?
And you’re what?
A dachnik (that is, a person with a garden and now usually, then maybe a house without utilities in the countryside, living in the city).
Then go to hell, the lecture is for kolkhozniks."
The anecdote refers to the expected intelligence level of typical Soviet brochures, like of an enthusiast worker who offered to reduce the acceptable percentage of discarded product to “none” instead of some percent and similar.
And, well, maybe to how Soviet officials viewed their population.
For what it’s worth, I do actually appreciate the anthropological background. And yes, I was being rather foolish in my initial comment.