633
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
633 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2959 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My friend, the recognized “safe” level of lead is literally no lead. Any more than literally 0ppm is above safe lead levels.
Just because it isn’t considered lead poisoning, doesn’t mean it’s safe.
Do some research before you pop off about stuff you don’t understand:
You will find no evidence that lead at any level is safe. In fact, previous research which suggested that lower levels were fine are being refuted by more recent studies, that show quite the opposite.
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.