[radlad]

If you read The Intercept article, you'll see that the company was hired to test the water after the Flint water crisis began, in response to citizen complaints.

This is entirely separate from the federally mandated requirements around testing that was performed by government agencies.

> That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.

We arrived here in response to your misinformed claim that "A disaster like Flint could not happen here" because "Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here."

I've demonstrated that the US has similar policies in place, and neither the water supply nor the mandated testing for metals were privatized, yet the Flint disaster did happen. People and governments are fallible. Corruption and criminal negligence happens everywhere.

[weinzierl]

I don't think my claim is misinformed and I don't think the US and Germany are similar at all when it comes to water supply. Here we have multiple levels of security that would definitely have prevented a crisis similar to the one in Flint, even considering that corruption and criminal negligence could be at play.

I also think we have different views what privatization means. Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building. There is just no scenario where something like in Flint could play out because the incentives are not there.

If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis

[radlad]

Ok, you win. Germans are infallible and there have never been issues with tap water.

> Here privatization begins at the location where the water pipe enters the building.

As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing.

Additionally, your Wikipedia link is obviously not an exhaustive list of "water crises" nor does it offer any insight into whether lead in tap water has been an issue in Europe.

From an initial search, here's evidence to the contrary. Ctrl+F "Germany": https://www.zerowater.eu/zerowater-knowledge-center/lead-in-...

[weinzierl]

"As far as I am aware, the same is true in Flint. I do not understand the distinction you are drawing."

If that was true, how could Veolia - a private company - ever come into a position to be even partly responsible for the disaster? Did all the wrong-doing happen inside the buildings? Of course not, and before you say Veolia had no responsibility: If they hadn't they would have paid no compensation.

"Although lead pipes have not been used here since 1973, they can still be found in old buildings."

As long as it is not a rental building the state's responsibility ends where the pipe enters the house. We do not have any lead pipes in public water supply anymore and for rental buildings we have mandatory water analysis.

Also we are talking about a limit of 5 μg/l where the us limit is three times that.

The occasional home owner that refused modernization could hardly be described as a water crisis.

[radlad]

Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city. I don't know how to engage when you're making things up.

Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't.

I wish you the best.

[weinzierl]

"Once again - they were not in any way responsible for the disaster. They did fail to improve it. The pipes are owned and operated by and the responsibility of the city."

The disaster was that harmful substances ended up in citizens body's. Veolia had very well a responsibility in that outcome, evidenced by the fact that they paid huge damages to the victims.

"Let me be more clear: The fact that something hasn't occurred is not proof it can't."

Of course not and that was never up for debate. I brought that point up after your claim that the water supply in Europe and the US are on par, which is just not the case.

Germany's water supply is secured by multiple layers in a swiss cheese model of security and has set up the incentives of the involved such that the holes will not align.

What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.

[radlad]

> The disaster was that harmful substances ended up in citizens body's. Veolia had very well a responsibility in that outcome, evidenced by the fact that they paid huge damages to the victims.

Once again: Veolia's role was in addition to the normal requirements and testing required by the US federal government (which is very similar to what Germany requires.) This was not privatization in lieu of public services, it was an additional stop-gap that failed.

The point being that privatization is not the issue - the same roles performed by the government in Germany are performed by the government in the US. All of which is a response to you stating it could not happen in Germany, because water isn't privatized.

> Of course not and that was never up for debate.

This was literally your evidence for saying it couldn't happen in Germany.

>> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."

> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties.

(Again, same as the US.) Followed by...

> If that does not convince you I'd like to point you to the list of water crisis in Wikipedia. There have been none in western Europe while the US had Flint and Jackson.

Your arguments have honestly been so disingenuous I can't even continue this.

> What happened in Flint was that the hole of the city and the hole of Veolia did align.

You are clearly still missing something if you think that Veolia had any hand in creating the water crisis, lol. They were hired as an outside party to keep the city (i.e. the government) honest after it became clear to citizens that the water supply had issues - and the government covered it up. Why do I keep having to repeat this?

Your argument has been that the water supply issues cannot happen in Germany because it's a public utility, controlled and monitored by the government. The same was true of Flint, and yet the government was responsible for creating the crisis and for failing to resolve it.