quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

A point that has been missed, for the record.

When a homeowner buys a home - they are notified about lead hazards (by law). It is the *homeowners* responsibility (or in the case of rentals, the landlord) to fix or remediate lead issues.

They are supposed to be notified but that doesnt mean the new buyer will actually be notified, a sleazy seller can lie about it (then its up to the buyer to sue him/her and try to collect, if they have any money left by then).. and if its a bank or someone that hasnt lived there then they dont need to notify a buyer about squat, cuz they can say they didnt live there so didnt know.. so buyer beware applies!...

You also are wrong.

Residential buildings before 1978 are required to have this warning. If they do not, the buyer is entitled to sue to recoup his costs. Banks are far more stringent in the observation of this than private homeowners, due to the downside costs to them. I have never seen a bank fail to notify.

really? well, I tried to buy a property from a bank/mortgage corp and they didnt notify me of anything.. You are expected to do your own investigation to satisfy yourself on anything that is important to you.. I suppose you also believe that banks foreclosed on all properties in accordance with the law (but of course we know that isnt true since they have/are paying big fines to avoid prosecution)... (the foreclosure on that property wasnt done properly so i cancelled the purchase of it) That is why buyers should have a damn good property inspector and do their own diligence in all matters concerning the property.. Its never a good idea to trust anything a seller or realtor or bank tell you anyway.. verify, verify, verify..

I can't really speak to what you mean when you said - you tried to buy a property and they didn't notify me of anything.

By law, before you make an offer, they are required to notify you. There is a standard form that is included in every transaction. Additionally, before closing they are required to include another form, and they are required to give you 10 days to inspect. Most closing transactions run to 45 -100 pages and most people dont read them. But if you do, you will find those disclosure forms are always present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
If you had bought, and they hadn't given you the information, they would have been subject to massive penalties and fines, as well as you would be entitled to damages.

quote:

You can run me down the deoxidization of Perchlorate and its next door neighbor in oxyanion state Chlorate. And dont hand me the shit that it comes from road salt. That would have to be the least amount of it. And then while you are at it, pencil out the chemical reactions to convert NaCl to Trihalomethanes (THMs) are chemical compounds in which three of the four hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) are replaced by halogen atoms. Many trihalomethanes find uses in industry as solvents or refrigerants. THMs are also environmental pollutants, and many are considered carcinogenic. Trihalomethanes with all the same halogen atoms are called haloforms. Several of these are easy to prepare through the haloform reaction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

is there no sweeter irony than vile critter parts' link to the guardian article being full of the very argument he says is a lie?

also, i cant figure out why he posted this:

quote:

You can run me down the deoxidization of Perchlorate and its next door neighbor in oxyanion state Chlorate. And dont hand me the shit that it comes from road salt. That would have to be the least amount of it. And then while you are at it, pencil out the chemical reactions to convert NaCl to Trihalomethanes (THMs) are chemical compounds in which three of the four hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) are replaced by halogen atoms. Many trihalomethanes find uses in industry as solvents or refrigerants. THMs are also environmental pollutants, and many are considered carcinogenic. Trihalomethanes with all the same halogen atoms are called haloforms. Several of these are easy to prepare through the haloform reaction.

as best i can tell, its a plagiarism, and not the first time he's done it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

A point that has been missed, for the record.

When a homeowner buys a home - they are notified about lead hazards (by law). It is the *homeowners* responsibility (or in the case of rentals, the landlord) to fix or remediate lead issues.

They are supposed to be notified but that doesnt mean the new buyer will actually be notified, a sleazy seller can lie about it (then its up to the buyer to sue him/her and try to collect, if they have any money left by then).. and if its a bank or someone that hasnt lived there then they dont need to notify a buyer about squat, cuz they can say they didnt live there so didnt know.. so buyer beware applies!...

You also are wrong.

Residential buildings before 1978 are required to have this warning. If they do not, the buyer is entitled to sue to recoup his costs. Banks are far more stringent in the observation of this than private homeowners, due to the downside costs to them. I have never seen a bank fail to notify.

really? well, I tried to buy a property from a bank/mortgage corp and they didnt notify me of anything.. You are expected to do your own investigation to satisfy yourself on anything that is important to you.. I suppose you also believe that banks foreclosed on all properties in accordance with the law (but of course we know that isnt true since they have/are paying big fines to avoid prosecution)... (the foreclosure on that property wasnt done properly so i cancelled the purchase of it) That is why buyers should have a damn good property inspector and do their own diligence in all matters concerning the property.. Its never a good idea to trust anything a seller or realtor or bank tell you anyway.. verify, verify, verify..

I can't really speak to what you mean when you said - you tried to buy a property and they didn't notify me of anything.

By law, before you make an offer, they are required to notify you. There is a standard form that is included in every transaction. Additionally, before closing they are required to include another form, and they are required to give you 10 days to inspect. Most closing transactions run to 45 -100 pages and most people dont read them. But if you do, you will find those disclosure forms are always present.

Assuming they are following the law (big assumption), they are only required to notify you of actual conditions that they are aware of.. if the building wasnt tested for lead then they can claim they didnt know so dont need to notify you of something they say they werent aware of.. Yes I have seen the form but the form is blank cuz they say they didnt live there so they "dont know anything about it".. like I said, they dont notify you of squat so its pretty useless.. And as I said, buyers should have a damn good inspector go thru the property.. And its pretty sleazy to give a buyer 45-100 pages of docs a few days before they are to move in.. How many hours would you sit in the Title Company/lawyer's office reading all that? They dont want you to, they wanna rush you out asap..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

is there no sweeter irony than vile critter parts' link to the guardian article being full of the very argument he says is a lie?

also, i cant figure out why he posted this:

quote:

You can run me down the deoxidization of Perchlorate and its next door neighbor in oxyanion state Chlorate. And dont hand me the shit that it comes from road salt. That would have to be the least amount of it. And then while you are at it, pencil out the chemical reactions to convert NaCl to Trihalomethanes (THMs) are chemical compounds in which three of the four hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) are replaced by halogen atoms. Many trihalomethanes find uses in industry as solvents or refrigerants. THMs are also environmental pollutants, and many are considered carcinogenic. Trihalomethanes with all the same halogen atoms are called haloforms. Several of these are easy to prepare through the haloform reaction.

as best i can tell, its a plagiarism, and not the first time he's done it.

The ironic part about it bounty is - its an idiotic plagiarism. I just wasn't going to be bothered to get into it with him.

I actually can pencil out the reactions that lead to the formations of THMs. For the record, the reactions that form thrihalos are quite common. bromylated or chlorinated methanes for example occur very commonly in the summer in california - this past year a few million gallons of water, in the height of the drought had to be dumped from one of california reservoirs for this same reasons.

The reaction is a simple ionic substitution reaction

CH4 + Br2 --> CH3Br + HBr.

Essentially Br2 +UV (summer) --> 2 Br+

Ch4 +Br+ --> Ch3+ +HBr
Ch3+ + Br2 --> CH3Br + Br+

The same mechanism CH3BR + Br+ will yield CH2Br2, although in lower concentrations. The reactions proceed faster in warm weather, and the reactions occur much faster with chlorine due to chlorine's greater electronegativity. But the mechanism is still the same.

I told you I had a degree in this stuff and 30+ years experience. I've forgotten more about THMS than you will ever know mnotter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

FR~

Regarding the city council allegedly making the switch to flint (because I have seen it mentioned a few times here) the vote was recorded and the council turned down using Flint water:

http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/01/video-flint-city-council-voted-on-joining-karegnondi-water-authority-not-to-use-the-flint-river-for-all-their-water.html

http://bridgemi.com/2016/01/who-approved-switch-to-flint-river-states-answers-draw-fouls/


They didn't make this decision. And KWA isn't to blame either - they had advised the requirement for plant updates should the city switch to Flint river water. You do realize the KWA and use of Flint water are two separate ideas, right? The KWA was to bring water from Lake Huron. The source for Detroit. Water that would not have reacted to the pipes like the Flint river water.

I really liked this article because it basically touches base with how I (and I'm sure most) felt about the switch in the first place. Anyone that I know that is familiar with Flint, before this tragedy, knows how dirty that river is. I did say the same thing when I heard the switch, "That sounds like a horrible idea". This is a case where the government does everything against the knowledge and wishes of the people for money - business as usual, as of late:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint-michigan-20160122?page=3

So, to boil it all down, you can blame everyone and everything other than the Republican Governor and his staff - there's nothing new there. Down to the years of pollution and mixture of sources, the residents fault for having old pipes, or the local government that didn't have power. If you want to do that, though... Maybe, just maybe, if the Emergency Managers hadn't existed (that the State actually listened when Michigan voters originally turned it down before, because we, the people, apparently don't know what's good for us) none of this crap would have happened. Maybe, just maybe, all those cuts going on everywhere and increased taxes that led to a surplus could have actually been used for infrastructure - places that really need it - maybe this wouldn't have happened. At the end of the day, there are a lot of what-ifs and a lot of people you can point blame at. However, there was only one person with the last nail.

Gov Sneaky is a crook and if he wants to go about running business, just stopping short of a dictatorship, he needs to take the blame. Him and his Winged Monkeys need to go.

There's my opinion and

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

A point that has been missed, for the record.

When a homeowner buys a home - they are notified about lead hazards (by law). It is the *homeowners* responsibility (or in the case of rentals, the landlord) to fix or remediate lead issues.

They are supposed to be notified but that doesnt mean the new buyer will actually be notified, a sleazy seller can lie about it (then its up to the buyer to sue him/her and try to collect, if they have any money left by then).. and if its a bank or someone that hasnt lived there then they dont need to notify a buyer about squat, cuz they can say they didnt live there so didnt know.. so buyer beware applies!...

You also are wrong.

Residential buildings before 1978 are required to have this warning. If they do not, the buyer is entitled to sue to recoup his costs. Banks are far more stringent in the observation of this than private homeowners, due to the downside costs to them. I have never seen a bank fail to notify.

really? well, I tried to buy a property from a bank/mortgage corp and they didnt notify me of anything.. You are expected to do your own investigation to satisfy yourself on anything that is important to you.. I suppose you also believe that banks foreclosed on all properties in accordance with the law (but of course we know that isnt true since they have/are paying big fines to avoid prosecution)... (the foreclosure on that property wasnt done properly so i cancelled the purchase of it) That is why buyers should have a damn good property inspector and do their own diligence in all matters concerning the property.. Its never a good idea to trust anything a seller or realtor or bank tell you anyway.. verify, verify, verify..

I can't really speak to what you mean when you said - you tried to buy a property and they didn't notify me of anything.

By law, before you make an offer, they are required to notify you. There is a standard form that is included in every transaction. Additionally, before closing they are required to include another form, and they are required to give you 10 days to inspect. Most closing transactions run to 45 -100 pages and most people dont read them. But if you do, you will find those disclosure forms are always present.

Assuming they are following the law (big assumption), they are only required to notify you of actual conditions that they are aware of.. if the building wasnt tested for lead then they can claim they didnt know so dont need to notify you of something they say they werent aware of.. Yes I have seen the form but the form is blank cuz they say they didnt live there so they "dont know anything about it".. like I said, they dont notify you of squat so its pretty useless.. And as I said, buyers should have a damn good inspector go thru the property.. And its pretty sleazy to give a buyer 45-100 pages of docs a few days before they are to move in.. How many hours would you sit in the Title Company/lawyer's office reading all that? They dont want you to, they wanna rush you out asap..

Not true, they are required to issue a lead warning if the house was built prior to 1978.
But besides that - you want them to be required to notify you about violations they DONT know about????? Really???

How about you take some personal responsibility - and do like everyone else in the known world does - you get an inspection to make sure the property you want is as it appears - whether it has termites, enviornmental contamination, outstanding easements, open permits, working toilets, valid roof. etc etc.

Last word is yours - I'm done with this topic. You want everything handed to you on a platter - I think you are responsible for your own life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

You're right. They did choose the KWA (Karegnondi Water Authority). We're not in disagreement there.

quote:

I don't get where you have such an anti-snyder bias.

quote:

the decision to move away from detroit water - due to some of the highest water rates in the country - started in 2007. Well before Snyder. It was made by Democrat mayors and county executives time and time again. Flint was paying one of the highest water bills in the country ($20/mcf), despite the fact that water is plentiful and cheap in general near the great lakes.

quote:

DWDS offered flint a contract for 30 years in 2013 - what in the world would you call that, if not a long term contract? Detroit wanted to continue to have a monopoly on water supply. Problems - DWDS itself was not providing safe, clean water. See my post on page three detailing the suit against detroit documenting its failure over 30 years to provide clean water.

quote:

Two days after Flint voted to go with KWA - Detroit announced the termination of Flint's water. This is whats known as playing hardball. Flint didn't have any actual water supply at that moment - DWDS tried to force it to sign up for 30 years. Doing so would have likely bankrupted the KWA. Detroit wouldn't sell it water for a year - and it had already signed the contract with KWA.

quote:

So what the hell are you going to do, hmm? Its funny how Snyder gets the blame from you lefties when it was the DWDS that turned off the water....

quote:

ORIGINAL: satanscharmer

quote:

DWDS offered flint a contract for 30 years in 2013 - what in the world would you call that, if not a long term contract? Detroit wanted to continue to have a monopoly on water supply. Problems - DWDS itself was not providing safe, clean water. See my post on page three detailing the suit against detroit documenting its failure over 30 years to provide clean water.

quote:

it's a lie that they weren't providing clean DRINKING water

quote:

quote:

Two days after Flint voted to go with KWA - Detroit announced the termination of Flint's water. This is whats known as playing hardball. Flint didn't have any actual water supply at that moment - DWDS tried to force it to sign up for 30 years. Doing so would have likely bankrupted the KWA. Detroit wouldn't sell it water for a year - and it had already signed the contract with KWA.

So you do know how negotiations typically go. In the end, it wasn't Detroit that decided to terminate service and the 30-year contract was not the only offer.

quote:

What's even funnier is I have not made it clear as to my political affiliation, yet you have made it abundantly clear you choose the guilty parties based solely on their political affiliation and then try to dig up and twist everything into your defense. I already know how this discussion would have gone had the governor been a Democrat.
You have shown your bias from the beginning of this thread.

quote:

What's even funnier is I have not made it clear as to my political affiliation

quote:

Gov Sneaky is a crook and if he wants to go about running business, just stopping short of a dictatorship, he needs to take the blame. Him and his Winged Monkeys need to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

wasnt an emergency manager being implanted supposed to make things better?
Snyder has been in charge since what 2011?
took voting out of the hands of the people.
The buck stops with snyder, he has had it for five years, and as such decieved and poisoned thousands of people and delayed help. ANd is still waffling.
And whats more, he still wants residents to pay for water that is poisoning them.
Yes people both dem and con need to answer for this.
THe EPA chick has gone, by the way, does anyone believe that ONLY liberals work for the EPA????

Im glad it has been in the news and brought the other places its happening quietly to is bringing it to the forefront in some places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I agree with you, i was pointing out that phydeaux has made it partisan since he started posing on the thread, not you.
I apologise if you thought i meant you.