Water Defense lawyers clarify position on “endorsement” of NLP systems

Our recent posting noted that a Flint resident appears to be reading from a Scott Smith (Water Defense) letter in a social media video.  The video (at ≈ 41:30) states “here is what Scott Smith wrote:”

≈42:32 “This is the first filtering technology I have reviewed with test results that makes me comfortable in saying the water is safe for drinking, showering, and bathing.”

≈43:34  “and I look forward to taking a shower at your house and drinking the water after the treated NLP™ Aqua Solutions Technology.”

Mr. Smith later shared this video on Facebook, which implied to us, that he had no problem with either its content or his letter about NLP™ being read aloud:

After our posting and referral of this matter to the Michigan Attorney General (AG), and our cautionary note to Flint residents about the NLP™ system, WATER DEFENSE lawyers have since clarified their legal position.  They now state that  “WATER DEFENSE DOES NOT ENDORSE, AND HAS NOT ENDORSED, NLP FILTERS.”  Even though it seems to contradict our plain interpretations of Mr. Smith’s letter, we have since changed the title of our posting and some of the message text. We will let the Michigan AG handle it from here.

Ruffalo’s WATER DEFENSE EMPLOYEE Misleads Flint Residents: Supports Over-priced “Junk Science” Water Conditioners

Updated: June 8, 2017, 11:59am

Recent social media postings have started to  advertise, that an employee of Mark Ruffalo’s WATER DEFENSE considers whole house filtration systems an important health protection for Flint Residents.  The postings cite WATER DEFENSE sampling data and assert that the NLP™ brand filtration systems produce “the cleanest safest water in Flint.” The sources also state that WATER DEFENSE chief “scientist” Scott Smithasserted in writing, that only NLP™ brand filters produce water that is “safe for […] showering and bathing” in Flint.  This remarkable conclusion seems to be based on Mr. Smith’s 16 months of work collecting mountains of flawed data from homes of Flint residents—he has no apparent expertise in evaluating potable water safety or rating the performance of water filtration/conditioning devices.

Mr. Smith’s (Chief Scientist of non-profit WATER DEFENSE and also active in Flint as a representative of his company Aquaflex Holdings LLC) misguided efforts during the Flint Water Crisis have been well-documented. First, it was revealed he made royalties from the flawed WATERBUG™ sponge sampling technology. It was then revealed Mr. Smith had launched a private side business soon after he came to Flint, that would attempt to sell Aquaflex™ filters to fix water quality problems revealed by WATER DEFENSE sampling. We thought both of these efforts were ended after they were revealed by FLINTWATERSTUDY and others, but we just discovered Smith’s AquaFlex Holdings LLC is involved in Flint. The latest effort promoting junk science conditioners at NLP™, which includes a “package deal” with a proposed $2100 payment to Mr. Smith out of a total cost of $11,300-$13,800 per Flint house,  represents a perfectly logical progression in Mr. Smith’s self-promotional efforts to exploit the Flint Water Crisis. Note: Water Defense lawyers, have since stated in writing that Mr. Smith’s letter endorsing the NLP™ filters, was not from Water Defense.

Herein, we provide a few notes of caution for Flint residents, who might actually seriously consider Mr. Smith’s support for NLP™  brand products in order to protect their families health.

NLP conditioners are marketed as a miraculous product

The claims associated with the NLP™ water conditioners are beyond extraordinary, and even defy basic laws of chemistry and physics. For example, it is claimed that the purported benefits from this water conditioner can be achieved with “no chemicals, no salts, no magnets, no electricity, no backwashing, and no maintenance!”

But that is not all. Extraordinary health related claims are made regarding the properties of the water treated by the NLP™ conditioner.  Specifically, if water from this device is put on plants, growth of the root system is remarkably enhanced! The social media postings also report that if cows drink NLP™ conditioned water, they give 30% higher milk production. It is left to the imagination as to the wondrous health benefits of this water for humans.

Passing water through an NLP™ water conditioner supposedly has wondrous effects.

When we look at the science behind the conditioner, there are no peer reviewed scientific publications backing up the performance claims or the principles by which it supposedly operates. The explanations that the company provides makes no sense at all. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and in this case the NLP conditioners have been identified by some as “junk science”  water treatment (Note: NLP™ appears to be identical to a product marketed as “Turbu-Flow” in Australia based on identical web pages).

Dubious Claim: NLP conditioned water encourages root growth

System Seems Over-Priced and Does Not Appear to Remove Several Constituents Mentioned

Following the NLP™ water conditioner that seems too good to be true, the NLP™ filtration system includes normal whole house water filters and then a point-of-use filter.  These NLP products are indeed rated for removal of several contaminants by a credible organization– just like many other competing water filtration systems available in the marketplace.  However, claims are being made that the NLP filters also remove fluoride and other constituents, which we see no evidence that they can remove.

However, the NLP™ filtration system seems extremely overpriced for what it is rated to remove, compared to other high performance systems that remove even more contaminants.  Specifically, the NLP™ system is marketed at a “discount” price of $4200 and the social media postings indicate that replacement filters cost over $500 every 6 months. While we at FLINTWATERSTUDY never endorse specific water treatment products, systems are available on Amazon.com that have proven performance exceeding that of the NLP™ system for just $700 with replacement cartridges that cost only $110. Thus, the price markup for the NLP™ systems is 500-700% versus those actually rated to remove the constituents cited on social media.  In other words, according to our analysis, FLINT RESIDENTS COULD BUY A SYSTEM AT 20% OF THE COST THAT WILL ACTUALLY REMOVE MORE.

Does it really protect your water heater and private property from damage?

Another astonishing claim, is that this product will protect Flint home plumbing and water heater from property damage by scaling due to hard water. The clear implication is that purchasing this over-priced system is actually also an investment that might save you money someday. Putting aside the issue of whether the product even works, the problem with this particular claim is that Flint water is already non-scaling.  Over the years we have thoroughly cleaned out dozens of water heaters in Flint homes—we have never identified hardness scale that could damage the plumbing of Flint residents. This is as expected, because the Lake Huron water has only moderate levels of hardness. In fact, we actually did a temporary hardness test to examine the scale forming potential of a sample of current Flint water— it is minimal at  4.25 mg/L as CaCO3 even at boiling.  Current Flint water does not need any “softening.”

Current Flint water (Left) at 20C and (Right) heated to 100C showing no scale formation

How do you know it is not really a miracle product?  TEST RESULTS

Science is all about proving things and getting to the truth.  Because it is possible that this device supported by WATER DEFENSE actually re-writes basic laws of chemistry and physics, and our decades of experience in water treatment are wrong, we actually purchased an NLP™ conditioner to see if it worked as advertised.  Our NLP™ device had a list price $279.00 but we got it on sale for “only” $199.00.  The device looks like a 10 cm piece of stainless steel pipe with some brass baffles inside it that should cost about $5 in materials. Four high profile and dubious claims about the device were tested including: 1) it produces “wetter water,” 2) the treated water produces more soap suds because of reduced surface tension, 3) it stops hardness scale from precipitating, and 4) it raises ORP.

1. Claim: NLP™ conditioned water is “wetter”

Result: What does this claim mean?  We have no idea. We did a “wetter” panel test – three RED cups were filled with Blacksburg Tap water (i.e., control) and three BLUE cups were filled with “conditioned” Blacksburg tap water. We then asked three random scientists if they thought one is “wetter” than the other. Here is what we found:

The results were inconclusive; in all likelihood, both waters are equally wet.

2. Claim: NLP™ conditioned water makes more soap due to reduced surface tension

Result: We assembled a small rig to pump Blacksburg Tap Water (flow rate = ~150 mL/s) through and tested two conditions – a control and one with the conditioner in the flow. Washing detergent is added to each bucket containing 5L water right before starting the experiment (same experiment as in the Australian Turbu-Flow video).

The soapsuds are not changed by the conditioner, contrary to claims in the video. If anything, in our experiment, the control perhaps has somewhat more suds.

Watch videos of the experiment:

We also measured the actual water surface tension by capillary rise method.  Hard well water treated by the NLP conditioner was not significantly different from untreated well water. Another false claim.

3. Claim: NLP™ conditioned water stops hardness scale from forming

Result: We took synthetic hard water (197 mg/L as CaCO3) at 20 o C and pH 6.8 and pumped it through the NLP water conditioner and the water was then heated to 100 oC. The heated water was filtered through a 0.2 um filter to determine the [Ca2+] concentration that remained dissolved in the water. This concentration was subtracted from the initial concentration to determine the temporary hardness (amount of CaCO3 precipitated). The control experiment was pumped at the same flow rate but without the conditioner. This was done in duplicate. The results show that the NLP™ conditioner did not stop scale from forming.

Mean Temporary Hardness Precipitated out of control and conditioned waters

Visually, it also seems that the precipitated water has identical scale formation.  Certainly there was plenty of scale that formed:

We then increased the temporary hardness of the test water to 292 mg/L and redid the experiment (see results below). The conditioner did nothing.

4. Claim: NLP™ conditioned water will produce water with higher ORP

Result: The ORP (measured using a HANNA HI 9828 meter) of “conditioned” tap water was actually the same as untreated water. If anything, it was slightly, but not significantly lower– the exact opposite of what was claimed.

In summary, it seems the conditioner offers NONE of the purported benefits when put to scientific test.  Now of course, we have not yet fed the water to cows and see if they produced 30% more milk, but we did what we could.

Overall Verdict:  Is This Criminal?

Our problems with Mr. Smith’s improper sampling and false statements are well-documented, but in this particular case, we question not only the ethics of the proposed “package deal,” but also the legality of these activities. The false health claims are particularly worrisome– Mr. Smith’s (WATER DEFENSE and Aquaflex Holdings LLC) assertion to Flint residents that this is the only filter system he is aware of that produces water considered good enough for safe bathing in Flint, is just sickening. We have therefore referred this matter to the Attorney General.

Primary Authors: Dr. Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy

Experimental work: Christina Devine, Gregory House, Siddhartha Roy and Dr. Marc Edwards

Supporting Wayne State University and University of Michigan’s flushing reminder

A recent press release reminded Flint residents of the advantages to flushing their plumbing and point-of-use (POU) filters.  We support this advice.

There are two types of flushing that are useful:

1 – Flushing out your pipes with your filter in bypass mode: Last year the EPA recommended that Flint residents flush their lines 5 minutes every morning to remove the increased bacteria that normally build-up in the water during stagnation, and to bring chlorine into the home.  The reminder to flush “several minutes” is consistent with this prior EPA advice.

2 – Passing your water through your POU filter for a short period of time to reduce bacteria, before collecting the water for cooking or drinking. The existing advice on how long to flush your filter varies. Some manufacturers have recommended 5 second, others 30 seconds, and still others including EPA recommend “at least 30 seconds” as illustrated in the following examples:

  1. “Flushing the filter for about 30 seconds after it has sat idle for several hours (such as in the morning) may help limit the amount of bacteria on the filter.”
  2. A high bacterial count can occur when water does not pass through an AC filter after it has not been used overnight. The first water drawn from the filter that day may be cloudy with bacteria. Flushing the filter at full flow for 30 seconds reduces the HPC bacteria counts to 1/7 the initial numbers, and as the AC filter is used during normal household activity for four hours, the HPC bacteria are reduced by 1/25. Still, several studies indicate that the HPC bacteria count is higher in effluent than in influent.
  3. These filters should be flushed for at least 30 seconds before each use.
  4. In view of these conclusions, it is appropriate to recognize that although bacterial growth occurs in POU and POE water treatment devices, the increase of HPC in these devices does not indicate that a health risk exists, so long as the water entering the device meets acceptable water quality standards. …Also, consumers should be instructed to run water at full flow for at least 30 seconds before use after a prolonged period of quiescence.

The Wayne State/University of Michigan advice to flush the POU filter for 15 seconds is, therefore, consistent with this prior guidance.

EXCLUSIVE! Mark Ruffalo’s WATER DEFENSE Sampling Methods Revealed

An Instant Tragi-Comedy-Horror Film Classic


A coalition of Flint Citizens and scientists labored for almost 2 years to expose the Flint Water Disaster, and after a federal emergency was declared, the citizens, scientists, non-profits, EPA, CDC, the State of Michigan and FEMA were working together to solve problems.

A month after the recovery was underway, actor Mark Ruffalo’s “nonprofit” WATER DEFENSE came to Flint, and immediately began to “discover” dangerous levels of contaminants that no one else could confirm. The results, which supposedly came from “independent certified labs,” were provided to residents, and alarmist videos were released about supposed dangers of bathing and showering in Detroit water (4 months after switching from the Flint River).

We now reveal VIDEO RECORDINGS of Water Defense endorsed and/or coordinated SAMPLING EVENTS. These reveal why they are finding problems that no one else can.


The videos you are about to see are for mature audiences only–some will find this content comedic, others will find it horrifying, and still others will find it tragic.

The Water Defense coordinated sampling efforts create mountains of scary and useless data, after their improperly collected samples are submitted to “certified laboratories.” These reports have have been used to misinform and create unsubstantiated fear amongst unsuspecting members of the public in Flint and East Chicago.

Water Defense’s 12-step program to collect samples purportedly showing dangerous levels of bacteria or other contaminants in water, results of which are then used to encourage use of over-priced and over-hyped filters that supposedly render the water safe.

Get a kitchen knife and an unsterile water bottle

Find Lead AND “Bacterias” that others do not find.

Establish your team’s scientific credentials


Use a knife to scrape “bacterial fungi”* from the outside of your basement sewer pipe. 

* “Bacterial fungi” is a new life form proposed by the Water Defense-TYT collaboration. If true, it is not only Nobel Prize worthy, but also WaterBug™ sponge worthy.


Cap the already unsterile bottle. Whoops, dropped it on the floor? No worries… after all, the goal is to find bacteria no one else finds, and sampling the outside of a sewer pipe is not trying hard enough. Rub the cap on your shirt too.


To find lead, collect water from the sediment clean out tap* on water heater. Act horrified when sediment comes out.

*Virtually every water heater manufacturer advises: It is recommended that the tank be drained and flushed every 6 months to remove sediment which may buildup during operation. When you don’t do this regularly, here is what can buildup in almost any water heater across the U.S. depending on water quality, hardness, temperature settings, etc.


WATER DEFENSE Step 7: Re-establish your team’s scientific credibility and incredible powers of observation … comment on the water that comes from the sediment clean out tap.


Claim you are using EPA’s grab sampling method*, but violate it in ways that create falsely high lead (e.g., collect water from three valves that have high lead because they are not designed to dispense water for consumption, use infrequently used taps, etc.). Oh, and, don’t be scared just yet! That will come later when we give the invalid results to consumers!

* From EPA grab sampling instructions: Always collect a first-draw sample from a tap where the water has stood in the pipes for at least six hours (e.g., no flushing, showering, etc). However, make sure it is a tap that is used regularly, and not an abandoned or infrequently used tap.  […] First-draw samples collected at single-family residences must always be drawn from the cold-water kitchen tap or bathroom tap. [40 CFR 141.86 (b)]


Send the improper samples to an independent lab who has no idea how you collected the samples! The *independent* is key!


Now use the printouts from the “independent certified lab” to reveal all the “bacterias,” “bacterial-fungi,” lead, and other chemicals that no one else finds.

Don’t ever mention to consumers that if your sample collection methods are garbage and violate established protocols, that the results from an independent certified lab will be garbage too.


Have in-depth discussions on primetime (oops, sorry online) and stage calls to frightened residents discussing the WATER DEFENSE test results. Mention similarities to Flint. Ingratiate yourself with unsuspecting residents with real problems who unfortunately trust your shoddy sampling!

For maximum effect!

Experience the full magic of “An Improper Sample” on YouTube:

YouTube Reviews


To be clear, there are serious lead-in-soil and lead-in-water issues that consumers in East Chicago, IN have been grappling with for many years. But the EPA R5 (after Susan Hedman resigned) rightly deserves much of the credit for exposing this issue. Three weeks after our post praising EPA’s efforts in East Chicago, Water Defense came to do their testing, just like they came to Flint a month after the Federal Emergency was declared (and 5 months after the disaster was first exposed).

Water Defense endorses sloppy tests done with a kitchen knife and is not embarrassed by “testing” using their now discredited sponge. In one video they use one sampling bottle to collect water from three different outlets (all of which are not intended for drinking water, by the way), and virtually everything they do is a case study in how to not conduct legitimate sampling as per EPA or Standard Method protocols. The mountains of useless and confusing data tend to obscure their unscientific sampling methods.

They also claim it is about the “integrity of data at trial” (i.e., in court), but when you endorse sampling with a kitchen knife and a used water bottle and unsanitary and illegal methods, will a judge or jury really listen?

Mark Ruffalo should be ashamed of his unscientific fear-mongering, which is causing residents unnecessary psychological trauma, undermining serious government relief efforts, and causing some residents to waste thousands of dollars on unnecessary filters to remove contaminants that are not even present in their drinking water.

Additional Reading about WATER DEFENSE sampling:

Curious about the right way to sample drinking water and why that is the case? Check our FAQ from last week for a primer.

Primary authors: Siddhartha Roy and Dr. Marc Edwards

Is unfiltered Flint water safe to drink, why do you only test for lead and copper, why don’t we have bathing and showering standards, has Dr. Edwards been bought by the EPA and other Questions — New FAQ for Flint residents

Flint’s current water quality status and lead filters

 Is it true, that the water in Flint is still not safe to drink without a filter?

We and many others, currently believe that it is NOT safe to drink water that has passed through a lead pipe, without passing it through a certified lead filter, in Flint or any other city. The risk of having lead rust fall from the pipe into the water supply is just too great. That is something we suspected strongly before Flint, proved true in Flint, and we hope this knowledge might eventually result in changes to the definition of “safe” nationally.  Milwaukee and Pittsburgh are also now distributing lead filters free of charge to some customers.

But a few years ago EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water asserted that if a city met the Action Level of 15 ppb, that meant the city’s water was “safe” by law.  We argued against that, but the EPA is an authority and what they say carries some weight. By their definition, which we do not support but which is used by many cities around the country, Flint’s water is currently “safe” to drink without a filter.


Do the free filters provided by the State of Michigan work to remove lead?

The EPA tested hundreds of samples in Flint before and after filtration, which indicates that the filters work to effectively remove lead, even at the very high lead levels (> 1000 ppb for some cases) that were more common in 2015 and 2016. Our own research is consistent with the EPA results.


Do the free filters provided by the State of Michigan create a problem with bacteria?

It has been known for 20+ years that these faucet filters increase bacteria levels in water, but the long-standing opinion is that these bacteria do NOT pose a significant health risk. In 2002 a scientific consensus was written stating;

WQRF cooperatively sponsored the NSF/World Health Organization (WHO) International Symposium on Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) Bacteria in Drinking Water Public Health Implications, convened in Geneva, Switzerland in April 2002. The WHO Expert Committee’s resulting conclusions are that “increases of HPC (microorganisms) (due to growth) in these (domestic water devices, including water softeners, carbon filters, etc.) therefore, do not indicate the existence of a health risk.” WQRF research continues to show that if the average consumer in the United States uses a point-of-use (POU) water treatment device at home on a weekly basis, they will ingest less than 2 percent of their total bacterial intake from the POU-treated water. The literature review also demonstrated that the same types of HPC bacteria are common in foods. Thus, extensive scientific evidence has objectively and consistently verified that HPC bacteria in POU- and POE-treated drinking water are not harmful.

Of course, we need to remain vigilant, and are always on the lookout for new information and potential problems. We and others will keep looking at this issue.


Do I have to use the free filters in Flint, to have water comparable to that present in other cities with old plumbing?

No. At present lead levels in Flint are comparable to other cities with older pipes. We personally drink water filtered through lead filters when we visit Flint and even in our own homes in Blacksburg– but no one can force you to use the lead filters. They are being provided by the state out of an abundance of caution to residents and we think this resource should be taken advantage of.


What if I am immunocompromised or under Doctors orders?

Any advice given by your physician, should obviously take precedence over general advice provided on this webpage or any other source, in relation to lead, bacteria or any other matter. In general, advice for immunocompromised or at-risk individuals is different than for the general public.


What about whole house filters that I keep hearing about?

We cannot recommend whole house filters in Flint or elsewhere. If they remove chlorine they leave your plumbing system vulnerable to growth of Legionella and other harmful bacteria. Even if they remove all lead at the filter, more lead can come from the pipes after the filter.

We have also seen very dubious health claims made about the performance of these filters by unscrupulous salespersons in Flint—and the price markups quoted to Flint residents are often 300-1000% beyond what these filters should cost. But beyond those warnings, installing and purchasing a whole house filter is a personal choice many Americans make. They can play an effective role in sediment removal.

We personally prefer whole house filters that do not remove all the chlorine, unless you would rather risk bacteria growing in your plumbing system versus the chlorine in your water. The faucet filters do not have plumbing after them in which bacteria can grow, so the removal of chlorine is a lesser concern.


Can a water main break increase the lead in water of a home?

Because there is no lead source in the water mains that can touch water, it is very unlikely that a main break would increase water lead in homes.

An exception is if the main break happens less than 15 meters from your house, at which point we demonstrated in a research study that the vibrations from heavy equipment needed to fix it, might shake lead loose from your pipes. But if a main broke within less than 15 meters of your house (about 50 feet), you would be more concerned about flooding than lead in water.


Are there high levels of Gadolinium and Platinum in Flint water?

As part of the most comprehensive, independent evaluation of a drinking water system that has ever been conducted (to our knowledge), in summer 2015 our team looked for Gadolinium and Platinum in hundreds of Flint samples along with other contaminants. Gadolinium and Platinum were undetectable. We looked again in samples collected in 2016 and they were still below detection.


Testing Flint’s Water right

Why have you been only testing for lead and copper? Why not the “full spectrum” of chemicals and bacteria?

We have been testing for the “full-spectrum” of chemicals and bacteria since August 2015. We posted our results online and presented summaries of the results numerous times (Here are some sampling results JUST FROM Aug 2015: chlorine levels, DBP testing, fecal bacteria, opportunistic pathogens including Legionella, corrosion causing bacteria, etc.)

It is not newsworthy to find that the hundreds of chemicals and bacteria we looked for, are at normal or below regulated levels. We found high lead and high legionella and we raised the alarm when it was appropriate to do so. Here is a snapshot of things we tested for in 2015 (presented on Jan 28, 2016):

Testing done by VT between Apr 2015-Jan 2016 (slide from a public presentation – Jan 28, 2016)

Some other people feel justified in running to the media to sound an alarm, if they find chemicals or bacteria in Flint water, at levels that are completely normal. The 2016 false alarm about dangerous levels of chloroform in Flint water, which needlessly made some Flint consumers fear bathing or showering, is a counter-productive example.


Why don’t you share “detailed lab reports” from your testing but only spreadsheet results?

The “detailed lab reports” recently discussed in Flint, are the results provided by commercial laboratories to customers who want to have a few samples analyzed here or there. In high volume professional laboratories, such as ours at Virginia Tech, the original data from the instrument is downloaded directly to spreadsheets. We provide that original data to our research partners and consumers upon request.

Consider our metals analysis (ICP-MS) samples alone- we run over 30,000 samples every year with 30 elements per run. All of our equipment is cutting edge—we do not compete with commercial labs for business of small customers. All of the relevant “details” are provided in our spreadsheet printouts.  Use of spreadsheets also minimizes use of paper, which would not be a big deal if we only ran about 30 samples per year, but which is a significant issue when running a thousand times that number of samples.


Should I test water for lead at the water meter or the bottom of a water heater?

By definition, testing at the water meter or from the bottom of a water heater, is an “improper sample” according to EPA Lead and Copper Rule monitoring protocols. There is no way to get a water sample from inside the meter, in a manner that represents the water as you would consume it. Unscrewing plumbing (or screw ports) to collect samples, will put tiny pieces of metal containing lead into the water that is not normally present. That is known as a “false positive,” because it will make your sample have high lead in it when it normally does not.  If you collect water from inside the meter via a nearby “hose bib,” that will also create a “false positive” because hose bibs contain high lead and were not designed to dispense water fit for human consumption — they were excluded from the lead leaching performance tests of the National Sanitation Foundation for that reason.

It is also important to note that EPA has always recommended that consumers never drink hot water, because it will often contain higher lead.   Water heaters are not only hot water, but they are also designed to remove and collect sediment, so sampling from the bottom of a water heater via the sediment clean out valve will also give a “false positive” and is an improper sample.

The only proper samples for lead, according to the law, must be collected from a cold water kitchen or bathroom tap. If you collect it any other way, it has little or nothing to do with drinking water.


Why would someone violate protocols, and test for lead “at the water meter” or from the bottom of a water heater, and try to pass off the resulting “false positive” result as if it were a proper sample of public health concern?

We have no idea.


Could there be chemicals in the water that YOU don’t know about?

There are many chemicals in all water, including rain water and bottled water, that we (and no one) analyzes for, or really knows about. We are learning more about the chemicals in water all the time. Some of those chemicals are naturally occurring and some are man-made.


What if you are wrong?

Science is all about being skeptical and continuously thinking about all the ways you might be wrong. If we are wrong, as we must be some of the time, we aspire to be the first to discover and admit it.  There is no shame in that. Anyone who claims they are always right, or who lacks humility, is unscientific and dangerous in our book.


Bathing/Showering Standards

Why don’t we have bathing and showering standards?

When regulations for disinfection by-products (DBPs) were being considered, it was well known that a significant danger from these chemicals was via consumer exposure in showers. However, when it came to the question of how to sample and regulate that risk, a decision was made to sample the cold water in mains. The general idea is that if you can meet a regulatory goal in a cold water main, you are also controlling health risk in the shower or bath, even though it was understood that levels would sometimes increase when water traveled to the bath or shower.

The alternative of actually collecting samples in baths or showers for DBPs was discussed and discarded, because every shower and bath system is different in terms of water heater type, temperature and tank size, and it was desirable to collect samples that are comparable from one city to another.

It is important to note that DBPs are not like lead. Lead samples must be collected inside the home, because there is generally no lead in the water main. In contrast, we have never seen a sample collected in a shower or bath with very high DBPs, when the cold water sample collected from the water main was very low. By keeping DBPs below set values in the water mains, you are also indirectly controlling risks for bathing and showering. There is no serious discussion underway about collecting DBP regulatory compliance samples in bath or shower water.

On the other hand, we do not presently have standards for Legionella bacteria in baths or showers, even though it is more like lead.  Legionella can be nearly zero in cold water mains but very high in some baths and showers. Legionella problems in home water, is a relatively new problem for the water industry and EPA– we are still working out how to best control this risk.

Read more in our piece on “Perspectives on Bathing and Showering in the U.S.”


Direct Response to Public Assertions and Insinuations Made Against Us by a Few Individuals

Has Dr. Marc Edwards been bought by the State, or EPA?

Dr. Edwards does not receive any extra financial compensation for his research with the EPA, State of Michigan, or Greater Flint Community Foundation. These contracts have been set up, so that for every hour that Dr. Edwards works on Flint research, money for that time goes to Virginia Tech to compensate for not doing work for the University– it does not increase Dr. Edwards’ take home pay.

Dr. Edwards is also a fully salaried employee at Virginia Tech (12 months), with tenure, and his take home pay or job status is at relatively low risk when calling out powerful entities such as the State of MI, EPA, CDC or other groups– as he has done repeatedly throughout his career when appropriate. For the record, the Virginia Tech team spent $300K out of pocket, and donated years of volunteer effort to Flint relief, before any research funding was made available from the above sources for their Flint work starting in April 2016.

It is very common (and even normal) for professors to make extra salary on research projects, but that is not the case for Dr. Edwards’ research in Flint. That said, we would never claim that other professors have “been bought” if they did accept compensation from the State or EPA for research. Nor have we ever directly criticized others, who did not lift a finger to assist Flint residents with research or sampling, until they were fully compensated to do so.

And while we generally make it a practice, to avoid tooting our own horn, we do have a right to defend ourselves against misguided accusations. Our refusal to “be bought,” has actually been widely recognized by many awards including the IEEE Barus and Villanova Praxis award for professional ethics bestowed before Flint. Dr. Edwards is also an outspoken advocate regarding the obligation of engineers to speak out if they see something wrong and for honoring the sacrifices of Whistleblowers.”

Compare our record to the record (if any) of the few who make public accusations against us.


What about movie or book deals?

To date, Dr. Edwards has assisted in production of dozens of Flint documentaries for free, and turned down all offered compensation for either book and movie deals. We have no problem with others who have book deals, movie deals, or receive compensation for that work. If our status changes in the future, we will let you all know via Flintwaterstudy.


What about the students and other members of the Flintwaterstudy team? 

All of our team worked one year, through April 2016, as uncompensated volunteers. Since that time VT students have been paid through the university, for some of their work in Flint, via the aforementioned research projects.

The students have been informed that book and movie deals are their own business.  To our knowledge they have not accepted offers of compensation to date. We have also made it a policy to help anyone who wants to tell the Flint story without compensation. To date we have devoted months of time to such efforts.


Why do you now support the EPA, the State and the CDC in Flint?

Our general philosophy is that if someone wants to be a truth-seeker and solve problems, we will work with them, and if they are using science to obfuscate or harm people we will fight them. When the EPA and State (or anyone) are doing bad things or are wrong, we will call them out. If they are doing good work, we will say that as well.

It is important to remember that some people change for the better, and some people change for the worse. Some people are good scientists today and bad scientist’s tomorrow, and vice versa. The same is true for government agencies and normal citizens. We all have to point out bad actors and applaud good actors, so that change is overall in a positive direction. That can only happen if all parties are working together with honesty and integrity.

While we strive to be honest and good scientists ourselves, we do worry that tomorrow we will make a mistake that could hurt people. We live in fear of doing so, and aspire to be our own toughest critics, so that we can minimize our likelihood of mistakes to the extent possible.  We cannot eliminate mistakes completely. Science is all about questioning yourself, seeking truth and helping others.

So far we are proud of our own efforts in Flint. Generally speaking, since the declaration of the Federal Emergency in early 2016, we feel all the key players (State of MI, EPA, CDC) have been effectively assisting with the recovery. There have been a few miscues and we have pointed those out. If we see something wrong, we will speak out about it without hesitation.


Why won’t you work with Water Defense? 

If Water Defense ever retracted their false scientific statements that harmed the Flint recovery effort, and if they stopped needlessly scaring people into thinking that there were unusual dangers lurking in present day Flint water when the data does not support that position–we would work with Water Defense.

However, it seems Water Defense is dedicated to spreading misinformation and collecting misleading samples from: 1) inside water meters, 2) from sediment clean out ports at the bottom of water heaters, and 3) from anywhere they can toss or stuff their “Waterbug” sponges (data from which is not comparable to any standard or other measurement approach).  Hence, we are prepared for the likelihood they will never retract their false statements.

We also remind residents, that Water Defense personnel have a business model, that would profit from whole house and filters, to correct problems they find through their non-standard sampling techniques.  This strikes us as a very significant conflict of interest, which has raised eyebrows and concerns of others.


Has the portrayal of harm in Flint, been occasionally overstated by some media, with potentially harmful consequences to children?

We believe so. When we were in Flint schools during spring break, we were alarmed at the number of Flint children who told us they had been permanently brain damaged and were therefore not capable of learning.  Some teachers said that about the students as well.  The reality is that because Flint residents, Virginia Tech, ACLU-Michigan and the local health community (Dr. Mona and colleagues) acted so decisively in September 2015, and then the state provided filters and bottled water and advice about avoiding lead in early October 2015, a greater tragedy was averted.

This is not to downplay the harm that was done, or the crimes that were possibly committed, but the elevations in blood lead (excluding those with high blood lead) did not cause anything that should be characterized as “permanent brain damage” for a typical child in Flint.  To the extent that anyone overstates that message, and causes Flint children to believe it– it is indeed very harmful.

As Dr. Mona has said of Flint children “They are smart, they are strong, they are bright, they’re resilient and they’re brave.” With support and a positive outlook from all parties, they will have a bright future.

Q+A: Dr. Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy