One might posit that “focusing on the conversation about water quality” should emphasize good science and should not be conflated with dubious cryptozoology.
“But that’s no fun, and this gets people’s attention!” one might respond. But it’s a slippery slope, isn’t it?
(One might further posit that the disaster in Flint wouldn’t have happened if someone had insisted public health and accurate data reporting trumped all other concerns, but money just speaks too loudly.)
