[1/5] Some important perspectives in this article, and I'm grateful to Derek for lifting them up, but also (if I may say so) some common pitfalls of framing. We need a much more nuanced way of talking re: "clean" water, for example. (Thread below.) https://politi.co/2KyjUDs 

[2/5] The overly-simplified juxtaposition of totally "clean" water and a totally "recovered" water system w/ lingering resident distrust has the effect of pathologizing the latter, treating it as a puzzle that needs to be explained (usually with reference to emotional trauma)...

[3/5] ...rather than an attitude grounded in careful observation, reasoning, local knowledge, and a more robust understanding of the crisis at hand (and even the way water works in general) than is typical of outsider perspectives.

[4/5] The body of the article, although it cannot possibly be comprehensive, tells a more complex story, suggesting that resident distrust stems primarily not from stubborn refusal to acknowledge what has been fixed, but from the awareness of all that has NOT been fixed...

[5/5] ...including aspects of the crisis that have rarely been fully appreciated by those on the outside looking in. I would encourage those who want to know more about that side of the story to keep going back to residents themselves, and listening carefully for the fine grain.