Doctrine of protective power

According to the London doctrine, a small amount of carbonic acid in water prompted the formation of an insoluble carbonate of lead on the interior of the pipes. In this way, the London doctrine stated the exact opposite of other variants of the doctrine of protective power. Weak and colorless, carbonic acid is formed by the dissolution of carbon dioxide in water. Adams argued that several prominent chemists in London used this doctrine to justify the proposition that London could have continued to use lead service pipes safely if the city switched to a soft, and more corrosive, water supply. At the time Adams was writing, London drew its water from the river Thames, a hard-water source. Evidence to follow, however, raises serious questions about the London doctrine. 

Adams was not the only observer to suggest caution in trying to predict the solvency of particular water supplies. Even proponents of the doctrine of protective power published articles encouraging doctors to be sensitive to the possibility of water-related lead poisoning among individuals who drew their water from supplies pronounced safe by prominent chemists. For example, in 1860, James R. Nichols published an article in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal arguing that water supplies in Massachusetts were usually safe because they contained... 

One objection to the discussion thus far is that the various doctrines of protective power imply a multivariate model of lead solvency, while the visual depictions above indicate a bivariate relationship. To address this objection, a series of regressions are run using the Maine data. The methods and results are reported in appendix C. The results indicate... 

The legacy of the doctrine of protective power was mixed. On the one hand, it helped guide water treatment strategies aimed at reducing the lead solvency in some water supplies. On the other hand, it was applied asymmetrically by cities in their decisions to install lead service pipes. Cities with hard water blindly applied the doctrine to justify their decisions to use lead, ignoring the possibility that hard water sometimes had the capacity to dissolve lead as well. Cities with soft water appear to have... 

Efforts to treat water supplies to minimize their tendency to dissolve lead were usually a response to experience, though the doctrine of protective power often helped to frame those responses. For example, an... 

On May 23, 1996, the Supreme Court of Kentucky unanimously agreed in Potter v. Eli Lilly Co. that Judge Potter could proceed to hold a hearing on the secret settlement under an inherent-powers doctrine allowing courts to protect the integrity of their procedures (Gibeaut, 1996). The Supreme Court justices wrote, In this case, there was a serious lack... 

---