# Notre Dame on fire **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 15, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584 "2019-04-15T17:24:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/301 "2019-07-18T09:28:44Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > From the Guardian: > > [The lesson from the ruins of Notre Dame: don’t rely on billionaires](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/18/ruins-notre-dame-billionaires-french-philanthropy) A bit of a non-story. It was obvious from the outset that even billionaires usually can’t put together hundreds of millions of Euros in cash without a bit of forward planning. Nor is there any actual need for them to pay immediately. Even with a 2024 deadline for completion, the money won’t be spent all at once. It was therefore always going to make sense that the small donations already received would be used to fund the initial stages of the restoration and that the big donations would be called in only as the project progresses. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/302 "2019-07-18T09:34:29Z")
What’s testing for lead poisoning got to do with the donations? The article doesn’t explain it. Does Notre Dame have to pay for the testing, rather than it coming from those incidental funds any Mutuelle is supposed to have in the French UHC system? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/303 "2019-07-18T10:56:15Z")
> [@APB](#): > > A bit of a non-story. It was obvious from the outset that even billionaires usually can’t put together hundreds of millions of Euros in cash without a bit of forward planning. Nor is there any actual need for them to pay immediately. Even with a 2024 deadline for completion, the money won’t be spent all at once. It was therefore always going to make sense that the small donations already received would be used to fund the initial stages of the restoration and that the big donations would be called in only as the project progresses. Then why don’t those billionaires simply say so, or explain what they intend to do? They are not replying to questions, or making any statements. If you still want to believe they will come up with the money, fine. > [@Nava](#): > > What’s testing for lead poisoning got to do with the donations? The article doesn’t explain it. Does Notre Dame have to pay for the testing, rather than it coming from those incidental funds any Mutuelle is supposed to have in the French UHC system? The point isn’t the cost of testing for lead poisoning. The point that all that lead needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible, which costs a lot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/304 "2019-07-18T11:22:37Z")
But the article mentions the testing as if it was part of the costs that will be incurred due to the presence of lead. If the costs in question are already covered, what do donations have to do with it? And if donations have nothing to do with it, why mention them, other than to have a line about how the evil, evil millionaries are hurting babies? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2019, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/305 "2019-07-18T12:22:49Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > But the article mentions the testing as if it was part of the costs that will be incurred due to the presence of lead. If the costs in question are already covered, what do donations have to do with it? And if donations have nothing to do with it, why mention them, other than to have a line about how the evil, evil millionaries are hurting babies? The longer the lead stays there and the risk to health continues, the higher the ongoing costs of testing. The cost of removing the lead is significant and not covered, so the associated costs continue to increase, and the danger to health remains. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584/306 "2019-11-15T16:12:58Z")
Bumped. Just got a thank-you letter and solicitation for an additional donation from Friends of Notre-Dame de Paris. For those who’d also like to donate: [https://www.notredamedeparis.fr/friends/](https://www.notredamedeparis.fr/friends/) Now if only all those French billionaires and companies who eagerly offered to help soon after the fire would actually pony up… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notre-dame-on-fire/832584.md?page=15)