Slashdot Mirror


Lead Exposure Kills Hundreds of Thousands of Adults Every Year in the US, Study Finds (theguardian.com)

Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: Last week, a massive new study concluded that lead is 10 times more dangerous than thought, and that past exposure now hastens one in every five U.S. deaths. Researchers at four North American universities, led by Bruce Lanphear, of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, studied the fate of 14,289 people whose blood had been tested in an official U.S. survey between 1988 and 1994. Four fifths of them had harbored levels of the toxic metal below what has, hitherto, been thought safe. The study found that deaths, especially from cardiovascular disease, increased markedly with exposure, even at the lowest levels. It concluded that lead kills 412,000 people a year -- accounting for 18% of all U.S. mortality, not much less than the 483,000 who perish as a result of smoking. The study has been published in the Lancet Public Health journal.

220 comments

  1. Lead kills by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Especially when fired from a Smith&Wesson.

    1. Re: Lead kills by Narcocide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually would have modded this post up if it wasn't for the utterly irrelevant racism. Maybe you should get your tap water checked for lead.

    2. Re: Lead kills by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      I think this fellow is living confirmation of the fact; no test needed.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is why you stand BEHIND the gun and not in front of it... but hey, kids are eating Tide Pods, so good luck.

    4. Re:Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a bit Too soon.. But ..

      I call this "High Speed Lead Poisoning" as opposed to the slow speed options... Although, these days, other materials are being used so it looses some of its impact...

    5. Re: Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So now it kills everyone in vicinity, not just immediate victims."

      Note lack of definite article (twice?). Is good sign of post by Kremlin sock-puppet.

      Derogatory divisive racist language also frequently adopted tactic.

      Analysis shows probability of paid stooge > 90%.

    6. Re:Lead kills by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Especially when fired from a Smith&Wesson"

      I think Colt would be way ahead, even if we are only talking about handguns.

    7. Re: Lead kills by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      All the more galling: YOU get modded down as Flamebait, and the racist AC gets modded up.

    8. Re:Lead kills by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Lead exposure saved lives today in Maryland. And took one. But at least the right life was took.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't underestimate lead exposure at an indoor range. I can taste it and now limit how much time I spend at the indoor range instead of at the outdoor range. There is a market for lead less target ammo, and they get a decent markup for it.

    10. Re:Lead kills by valnar · · Score: 1

      Especially in South Chicago.

    11. Re: Lead kills by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You really need to learn some tolerance.... I'm pretty sure it's not actual racism on the AC's part -- people throwing around that language tend to be trolls senselessly throwing around that rhetoric for attention, not racists, but a cry for help; marginilized and ignored by people for years, these under-the-bridge dwellers utter the most extreme things they can think of to try and get some attention; in other words, it's just the lead talking: that and the shit in the water under the bridge they've been drinking talks too.

    12. Re: Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the ignorant fool! Cars kill far more people than guns do in the US. And guns are actually pretty low compared to lots of other causes

    13. Re: Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *Tooken

    14. Re:Lead kills by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It's actually kinetic energy poisoning, you can be affected by it whether it's lead, DU, steel darts, glass, or any other matter.

    15. Re: Lead kills by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Cars kill far more people than guns do in the US

      You're arguing against a straw man. No-one is arguing that guns kill more people than cars.

      Trying to find a way to reduce gun deaths in the US doesn't preclude trying to reduce deaths from cars. Cars are tools with multiple purposes, none of which are 'to kill'. A gun's purpose is to kill. The number of deaths from cars is almost entirely from accidents. The number of deaths from guns (both suicide and homicide) is dominated by deliberate attempts to kill.

      Found the ignorant fool

      We have, indeed.

    16. Re: Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely contradicted yourself and your full of BS as well. Guns have multiple useful purposes as well like target shooting, competition and hunting(most US gun owners use them for these purposes). The intended purpose of a tool is irrelevant when looking at how many deaths are caused by it and cars cause exponentially more deaths than guns. Never forget that guns are constitutionally protected but cars are not. Your comment shows your bias against the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Get out of this country if you dont respect our Constitution and fundamental rights!

    17. Re: Lead kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why cant a car/truck be used as a weapon? That certainly seems like its purpose according to some recent Muslim terrorists. Also in case you didnt know the statistics over 50% of firearm related deaths are suicides which could still be done without a gun. Even including suicide statistics, cars are responsible for way more deaths compared to guns. You say the majority of people killed in car crashes are "accidents" but you are just normalizing bad peoples behavior as a lot of these fatal crashes involve people driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Personally I see that as murder because you were grossly negligent to the point that you drove and killed someone when you know you shouldnt have been driving. Again the intended purpose of the tool does not matter only the amount of deaths caused.

    18. Re: Lead kills by Methadras · · Score: 1

      It's not even a cry for help. It's just salty language used to make a point. Now whether or not you like that point is up to you.

    19. Re: Lead kills by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's not even a cry for help. It's just salty language used to make a point. Now whether or not you like that point is up to you.

      They might be trying to make what they think is a point, but as a result of the nonsense language, whatever their intended point might be gets completely lost --- and the only thing that can be heard is the lead and the s****

    20. Re: Lead kills by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      target shooting, competition and hunting

      Both target shooting and competition are essentially practising or demonstrating skill with a tool, they are separate purposes only if you're being especially pedantic.
      Hunting is killing.

      Try again.

      cars cause exponentially more deaths than guns

      Acknowledged and addressed in the original post. Repeating it doesn't make it any less a straw man. You introduced the argument that guns kill less people than cars. It's true. But irrelevant. No-one is saying otherwise. You can actually try to address a problem while another, bigger/worse problem is also addressed.

      Never forget that guns are constitutionally protected

      Never forget that the constitution can be amended.

      Can we get back to the topic, now or do you have some more straw-men you'd like to attack?

      Your comment shows your bias against the right to bear arms and defend yourself

      No, I'd like to discuss ways of reducing death by guns. That may need to include a reduction in firearms, tighter regulation and/or some other form of limitation. Number of guns is not, however, the only problem. Many other countries have higher rates of firearm ownership than the US with far lower levels of gun death. There needs to be cultural and social changes at a minimum and I suspect that they need to start with the removal or lowering of the reverence/fetishisation of guns.

      I'm questioning the right to bear arms. That's actually a vital part of being a citizen. Questioning and holding up the values that we hold. Demanding of ourselves and each other an accounting.

      defend yourself

      Thankfully I live in a sane country where the need for a gun to 'defend' myself is not as great as you seem to believe yours is.

      Get out of this country if you dont respect our Constitution and fundamental rights

      So you'll be leaving, seeing as you seem to have some kind of belief in an unchanging Constitution - which is against both the constitution and the intent of those who drafted it?

    21. Re: Lead kills by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Why cant a car/truck be used as a weapon

      It can, but the number of instances where that is the intent compared to those where it isn't is so close to zero that it's statistical noise.

      That certainly seems like its purpose according to some recent Muslim terrorists

      OMG. Muslims!

      Also in case you didnt know the statistics over 50% of firearm related deaths are suicides

      Yes.
      Yes I did.
      That's why I was careful to say "The number of deaths from guns (both suicide and homicide) ..."

      Are you actually reading what I write, or what you think I've written?

      which could still be done without a gun

      Technically true at only the most superficial level.

      The urge to commit suicide is, in many case, relatively short-lived. If there's easy access to a means (such as a gun) then the urge may be acted on. Removing or limiting access to an easy process means that by the time a method has been set-up or accessed, the urge has passed. There are studies that show that easy access to guns causes an increase in suicide; that removing guns drops that rate. That is, while some people will, in the absence of a gun find another way, for many removing the immediacy of means allows time for the crisis to pass.

      I can link you to some studies/research/papers that talk about this in detail if you are interested.

      Even including suicide statistics, cars are responsible for way more deaths compared to guns

      Yes. I know. I've never argued otherwise. In fact, I've pointed out that this argument is a straw man. No-one (whoops, you're a pedant) nearly no-one is arguing that guns kill more people than cars.

      The only reason I can think of that you keep bringing up car deaths is that you're implying that we shouldn't look at ways of reducing gun deaths until we reduce car deaths first. If there's another reason, I'd be happy to discuss it, otherwise this is a fallacy of relative privation.

      You say the majority of people killed in car crashes are "accidents"

      Yes, I'm talking about intent.
      The intention of (almost) all people who use a car is not to kill, therefore when their use of a car results in a fatality it is an 'accident'. Whether you consider them culpable is not what I am talking about. I am contrasting this with the intent of someone using a gun. The intent there is to kill (or to practice their skill with a tool designed to kill or to demonstrate their skill to others - to address the target and competition shooting pedantry, above). When there is a fatality as a result of a gun being used, that is rarely accidental.

      Personally I see that as murder because you were grossly negligent

      Then you are using a personal definition for the word 'murder'. Murder requires intent. A fatality without intent, even in the event of gross negligence is manslaughter. The very definition of murder is the _intent_ to kill. You can't just dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your other arguments.

      Again the intended purpose of the tool does not matter only the amount of deaths caused

      Yes, you've been quite clear that you'd rather not look at intent - either to distinguish between murder and manslaughter, or to distinguish between a tool designed to kill and one that kills only by accident or misuse.

  2. Figures, Lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Might explain why the fucking seppos are so fucking stupid. America, home of the dumbfuck.

    1. Re:Figures, Lead by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      Might explain why the fucking seppos are so fucking stupid. America, home of the dumbfuck.

      Thanks for demonstrating your superior intellect

    2. Re:Figures, Lead by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Might explain why the fucking seppos are so fucking stupid. America, home of the dumbfuck.

      So how much lead, and other entertaining substances, are you people getting from burning coal?

  3. This particular quote is interesting .... by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the study:" .... An especially striking and unexpected finding in these studies is that the association between lead and disease is proportionately greater at lower levels of exposureâ"a so-called supralinear dose-response relation. ..."

    So what they're basically saying is that homeopathy might be right to a certain degree?

    Interesting. Interesting indeed.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Megol · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not too interesting. Small doses give a higher response than a linear dose response would indicate, nothing more, nothing less. Magical water memory need not apply.

    2. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not exactly what they say. What they say is that 1/10th of a dose does not have 1/10th of the effect, as would be expected, but way more than 1/10th.

      It's still a far cry from the homeopathetic claim that 1/10th of a dose has ten times the effect.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right but it does explain how people got by eating and drinking from leaded pewter dishes every day while slathering them selves in lead based make up; and how later people managed to be mostly okay breathing exhaust from leaded gasoline.

      It explains quite nicely how a small amount of lead can cause both serious problems and at the same time mass lead exposure did not destroy society. Although there is thinking that it impacted crime rates.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the study:" .... An especially striking and unexpected finding in these studies is that the association between lead and disease is proportionately greater at lower levels of exposureâ"a so-called supralinear dose-response relation. ..."

      So what they're basically saying is that homeopathy might be right to a certain degree?

      Interesting. Interesting indeed.

      Ummm, not even fucking close.

      Waving a leaf from some plant past a bottle of water - homeopathy - is in another universe from something like "Yeah, we thought 6 ppb of lead was safe, but we're finding that even 2 ppb isn't safe."

      Homeopathy is still bullshit. I sure hope you don't label AGW skeptics "science deniers". Because if you do, you're one helluva fucking hypocrite.

    5. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Right but it does explain how people got by eating and drinking from leaded pewter dishes every day while slathering them selves in lead based make up; "

      They died with the Roman Empire, some scientists even say, lead is the cause of both deaths.

    6. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not what it means. Supralinear = graph is above the graph of a tangent linear function, e.g. logarithmic. What homeopathy assumes is a negative correlation between dose and effect, like in the 1/x function. I wonder what "association" means in that sentence though. It's sloppy wording.

    7. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Entrope · · Score: 3, Funny

      Homeopathy usually argues that the memory of the "disease" will trigger a cure -- so a hundred-quadrillionth of a dose cancels out the effect of a dose of some toxin that produces the same effect(s) as whatever you just didn't drink.

      Gasoline is unleaded, but retains the memory of being leaded before. So take a swig of gasoline to wash down your colon-cleansing detergent pods, and detox from lead exposure! The American Homeopathy Board approves this message!

    8. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It explains quite nicely how a small amount of lead can cause both serious problems and at the same time mass lead exposure did not destroy society.

      Nothing of the sort.

      A small dose is proportionally more harmful than a larger dose, not more harmful in an absolute sense. Basically what the study says is double the dose does not result in double the damage.

      If you've been exposed to lead, exposing yourself to more lead will not improve your situation... so put down that paint smoothie.
      =Smidge=

    9. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting lead exposure is good or that more lead exposure is better. The GGP was arguing that homeopathy works because small amounts of lead had impacts as significant as large ones.

      All I was saying is the fact that harm from lead exposure does not increase greatly with additional lead exposure helps explain why people got by "alright" when lead exposure at much higher levels was common. The point is after you have eaten a few chips the pain smoothie doesn't become good for you but its not as harmful (due to the lead anyway) as those first few chips where.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > tangent
      more like secant

    11. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      "Right but it does explain how people got by eating and drinking from leaded pewter dishes every day while slathering them selves in lead based make up; " They died with the Roman Empire, some scientists even say, lead is the cause of both deaths.

      Hell, they used to EAT the stuff. Look up Sugar of Lead...

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    12. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by nucrash · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fact that for a long time so many societies had shorter lifespans seems to be irrelevant, doesn't it?

      Violent Crime dropped in the US after removing lead from gasoline. After research, we have found out how lead affects the chemistry in the brain. The link actually exists and the science backs it up. Lead does nasty things over a lifetime.

      --
      Place something witty here
    13. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't start removing the lead from gasoline, they just stopped intentionally adding it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      ... The GGP was arguing that homeopathy works because small amounts of lead had impacts as significant as large ones...

      Or, the GGGP was being facetious. Poe's law.

    15. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GGP was arguing that homeopathy works because small amounts of lead had impacts as significant as large ones.

      The problem is, of course, if you're really arguing that homeopathy works, then you'd need to show adverse effects from less than one atom of lead.

    16. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then I guess we should all be really glad water doesn't remember how we mistreat it by abusing it to flush down our shit. Just imagine what potentially potentised diarrheatical effect this would have on all of us!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      and at the same time mass lead exposure did not destroy society

      The effects of lead poisoning take a while to matieralise. Do you think it's a coincidence that we were huffing the stuff in the 80s and now the best OS we were able to come up with was Windows 10? Open your eyes!

    18. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So homeopathic petrol is unleaded with added lead and then diluted with unleaded until there's no lead left?

    19. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so put down that paint smoothie.

      No.

      This smoothy is going to make America great again!

    20. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Homeopathy might be completely right IF they can give scientific data that it is the case. Without the scientific data? Not so much.

      Also note that dosage is VERY important in intake of anything, be it medicine, poison or food. e.g. taking half the birth control pills will not just double your chances of getting pregnant.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      hey died with the Roman Empire, some scientists even say

      Crappy theory, originally spread by the germans, and already debunked multiple times. The Roman Empire ended because of the barbarian invasions, not lead exposure, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted for more than 500 years.

    22. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess we should all be really glad water doesn't remember how we mistreat it by abusing it to flush down our shit. Just imagine what potentially potentised diarrheatical effect this would have on all of us!

      You clearly have never visited Michigan :P

    23. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2
    24. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by edtice1559 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Although it's fun to say that correlation isn't causation, the research into lead and crime rates is both extensive and solid. It's relatively easy to remove confounding variables because different countries removed lead from gasoline at different times with a subsequent reduction in crime. And lots of studies have been done looking for alternative explanations without much luck. Also we have good knowledge of how lead affects the brain which supports the causal hypothesis.

      Gun ownership and crime is surely a very complex topic where the interaction between the two variables makes establishing a causal relationship much harder. I've lived in rural areas where there is no police force. Rates of gun ownership were a big crime deterrent. Of course so was that fact that people were poor so there was no point of robbing them.

      Urban crime rates are likely influenced more by the drug trade than overall gun ownership. The reality is that there are probably geographies where increased gun ownership results in lower crime and other geographies where it results in higher crime. Also, a property crime is less severe than a violent crime which also makes the problem harder.

      In the US we don't have good data in this area because the pro-gun lobby fights any effort to study the problem. The only motivation for such a thing is a fear of what the data will show. You don't want an answer to be found if you're pretty sure you're wrong! I'm pro gun-control but I could be persuaded by data if there were honest attempts and objective studies.

    25. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      hey died with the Roman Empire, some scientists even say

      Crappy theory, originally spread by the germans, and already debunked multiple times. The Roman Empire ended because of the barbarian invasions, not lead exposure, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted for more than 500 years.

      More importantly, they outsourced their military to barbarians and then stopped paying them.

    26. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      That's from an editorial in Mother Jones about 5 years back which made a big splash on the Internet, but didn't provide much evidence (mainly it just asserted the correlation was strong enough to be irrefutable).

      A perusal of recent research on the topic turns up this recent JAMA paper which concluded that after controlling for childhood socioeconomic status, "Findings failed to support a dose-response association between BLL and consequential criminal offending." That would suggest that it's growing up in poverty which leads to future criminal behavior. And indeed if you look at the historical poverty rate, it dropped substantially right around 1970, around the time leaded gasoline began being phased out. And if you compare poverty rate by race, you find that the two races with the highest crime rates (black and hispanic) also have the highest childhood poverty rates.

      This study which states "The consequences of lead exposure for later crime are theoretically compelling, but direct evidence from representative, longitudinal samples is sparse," reaches pretty much the same conclusion, but may be more useful as it provides direct links to other Google Scholar papers on the topic.

      This isn't to say lead is safe. It's known to depress IQ, and though the link with future criminal behavior is weak, it is more strongly linked to antisocial behavior and delinquency. Just that the "irrefutable" link between leaded gasoline and crime presented in the Mother Jones article may in fact just have been a random correlation, not causation.

    27. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pose that question as if you've found some mutually exclusive information. That information should suggest that perhaps it is your ideology that is contradictory. There is nothing except the delusions of anti-gun nuts to suggest that violent crime rates are positively correlated with gun ownership. In fact, as you noticed, the opposite is true.

      That first red pill is the hardest one to swallow.

    28. Re: This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just the US, but everywhere. You can see when leaded petrol was phased out in a country or region from the violent crime statistics.

    29. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not surprised that there is someone commenting here who misses the obvious connection between modern research and increased life expectancy but I'm slightly surprised that you're so heavily upvoted.

    30. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Homeopathy usually argues that the memory of the "disease" will trigger a cure

      Basically the notion underlying vaccination, but bonkers.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    31. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Fully-leaded nibbers commit no more crimes than their strychnine-laced compatriots.

    32. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Butchering-out nibbers lowers the crime rate. Just like exterminating poisonous snakes lowers the snake-bite kill-rate.

    33. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always about your goddamned guns. You must be insufferable to be around.

    34. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      More importantly, they outsourced their military to barbarians and then stopped paying them.

      Live by outsourcing, die by outsourcing. This applies to many companies today sadly.

    35. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grecian_Formula

      Grecian Formula is a men's hair coloring product from Combe Incorporated. In the formulation used in the United States, it contains lead(II) acetate.[1] Because lead acetate is banned in cosmetics in Canada and the European Union, the formulations sold there do not contain it.[1][2] In 2017 Environmental Defense Fund and other consumer groups filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration to force the removal of lead acetate from Grecian Formula and other hair dyes.[3]

      Interesting to note that it wasn't until 2017 that EDF filed their complaint. Coincidence? I think it was not.

    36. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Objection! That's a leading question!

    37. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I am shocked, shocked, that fossil fuels, originally formed from biological materials, do not come out of the ground containing significant levels of lead!

      Or maybe it was a joke, and just like "wipe the server? like with a cloth?" nobody was supposed to take it literally.

    38. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Homeopathy claims that lower absolute dose causes increased absolute response. Half the dose, double response; tenth the dose, 10x response. This would be an inverse response, whether linear or non-linear.

      What supralinear means is that lower does causes lower response, but not as *much* lower. Half the dose, 3/4 the response. Tenth the dose, half the response. Not strictly linear but not inverse. So, the opposite, conceptually.

      And of course there's the entirely nonlinear case, like a trigger-type response in which an arbitrarily small dose causes an out-of-control huge response, such as with allergic reactions.

      With many toxins, and things like radiation, it's very difficult to quantify the very-low-dose response, because the stats are poor and you need huge study cohorts, all with well-known exposures, monitored over a long time period, to get decent predictions. Sometimes there is suspicion of a threshold-type sublinear response, in which very low exposure has essentially zero effect. Often it turns into a debate between precautionary principle and evidence-based decision making.

    39. Re:This particular quote is interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban crime rates are likely influenced more by the drug trade than overall gun ownership. The reality is that there are probably geographies where increased gun ownership results in lower crime and other geographies where it results in higher crime. Also, a property crime is less severe than a violent crime which also makes the problem harder.

      Economist John Lott did an extensive study of this, looking at crime rates reported in government statistics for all of the 4000-odd counties in the USA. He found that most categories of violent crime went down with firearms ownership, especially concealed carry - independent of rural versus urban, rich versus poor, and other standard demographics variables.

      The drug trade does seem to be the controlling variable for the vast majority of violent crime.

      Nobody has subsequently been able to demonstrate these results to be invalid, despite numerous attempts from various special interest groups (who end up resorting to lies and propaganda because they can't refute the facts).

      Nobody really understands the mass shootings (and similar incidents, such as that truck driver in France). There doesn't seem to be any dominant variable, or any explanation other than mental illness.

      My suspicion is that the USA has a lot more problems in this regard because it has higher rates of mental illness (real rates - whether or not they are reported as such) as a result of all the problems with health care, welfare, excessive concentration of wealth, corruption in politics, unethical practice of law, and the many forms of rent-seeking behaviour that are embedded in the legal system.

      Destroy people's hope for the future, make it impossible for them to advance themselves or at least their children, and you have to expect bad results including violence. Also, this isn't just a matter involving the lower class. If you have a lot of sociopaths able to advance themselves and get rich - which seems to be pretty common in the USA, it goes along with over-concentration of wealth and all the other problems - you'll also have problems with the children of the rich. Mentally-ill parents aren't going to do a good job raising kids.

      The USA badly needs to fix health care, welfare, education (including teaching people skills and social science to HS students), unethical practice of law and other forms of rent-seeking, and many other problems. But there are so many problems it isn't clear where to start - and lots of special interest groups with no interest in genuine change, and every problem is protected by a bodyguard of lies. It's a huge mess.

  4. Ban Lead #BanLead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now to make this my temporary profile pic.

    That'a how you fix it, right?

    1. Re:Ban Lead #BanLead by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You also need to come up with a rhyming chant that is simple enough for grade schoolers to repeat.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Ban Lead #BanLead by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Four legs good, two legs bad?

      Wait, that doesn't rhyme...

  5. Prepare for lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prepare for lawsuits. Let's start with Big Pencil. Think of the children!

    1. Re:Prepare for lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphite, not lead. But I wonder if carbon is toxic? Don't "they" say if you burn steaks on the grill the carbon is carcinogenic?

      Nope. Not carcinogenic if you burn your steak so badly it is only carbon left. It the intermediate products that are dangerous - i.e. burned meat where some of the meat is still identifiable as such.

    2. Re:Prepare for lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The carbon isn't carcinogenic, it's the acrylamide that is (or at least might be, it isn't proven).

  6. Overlap? by Calydor · · Score: 1

    How many people die ONLY because of lead exposure?

    How many people die ONLY because of smoking?

    How many people die ONLY because of diabetes?

    And so on and so forth. I'm more interested in the compound effects of multiple dangerous situations, eg. lead exposure AND smoking and so on.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Overlap? by cirby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The study claims that nothing else had any measurable effect - once you filtered them out, the effect from lead was exactly the same. ...which does bring up a couple of small doubts. There are a number of things that SHOULD cause the amount of lead in your system to have an increased or decreased effect, at least on a detectable level.

      While it's reasonable that very small doses of lead will have a negative effect, I'd like to see some followup on this one. They say "it causes more deaths," but how much? Ten years off your lifespan? Ten days? Somewhere in between?

      It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?

    2. Re: Overlap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more interested in how we can 'clean up' so to speak, by hyping expensive mandatory lezd-rremoval operations. Bring out the highly paid janitors in moon suits. Doubleplusgood if we can employ former sociology majors or unemployable 'white rasta' types in the cleanup operations.

    3. Re:Overlap? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      How many people die ONLY because of lead exposure?
      How many people die ONLY because of smoking?
      How many people die ONLY because of diabetes?

      I'm quite sure that living causes death.

      I haven't yet met anyone who has survived life.

      And remember . . . today is the last day of your life, so far . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Overlap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone alive today has "survived life"

    5. Re:Overlap? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Lots of blood tests over decades.
      That would help find out if it was always only lead after say 2000.
      What can new survey data for lead show all over the USA now?
      Paint use has changed.
      Lots of other pollution and a poor diet its still not getting much support.
      Something in poor areas that saw a new drop in IQ and a list of illnesses.
      Thats a lot of lead paint chips and dust.
      A lot of productive lead mines still open in many city limits?
      Is lead getting worked on and with all over the USA in all very poor areas?
      Clean up the lead.
      But don't stop looking at lead as the only problem.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Overlap? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I haven't yet met anyone who has survived life.

      I'm living proof of immortality. I haven't died once.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Overlap? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?

      I wouldn't call it a habit of the Lancet per say... Perhaps we should call it more of a profit center.

      Most medical journals have a perverse motive to increase circulation, attention by publishing studies that will bring them critical attention. In the case of the Lancet, they published a faked study about vaccines which they later retracted when it was shown to be faked years later by an investigative reporter. One questions their motives and lax editorial review processes because of things like this. But we really should realize that all of these publishers have the same perverse motives.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Overlap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?

      The Lancet is one of the best medical journals on the planet. But no journal is immune from publishing research which later turns out to be wrong. It's not as if any of them conduct their own experiments to verify the research (and medical studies inevitably have a lot of "noise" because they involve humans).

    9. Re:Overlap? by alexo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it a habit of the Lancet per say...

      <pedantic> per se </pedantic>

    10. Re:Overlap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?

      Being occasionally just flat wrong is part of science. Of course the goal is to make this as rare as possible, but the risk is there. Such is life.

  7. Bad news for heavy metal fans by protoporos · · Score: 1

    Especially for fans of Lead Zeppelin.

    1. Re:Bad news for heavy metal fans by Software · · Score: 1

      Ah, but since the band's name is "Led Zeppelin", they're OK. Although the name was taken from the phrase, "you guys will go over like a lead zeppelin", which is weird because many of them were famous musicians before they formed the group.

    2. Re:Bad news for heavy metal fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just means the lead poisoning was already impairing their cognitive abilities when they named the band.

    3. Re:Bad news for heavy metal fans by Altus · · Score: 1

      I believe the tale is that Page's idea to call the band "The New Yardbirds" was what would "go over like a lead zeplin."

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  8. Type 1 diabetes by slazzy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Lead may be a trigger in autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes as well.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:Type 1 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. So no that it's just scary.

      Type 1 diabetes means "requires insulin". No more, no less. The most common form of it is an auto-immune problem that destroys insulin producing cells. There is actually an effective treatment in testing at Mass. General Hospital, by Dr. Faustmann's lab, using the BCG vaccine in small doses to modify the white cell response and allow adult stem cells to transform into insulin producing cells. It's *very* exciting stuff.

      There is a great deal of immunological analysis and some biological testing that shows autoimmune Type 1 is triggered by infection, especially variants of the Coxsackie B flu virus. It's why some researchers have been trying to provide a diabetes vaccine. Part of the problem is that flu viruses mutate very quickly and very effictively, so even an effective vaccine wouldn't last long.

      Lead is a problem, but for pete's sake don't mix it up with other issues.

    2. Re:Type 1 diabetes by Megol · · Score: 1

      You may be right but your post are talking about something else than slazzy did.

      Trigger != only reason for.

    3. Re:Type 1 diabetes by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to some of the studies : http://www.diabetesandenvironm...

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  9. Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People at highest risk from cardiovascular disease are also at risk to exposure to lead. Lead based paint is still prevalent in some inner cities in older housing. Poor people live in this housing and die earlier than middle/upper income people. Poor people have a higher rate of cardiovascular disease. These studies are always so silly.

    1. Re:Unlikely by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Lead-based paint? OMG....
      Unfortunately, what you say makes sense.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Unlikely by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Lead and its compounds are generally non volatile. There's about as much danger from lead in paint as there is from lead on a church roof. Unless you're stupid enough to lick it or eat it which admittedly some children can be.

    3. Re:Unlikely by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If only there were some mathematical apparatus that would allow us to analyze the behavior of a variable with respect to multiple other variables...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When they test for income and socioeconomic status as confounding variables, but yet still see lead having a huge correlation with mortality...

      Some studies are quite silly, but so are the much larger number of people who think a whole ten seconds of thought can counter a study they didn't even read.

    5. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with lead paint is that it ages, and start to flake off. Then you have lead dust in your home, which will be inhaled or fall in your beer.

      The next problem comes when someone tear down the lead-painted wall in order to put up something newer and less toxic. Then the idiots burn the lead-painted planks to get rid of them. Lead smoke for everyone, lots of lead dust in the ashes.

    6. Re:Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Paint starts to flake, particularly by windows where sunlight comes in. Little kids sometimes sit by windows and look out and then suck their thumbs and ingest the lead. It is very common in the US. The kids aren't stupid, although you are ignorant.

    7. Re:Unlikely by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Paint deteriorates with time, flaking off and forming dust. I'm pretty sure that the leaded portion of paint is included in that dust. It's probably at greatest risk in poor housing where the lead paint is most likely to still be exposed to air.

      The leaded church roof won't form any meaningful dust but will leach minute levels of lead into rain that falls upon it, thus transferring lead to everywhere the roof's rainwater goes.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re: Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is because they aren't looking for the right thing. Lead paint is a big deal in cities where it was commonly used in pre-war housing. Just being "poor" doesn't mean you live in that housing. But if you looked at poor people who ALSO lived in housing with lead you would see a strong correlation. These lead paint studies are always made to support the idea that expensive remediation is needed (on taxpayer dollars).

    9. Re:Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      First you have to correctly identify the variables. They haven't. These studies come out all the time, and are false. They want to fund massive remediation programs.

    10. Re:Unlikely by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      Lead paint is common in _every_ house built before the mid 1970’s. If you look, you will find it. It is not just an inner city problem.

    11. Re:Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      True, but it is a bigger problem in poor (a.k.a "inner city") areas because the maintenance isn't typically as high as non-poor areas, and housing is typically older. Lead paint isn't a problem until it starts to deteriorate.

    12. Re:Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, furthermore I guarantee the blood samples they are using are taken from inner city people. Have you ever been tested for lead exposure? Probably not. But in (some) cities they have mandatory lead testing for children. Typically these samples are from poor(er) inner city people because those are the samples they can obtain. So they use these samples. They then make a bunch of connections in their studies that are false. For example the cardiovascular one. Next, someone will come out with a study that African Americans are more susceptible than anyone else to lead. The reality is the data is skewed. So stupid, but these lead studies come out every few years.

    13. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, compare lifespans of poor people in new low income housing in inner cities to old housing in inner cities for it to be valid.

    14. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatâ(TM)s the percentage of poor people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, or the City of Westminster? I donâ(TM)t think you can make such assumptions about inner city arenas... in London the poor are being squeezed out to the suburbs.

    15. Re:Unlikely by nasch · · Score: 1

      Did you read the paper, or are you just going off the /. summary?

    16. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the USA, 99% of the inner city inhabitants are poor. There are exceptions for a rare new construction for wealthy people, or gentrified areas. In urban areas, the inner city tends to be poor while the wealthy people live in the suburbs where they can have bigger houses, yards, and four car garages for their gas-guzzling SUVs. Keep in mind that here in the USA we have tons and tons of land compared the UK's little island, so there is plenty of room to spread out. That probably has something to do with it.

    17. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most young children will be licking the walls at some point... I'm guessing you're not a parent.

    18. Re:Unlikely by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      People at highest risk from cardiovascular disease are also at risk to exposure to lead. Lead based paint is still prevalent in some inner cities in older housing. Poor people live in this housing and die earlier than middle/upper income people. Poor people have a higher rate of cardiovascular disease. These studies are always so silly.

      Ah yes I've seen your posts before. You come up with some reasons off the top of your head that would explain away the study's findings, and just assume that the practitioners didn't take any of that into account. It's arrogance in the highest degree.

    19. Re:Unlikely by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      He doesn't read them, he just assumes that everyone else is stupid.

    20. Re:Unlikely by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how this got modded to +5. Do you think that study authors really make no attempt to control for these variables? The studies aren't silly. At least not the vast majority of them. What you do is you take into account factors such as poverty and then you look to see if those factors explain the entirety of an effect. If not you have some evidence that the factor in question (in this case lead) is contributory. Now some studies suffer from trying to control so many factors that you question whether it can be done accurately. But the only thing silly is calling studies silly.

    21. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when can poor people afford to live in inner cities?

    22. Re: Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not my beer!

  10. Similar tactics by dargaud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting to note the lead has been known to be toxic since at least the time of the ancient greeks. And yet the paint industry used it as its main component for white paint until something like WWII. They used the same tactics that have been later used by Big Tobacco and climate change deniers to delay change by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Particularly paying respected professionals (doctors, etc) to publish and deny toxicity.
    How do we know that ? When they were finally convicted, their archives were forced to become public and proved a treasure trove of assholery (or is that assholeness ?) There are several recent books and publications about that (namely in Scientific American)

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Similar tactics by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is a Big Lead opponent we can name.

      Memes can be re-used! The savings will be significant! Get the mimeograph machines churning out the leaflets!

    2. Re:Similar tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its just a normal aspect of society. We reject bad news on things we are (in general) directly familiar with, like or find useful. Lead is extremely useful. We like(d) cigarettes. We like sugar in our food.

      And we will continue to be that way. I see people instantly reject studies that suggest marijuana in dangerous, or vaping. The people that most staunchly reject those studies tend to be the people that use those products. If we saw a study tomorrow that said potatoes were dangerous, the instant reaction would be that something must be wrong with the study.

      Meanwhile, we collectively accept FUD on things we are less familiar with, like radiation/nuclear power (although X-Rays are fine). I remember how much of the public was afraid of microwave ovens for some time until we all got comfortable with them. Autonomous cars might be another example where FUD is readily accepted due to unfamiliarity.

      Yes, there can be other factors like the tobacco industry interests that play into social reaction, but they were more easily successful in playing down health impacts of cigarettes because of a largely accepting society.

    3. Re:Similar tactics by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Well eating varnish isn't good for you either... and in addition to making vibrant colors, lead in paint also acted as a preservative. But still, you'd hope they wouldn't lie about it and just own up to that it was dangerous, explain the benefits, and how to use it safely. Certainly the sales reps don't try to convince us that lab chemicals are safe, we just get trained on how to avoid being injured by them.

    4. Re:Similar tactics by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it's a conscious and deliberate choice by companies to exploit the natural tendency to be overly skeptical of change and overly accepting of the status quo. Yes, society is refractory when it comes to change, but it is not infinitely refractory. Without the calculated deceptions for companies profiting from the status quo, society would adapt to new information more quickly.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Similar tactics by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Assholesomeness

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re:Similar tactics by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Funny, I posted something very similar when this story was submitted and the submitter had included some bogus comment about how it was another instance of scientific experts being proven wrong :eyeroll:

    7. Re:Similar tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I referred to that in my last sentence. It is sometimes a deliberate choice by companies, other times it is not driven by companies but society itself. Certainly the burden of proof is greater for products or materials that we, as a society, find useful or enjoyable. Corporate influence is certainly easier in those cases because we allow it.

    8. Re:Similar tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These were the same tactics used by the opposition to Big Tobacco as well. Its just that they were right. These sorts of historical occurrences combined with all these studies that are constantly being proven wrong is a major reason why people don't trust things like vaccines and global warming. I get that the scientific process builds upon itself and that its a refinement process. When scientists tell most people "this low amount of lead is completely fine for you" and then years later say "well turns out it can kill you" people tend to disbelieve things like "this low amount of fluoride can't hurt you" or "vaccines can't really cause autism".

    9. Re:Similar tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this. And always beware the overreaction. For a while it was almost impossible to secure lead white artist's paint in tubes (because of its danger to small children??) and several lead based art products are still unavailable (lead gelled linseed oil, for instance).

    10. Re:Similar tactics by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Could we call it a memeograph?

      Also, I'm humming the jingle for Big Red, for some reason. Maybe Big Lead could be a gum that whitens teeth in the worst. possible. way.

    11. Re:Similar tactics by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      ... [ redacted due to not being relevant to my smartassery ] ... How do we know that ? When they were finally convicted, their archives were forced to become public and proved a treasure trove of assholery (or is that assholeness ?) There are several recent books and publications about that (namely in Scientific American)

      "Assholeness" or "asshattery" are the accepted terms.

    12. Re:Similar tactics by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with lead gelled linseed oil, but you might be able to get something close with some japan drier and boiled linseed oil?

    13. Re:Similar tactics by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      Lead was widely used as paint pigment in the US in residential housing until the 1970's. Special applications continued long after that.
       

    14. Re:Similar tactics by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sounds like denialist hand waiving. You know, like the line that in the 70's all the scientists were worried about a new ice age when that's total crap.

    15. Re:Similar tactics by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, we collectively accept FUD on things we are less familiar with, like radiation/nuclear power

      You wish it was FUD. Nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone. It costs far too much to build, maintain, decommission and deal with the waste for thousands of years compared to just about any other alternative under the sun.

    16. Re:Similar tactics by piojo · · Score: 1

      in addition to making vibrant colors, lead in paint also acted as a preservative.

      Lead also acts as a drying agent, helping paints to oxidize and form polymers. It has the distinction of being the only metallic curing agent that can be made without specialty chemicals or equipment and used at room temperature. No wonder manufacturers liked it.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    17. Re:Similar tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]Actually, it's a conscious and deliberate choice by companies to exploit the natural tendency to be overly skeptical of change and overly accepting of the status quo. Yes, society is refractory when it comes to change, but it is not infinitely refractory. Without the calculated deceptions for companies profiting from the status quo, society would adapt to new information more quickly.[/quote]

      To pin this on "companies" or "profiting" is fucking disingenuous. You should feel shame posting this.

      People skydive, rockclimb, streetwalk and engage in similarly dangerous behavior like riding a gas-thirsty Harley with or without a helmet. But these are things often without a single villain for busybodies to finger.

      Food, its excess, is more dangerous than smoking in moderation. But its not easy to blame a single corporation. If you only ate Foodex from Food Corp, it would be easier and politicians would be more so up the business of Food Corp and this so-called food product, "Foodex".

      No, what needed to happen was the embracing of individual responsibility and we never ought to have enacted prohibition or the very-racially tinted war on (some) drugs. This is obvious and only a statist moron would post to the contrary. Smokers will 'roll their own' from herbal shit (tobacco or otherwise). Just as they go out of their way to find a mountain or use high-maintenance and more-expensive-than-cars two-wheeled transport.

      Thus "companies" and "profiting" are not central to the equation.

      Oh ... 'nobody wants lead paint' you may say. Well, until other problems like sanitation and genocidal/fascist invaders are dealt with, it probably isn't tops on their radar screen either.

      Asbestos was once a useful insulation. Dangerous but not as dangerous as freezing to death. We have better alternatives now.

      That said ... I will grant a tendency to delay, but it is fucking peanuts compared to the tendency to over-react and outlaw rather than simply inform and allow consumers to decide.

      Don't like those cancer sticks? Return the unused portion for a refund. Done. Fuck off.

  11. Probably from unleaded gas by Dr.EvilBetty · · Score: 2

    From the dates that the blood samples were taken, 1988-1994, I would say that most people at that time had elevated lead levels from breathing all the leaded gas fumes for years previous. The mandate for catalytic converters went through in 1975 but, as I remember, it was into the 80's before all the leaded gas had stopped being available. I would bet that if that sampling were done now the levels would be much lower for most of the people sampled; at least the younger ones who were born after the switch to unleaded gas.

    1. Re:Probably from unleaded gas by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many believe that tetraethyl lead is responsible for the rise in violent crime in the 70s and 80s, tracking the increase in cars and gasoline consumption in the post WW2 years. Likewise the drop in violent starting around 1990 was the effect of lead-free gas.

      Other than the availability of safe, legal abortions, it's about the only factor anyone's come up with that explains the prevalence of the violent crime trend across countries and legal jurisdictions with very different philosophies with respect to crime. In the US the reduction parallels an increase in gun sales, but the same trend occurs in countries where gun sales are flat or have gone down.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Probably from unleaded gas by Immerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quite. In fact I recall a study done analyzing violent crime rates around the world that found in every country violent crime started climbing ~20 years after the introduction of leaded gasoline, and began falling ~20 years after it was eliminated. Basically, if you grew up breathing lead fumes, you were more likely to commit violent crimes as an adult. The fact that every country introduced and banned leaded gasoline at different times helps to eliminate most other confounding factors that might have been responsible.

      Not at all surprising as a social observation, considering we know that on an individual level lead exposure in childhood tends to boost aggressiveness while reducing impulse control.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Probably from unleaded gas by sjames · · Score: 1

      Very probably, but since the effect was seen even at levels currently considered "safe", it still suggests that we may need to change what we consider "safe".

      In some places that were adjacent to heavy traffic, we may need to clean up the left over lead.

  12. Oh crap... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess that's the end of my cavalier attitude towards lead-based solder - now that I've been soldering for 50-plus years and still use my lips as a 'third hand' to hold solder sometimes. I know it's elemental lead and therefore less readily absorbed, but still... I've had my blood tested for lead levels a few times, and never had any results that caused my doctor even mild concern. But now that I've read this... It's probably too late for me, but from now on I won't be making any more snarky comments about "politically correct solder".

    Lead based solder performs much better than the alternatives, because lead is an 'aggressive' metal. I guess even the elemental form may be similarly aggressive when it comes to biochemical activity. Of course, this also renews my concerns about the mouthful of mercury I have in the form of dental fillings.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Oh crap... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Your comment just reminded me of the two lead bars we had when I was a kid. They were ovals, with a company name and logo on the top side. Each one was about the size of a large bar of soap, but weighed 5 or 10 pounds. We would play with them sometimes, but only for a few minutes because of how heavy they were.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of the more recent lead-free solders work as well as standard lead-based ones - they have a silver content of about 3% and are not exactly cheap. Took us a while to find the right one, there are many awful hard-to-work lead-free solders around. We finally abandoned all the leaded solder to cut down on the annoyance of half-yearly lead tests required by local regulatories for having it around. Saved costs for tests more than made up for the higher costs of the solder.

    3. Re:Oh crap... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 2

      I have actually heard that lead based solder is environmentally better because it would lead (pun not intended) to less waste and contamination. The reasoning is that the eventual breakdown of tin based solder (whiskers, fractures, etc..) causes electronics to fail far more frequently and far sooner than they should otherwise, and so as a consequence instead of fixing it people will just throw their devices away and get another one and then meanwhile their old device will find its way into a dump site somewhere.

      That is just what I've heard. If anyone knows more about this I'd like to hear it.

    4. Re:Oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All solder has tin. It was mixed with lead prior. Now, it is mixed with silver, which makes it expensive. Still performs similar for lifetime assuming that you get a good connection.

    5. Re:Oh crap... by Megol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Short: conspiracy talk.

      Longer (TLDR?):
      Electronics doesn't die due to tin whiskers, the exempted areas that use leaded electronics (military, aviation, space, nuclear power plants, ...) are conservative and use what is known to work. Lead free solder require changes in soldering procedures which did cause problems previously (and in some cases still do) but whiskers aren't something commonly found in failed electronics.
      Most modern electronics die due to trends of everything having to be thin and light. That means we get electronics with smaller solder balls (shrinking BGAs with increasing number of connections), hotter temperatures and more varying temperatures (power management), devices more likely to suffer mechanical torture etc.

      Even if using leaded solder we'd have to use a number of different solders for different purposes and have the associated problems:
      One nice example being the Nvidia problem where BGA chips disconnected after some thermal cycling. While some claim the problem was in the underfill (material going around solder balls "gluing" the BGA chip itself to the substrate) it was often temporary fixed by trying to resolder the BGA chip in place. But the problematic chips used high-lead solder so it's not indicative of problems with lead free solders.
      Other similar problems like for the Xbox 360 have sometimes been blamed on lead free solder (no idea if that's correct) but as the above indicates this is something shared by modern electronics not matter which kind of solder is used.

      Also fashion/trends make people throw away perfectly good electronics long before they fail. I still have electronics produced with early lead free methods and they work exactly as they should - though that is of course just an anecdote rather than proof.

    6. Re:Oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only known one person to test positive for lead exposure and like you, she had a bad habit of using her lips as a third hand on regular basis. Both, her and me were required to have lead exposure tests every 6 months. Her requirement was due to being a solder paste screen operator and I was required because I was a flow solder and solder fountain operator. I also had to perform PM on the machines while wearing a Tyvek bunny suit. I never had a detectable trace of lead.

    7. Re:Oh crap... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, I haven't personally noticed problems with lead-free solder on SMT components - probably because most of the repair work I've done has been on lower-tech electronics where the parts and packages are larger and the connections are much less dense. My beef with lead-free has to do with through-hole components, especially those that carry higher currents and/or are subject to thermal cycling. I've seen quite a few such joints fail, even with plated holes, suitable hole sizes relative to the leads, and solder fillets on both sides of the board. I didn't see this kind of thing nearly as often before lead-free solder came on the scene. The lead-free solder just seems to be more brittle. Maybe the thermal cycling causes some work-hardening - I can imagine lead being much less susceptible to that.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    8. Re:Oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have actually heard that lead based solder is environmentally better because it would lead (pun not intended) to less waste and contamination. The reasoning is that the eventual breakdown of tin based solder (whiskers, fractures, etc..) causes electronics to fail far more frequently and far sooner than they should otherwise

      Don't know where you came across that little tidbit, but it might interest you to know that lead-based solder is 60% tin (occasionally more). So while it might be problematic for various reasons, the mere presence of tin isn't going to be a differentiating factor.

    9. Re:Oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead based solder performs much better than the alternatives

      I've never found lead-based solders to be particularly easy to work with or better quality despite what old-timers always say. Tin+copper sucks, but add a little silver and suddenly it's like magic...very easy to work with, great signal quality even if your joint sucks, etc.

    10. Re:Oh crap... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Unleaded solder has a higher melting point. It requires a hotter iron, preferably a higher end model with an active tip. It also requires a better technique in order not to overheat components.

      The industry had a hard time with unleaded solder. With joints cracking and all that. So much that for some time, critical components liked the ones used by the aerospace industry could use leaded solder despite the general ban.

    11. Re:Oh crap... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The industry had a hard time with unleaded solder.

      It's not a past tense thing. The industry continues to have a hard time with unleaded solder - the great "iPhone Touch Plague" that hit pretty much every iPhone 6 and 6+ comes to mind -- due to the solder joints cracking on a BGA chip.

      Tin whiskers continue to be a poorly-understood reliability issue, with component manufacturers regularly publishing app notes about mitigation strategies. We've had huge improvements vs 2008, but it's not a "solved" problem yet.

      Lead solder is one of those issues where exposure is not a problem if the people using it care about the risks, and can take the (almost trivial) precautions.

      The problem, of course, is that employers often don't care about the risks of lead, combined with employees who don't care either -- and of course on the other end, we have countries that feel it's acceptable to ship any e-waste to a country that isn't able to recycle it safely.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  13. Bronze Age life expectancy 26 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pewter with lead came in during the Bronze age... where the life expectancy was 26 years. So I'm not clear where you're going with that? They dropped dead like flies.

    Mostly ok??? 26 years?

    Same with the makeup, white lead face powder was banned because in the 18th century exactly because it was lethal.

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/objectretrieval/node/111

    "Although this era was known as the Age of Enlightenment, most fashionable men and women poisoned themselves with red and white lead make-up and powder. (Swinfield: p97) The make-up they used caused the eyes to swell and become inflamed, attacked the enamel on the teeth and changed the texture of the skin causing it to blacken, it was also not uncommon to suffer baldness, and for a time it became fashionable to shave the front hairline. It was known that heavy use of lead could cause death. (Baker: p210) "

    Yeh, sure the eyes swelled up and they went bald and black and toothless, and some died but the rest were mostly ok??? Really?

    In a way, if the Florida students were mostly ok, because only 17 of them were killed. So I guess it's a new way of looking at the world. Deny the obvious and talk down the consequences. Whatever happened to the assault rifle ban.... ah yes the NRA had a chat with Trump. But that's OK, there are a lot of student who haven't been shot yet.

    And lead in pipes? Well sure it kills, but my mansion has PVC piping, so I'm fine, so that's OK right?

    1. Re: Bronze Age life expectancy 26 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the definition of false equivalency

    2. Re:Bronze Age life expectancy 26 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much straw do you have in your back yard?

  14. Thomas Midgley Jr. - Mr. Lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is your villain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

    "played a major role in developing leaded gasoline (Tetraethyllead) and some of the first chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), better known by its brand name Freon"

  15. Re:Shooting ranges. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Funny

    Come at me bro! My address is: 192.168.1.101.
    You stupid pig fucker.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  16. Flint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must suck if you live in Flint, MI where you still don't have clean drinking water...

  17. Re:Shooting ranges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up. Why don't you post logged in so I can find you and kick your ass

    The irony is strong with this AC ...

  18. Fishing weights by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 1

    Fishing weight used to be made of lead... My grandpa would sometimes make some at home, melting the metal on a small gas burner. I remember playing with them quite a bit as a kid, they were exquisitely heady.

    Since I don't fish, I don't know what these are made of today ... Still lead?

    1. Re:Fishing weights by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

      Often tungsten these days, usage of lead is banned in all US national parks for fishing, in fact probably almost all fishing areas, but they're still "floating" around and people still use them to a limited extent, especially if they've got old fishing equipment.

    2. Re:Fishing weights by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Fishing weight used to be made of lead...

      And you had to bite them in order to make them open up before putting them on your line, and then bit them again to close them on the line. At least as a kid that's what I had to do, because I didn't have the finger strength.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:Fishing weights by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Still lead. I still use my teeth to tighten them on the line. Oh well. I also make stained glass with lead solder, so I'm prolly gonna die.

    4. Re:Fishing weights by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      At least here in Ontario, lead fishing sinkers are still available. I purchased some recently as weights for adjusting thread tensions on sewing machines.

      Your grandfather used lead to make sinkers. My dad used sinkers as a source of lead; he melted them down and poured the lead into the holes he had drilled in the head of one of his putters. He was tuning the balance so the club would be more accurate.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:Fishing weights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in fact probably almost all fishing areas, but they're still "floating" around and people still use them to a limited extent, especially if they've got old fishing equipment.

      From practical experience it's fishing line that should be outlawed. Those fuckin' filthy assholes leave that shit everywhere and it tangles up birds, fish, amphibians, kids, and just about everything else.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Re:Shooting ranges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh yeah? My address is 127.0.0.1 come at me brah!

  21. I expose myself every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...exposing yourself to more lead will not improve your situation...

    But I do my best to expose myself every day...at least for a few minutes.

  22. Re:Look at the real statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life causes death in 100% of all known cases of either.

    I have life, I have not died. You cannot prove that I will die until I do, so until all life is extinguished we can't say all life causes death.

  23. Link to the original article: by quenda · · Score: 2

    I don't need the karma whoring, but why not. Here I think, is the actual article in the Lancet by Lanphear et al.

    abstract: http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

    full text: http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

    1. Re:Link to the original article: by Jerry · · Score: 1

      This full text link works:
      http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  24. Re:more garbage science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or makes you black.

  25. Millions were killed by Tetraethyl Lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lead contamination in the environment dated from about the time that tetraethyl lead (TEL) became widely used as a fuel additive in gasoline. Deepwater, NJ across the river from Wilmington, was the site for DuPont's TEL production. Everyone growing up in the post WWII years was, to some degree, poisoned by TEL in gasoline.

    The EPA's TEL phasedown didn't begin to be implemented until 1976. Then EPA mandated that lead additive be reduced by 91 percent by the end of 1986. A 1994 study had indicated that the concentration of lead in the blood of the U.S. population had dropped 78% from 1976 to 1991.

    Workers in the TEL industry had significant health effects. Those that worked with leaded gasoline were likewise effected. Old gasoline stations facing lead remediation will be a monument to this problem for many years to come.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

    1. Re:Millions were killed by Tetraethyl Lead by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      in fact, that was the single largest source of lead to Americans back in the 70s. Next came house paint, which ALL contained lead. Any house made before the 70s, has lead on the walls.
      What is interesting is that back then, coal plants were a small % of our electricity and lead as well. But after 3-mile island combined with the china syndrome, Coal plants jumped to 60% of our electricity. Needless to say, by mid 80s, they were #1 source of lead and mercury around our nation. Still far less than in China, but enough to impact us. Now, with the mercury clean-up and shutting down of coal plants, I believe that our #1 emitter of lead/mercury is our steel mills. Thankfully, Project Tim in Michigan will kill that off.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Millions were killed by Tetraethyl Lead by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      in fact, that was the single largest source of lead to Americans back in the 70s. Next came house paint, which ALL contained lead. Any house made before the 70s, has lead on the walls.

      What is interesting is that back then, coal plants were a small % of our electricity and lead as well. But after 3-mile island combined with the china syndrome, Coal plants jumped to 60% of our electricity. Needless to say, by mid 80s, they were #1 source of lead and mercury around our nation. Still far less than in China, but enough to impact us. Now, with the mercury clean-up and shutting down of coal plants, I believe that our #1 emitter of lead/mercury is our steel mills. Thankfully, Project Tim in Michigan will kill that off.

      Do you have actual data to back that up? Looking at this graph and this graph, coal generation in the 70's was around 1/2 of the total generating capacity and doesn't seem to have any correlation to Three Mile Island or the release of The China Syndrome (both 1979).

      --

      Enigma

  26. Good that America cleaned up our coal by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, either cleaning up or shutting down coal plants is one of the smartest economical things that we did in a while.
    Even now, our lead on the ground is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. As such, our children will have much lower medical costs than what we have today. The rest will be gone over the next 20 years, if not 10.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re: Good that America cleaned up our coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the lead contamination was due to automotive exhaust gases, not coal power stations. Petrol used to contain a lead-based anti-knock additive.

    2. Re: Good that America cleaned up our coal by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      All because General Motors could make more money from adding lead to petrol instead of ethanol to increase octane rating.

    3. Re: Good that America cleaned up our coal by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That was true in the 70s. But for the last 20+ years, coal power plants has been America's main emitter. Btw, steel mills will become the new main source for America, even though it is small.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: Good that America cleaned up our coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more offshoring our lead poising, slap a tariff on steel and bring that poison home. Go Trump.

    5. Re: Good that America cleaned up our coal by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall reading that our biggest Mercury exposure comes from burning coal as well.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  27. Re:more garbage science. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    yeah, it could not possibly be that the lead in the blood leads to poor health esp in our immune system, which then allows for regular bugs to kill us off. No, not that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Re:Look at the real statistics by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    This is NOT an anti-lead study. It is a pro-death one. They are simply showing how to accelerate the deaths.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Thanks to coal-fired plants by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    Lead is but one of the heavy metals that coal fired plants spew into the environment, in massive amounts. Compared to them, nuclear plants are decidedly clean.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Thanks to coal-fired plants by quenda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lead is but one of the heavy metals that coal fired plants spew into the environment, in massive amounts. Compared to them, nuclear plants are decidedly clean.

      This is all true, but lead is a very small part of that problem. Only 41 tonnes of lead from coal in 2014, compared to around 100 tonnes from leaded avgas, and over 100,000 tonnes/year back when cars used leaded gasoline.

      https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-e...

    2. Re:Thanks to coal-fired plants by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Thank you good sir, for the information.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  30. Re:more garbage science. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    Could you point us to where your peer reviewed article is published rebutting this research? Because if you can't, you're just talking out your ass with nothing to back those words up.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  31. Re:more garbage science. by BoRegardless · · Score: 0

    Instead I would suggest that "Bad neighborhoods" keep you poor.

  32. The Carrot Effect by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Substitute the word "Lead" with "Carrot" and see if it remains the same.

    If you test hard enough you can find tiny bits of anything in everything.

  33. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    Last week, a massive new study concluded that lead is 10 times more dangerous than thought

    There was this guy in my town who died of thought. He was an electrician and he thought he'd pulled the master fuse out.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  34. 99% of Martians are murderes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along with this, nearly every Martian has killed a human at least once this month. If you now a Martian please ask him to leave the planet at once.

  35. Re:more garbage science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we have the cause and effect backwards. Stupid children chew on paint more so than smart ones.

    As a kid, I grew up in houses loaded with lead paint. But I didn't lick the walls. I'm now a member of Mensa.

  36. Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the lead poisoning from all of the people shot in the US or being shot by the US military outside the US?

    1. Re:Bullets by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Lead toxicity is only a problem for survivors of gun violence (which, to be fair, is still 65-70% of those affected). The Hollywood meme of removing the bullet in a darkened warehouse is the opposite of reality: removing the bullet is usually far more dangerous than leaving it in place.

      The body usually encapsulates the bullet, and that usually eliminates further damage from the bullet. But not always.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  37. I Hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That chronic lead exposure leads (hah!) to an inability to correctly capitalize sentences.

  38. The study is based on blood tests by istartedi · · Score: 1

    From TFS:

    Lanphear and colleagues examined potential confounders and effect modifiers, including age, sex, ethnic origin, urban residence, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, serum cholesterol, alcohol intake, and household income. They noted no appreciable attenuation of their estimates by any of these factors. The effect of lead on all-cause mortality and on cardiovascular disease mortality was greater in people younger than 50 years than in older adults, and it was significantly larger for non-smokers than for smokers.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  39. Re:more garbage science. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    The mods must be crazy. You're the second one to get modded-up today for such an uninsightful comment. Sorry but if you've ever *read* a study, the first thing that every author does is try to control for these variables and determine whether or not there is an additional effect. Now one fair criticism is that maybe the effect of lead is *less* than the other factors (I don't know). But there's not a single study out there that doesn't go through the process of controlling for known factors.

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Re:Lead kills: Earp et al (1886) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. Ya don't say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, furthermore I guarantee the arrests they are using are taken from inner city people. Have you ever been arrested? Probably not. But in (some) cities they have mandatory arrests for children. Typically these arrests are from poor(er) inner city people because those are the arrests they can obtain. So they use these arrests. They then make a bunch of connections in their studies that are false. For example the black people commit more crime one. Next, someone will come out with a study that White Americans are more susceptible than anyone else to arrests. The reality is the data is skewed. So stupid, but these arrest studies come out every few years.

  43. slanted treatment of data? by Jerry · · Score: 1

    "Thus, 14289 (76%) participants were included in this analysis. 1150 (9%) individuals had concentrations of lead in blood below the level of detection and had an amount of 07 g/dL (0034 mol/L) imputed."

    So, for 9% of those still alive whose Pb blood level was below the level of detection they "imputed" their Pb level at 0.7 micrograms per deciliter.

    "Our findings suggest that, of 23 million deaths every year in the USA, about 400000 are attributable to lead exposure, an estimate that is about ten times larger than the current one."

    "suggests"? A British journal citing work by a Canadian research team about children in America and their findings, claiming an influence 10X larger than previous research, are a "suggestion".

    The Lancet has taken huge detours into politics in the last few decades and this appears to be another side jaunt. What issue in American politics could they possibly be trying to influence? Obama shut down the last remaining lead mining and processing plant in Missouri in 2013, and by E.O. outlawed importing Lead into the country.
    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    1. Re:slanted treatment of data? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The thing is the more we study how Lead interacts with the body, the more we find that Lead is among the exceptions to the addage "the dose makes the poison." The more we look at it, the more we realize that there is no "safe" amount of Lead.

      Even then, while the Missouri plant was shutdown, the key takeaway is that it's the last plant dedicated to processing Lead.

      There are other mines which continue to produce lead in the US -- it's just that lead is a byproduct, not the main attraction.

      The Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah started with the discovery of lead deposits in 1863. The "catch" is that lead isn't the mine/smelter's primary product (which is copper). They still produce quite a bit of lead, which is a byproduct of smelting the copper & gold ore.

      The reality is that 88% of lead used in the US is from lead-acid batteries -- which are both produced and recycled outside the US (just like everything else, because of lower labor costs).

      Eurpoe's RoHS all but eliminated lead use for electronics, and the high price of copper has caused everybody to switched to PEX for plumbing (which doesn't use/need solder).

      That really only leaves ammunition as a major use of lead in the US, and the lead produced as a "byproduct" of producing other metals is sufficient for America's hunger to shoot more cast boolets. Even with shortages caused by "preppers" hoarding a decade's worth of ammo for the apocalypse du jour, the problem wasn't a shortage of lead -- but powder and brass.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  44. Avgas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet we still haven't stopped adding lead to aviation gasoline, because it's "too expensive".

  45. And what are the options to remove it besides EDTA by chatoitaly · · Score: 1

    And yet nobody is talking about EDTA (especially taken orally and not through IV)?? There is a phase 2 trial ongoing. Results of phase 1 were still pretty fascinating. EDTA has the ability to bind to substances such as Lead and then it is able to be eliminated from the body. Where is our real Artificial Intelligent systems that can do incredibly deep and wide searching of data and begin to truly allow us to make more intelligent decisions on how to reach longevity through optimal choices of lifestyle, foods, medicines,etc. We know lead is bad, so give us dang options to remove it !

  46. Protection by Grady+Martin · · Score: 1

    Lead dust is as small as 0.1 microns in diameter.

    N95 and HEPA respirator filters only block airborne particles at least 0.3 microns in diameter.

    The CDC hereby recommends wearing scuba gear for respiratory protection at the firing range.

  47. Re:more garbage science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That peer-reviewed article does show there is a link between poverty and mortality. It says nothing about poverty increasing lead exposure leading to lowered life expectancy. In fact it has nothing to do with TFA whatsoever, except it's also a study involving one factor in life expectancy. It does nothing to refute or invalidate TFA.

  48. well, DUH - it's the Lancet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They completely destroyed their credibility during the Iraq war. Now everybody is on notice that they put politics above reality and everything they print should be considered a partisan political "factoid" designed for propaganda purposes, rather than a non-political FACT.

    How'd they do that? Well, it started when they blamed George Bush for ALL the deaths in that war and after it. All the deaths caused by US actions, all the deaths caused by the troops of Saddam Hussein's forces, all the deaths cause by Sunni terrorists, all the deaths caused by Shia terrorists, all the deaths caused by allies, etc. Apparently, according to the Lancet, Iraq was a paradise before the war where nobody died AND nobody involved in the war or after it was responsible for his/her own actions. That sort of thinking was rejected by the civilized world at the Nuremberg trials post WWII where it was agreed that bad actors do not get to claim innocence for their actions and transfer the blame to a single far-away leader. Even the NAZI defendants at Nuremberg lacked the craziness to blame all casualties on all sides plus all post-war casualties on one person.

    The Lancet, a formerly very respectable publication, only went downhill from there. Now they push all the fashoinable left wing political issues, like global warming and gun control.

  49. Sponsored by? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    The lead abatement companies.

  50. Re:more garbage science. by rsborg · · Score: 1

    > lead exposure doesn't lead to an increased death rate.

    Except study after study shows it. Seriously, [cite needed] for your backwards-ass claims.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Re:more garbage science. by rsborg · · Score: 1

    This study controlled for those factors and still saw a causative factor. Explain that.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. Re:more garbage science. by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Go ahead and point to animal toxicity studies. I'll take a 6-year study that actually shows results from humans (with a very large N as well).

    I'll dig that.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting