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.

17 of 220 comments (clear)

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

    Especially when fired from a Smith&Wesson.

  2. 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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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=

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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 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: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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. 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.