3 ms·

The toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument in the US. Lobbying against lead regulation was one of the original motivations for the devel

The toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument in the US. Lobbying against lead regulation was one of the original motivations for the development of modern american libertarianism. Even fairly recently libertarian organisations like the Cato Institute have been fighting against regulation of lead and against compensation for those poisoned. When the topic of lead comes up on HN you often get comments arguing that it isn't really as toxic as claimed.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
> Even fairly recently libertarian organisations like the Cato Institute have been fighting against regulation of lead and against compensation for those poisoned. That's shocking and tragically sad.
- fixermark 11y ago
  Oh yes. The history of the Ethyl Corporation and Dr. Clair Patterson is fascinating, right up there with Rachel Carson and "Silent Spring." There's a very disturbing correlative graph between the banning of anti-knock lead additives from gasoline and the drop in violent crime rates in the United States. Correlation does not imply causation, but in this case it points feverishly at causation while wiggling its eyebrows and nodding its head suggestively.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Freakonomics suggested that the crime drop the US experienced in the 1990s was due to Roe v Wade but there is more evidence that it was because of the society-wide drop in lead exposure we experienced at the same time period.
cryoshon 11y ago
But... to argue lead is nontoxic is counterfactual!
- fixermark 11y ago
  Oh, definitely. But being able to argue it isn't toxic enough to necessitate a change in behavior is what makes a politician's career. Everything is toxic in the right quantity. ;)
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Since when would that stop the Cato Institute?
mason240 11y ago
>The ridiculous political bun-fight infects everything, it seems. It's a mental disease. Thanks for providing an example of the political toxicity the OP was talking about.
- anon1385 11y ago
  If you want to understand why the topic of lead brings out a lot of political comments when it should be something fairly uncontentious then you need to understand the history. Also I make no apologies for calling out organisations that literally lobbied to kill people.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Yeah, right. In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and being free of HIV is just the first stage of infection, decrying the ridiculous political bun-fight is itself a political stance. I try not to swear in these things, but fuck me. What a ridiculous statement. What a total piece of mental masturbation. Pointing out insanity is not insanity.
kevinpet 11y ago
Citation needed. On cato.org, I can find articles arguing against retroactive liability for lead paint manufacturers (since what they did was considered safe at the time they did it), and articles arguing that the 1970s introduction of unleaded gas was handled poorly and did not reduce lead exposure quickly enough after the problems were recognized. Can you point me to anything from Cato Institute that questions in any way the toxicity of lead? Your phrase "toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument" and you associate this with libertarianism. Please support or retract this claim.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Here's one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amok http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amo... > However, research findings that remain controversial except in federal agencies suggest that very low lead levels can decrease children’s IQs. The FDA therefore estimates that 10 percent of all children aged 3 to 6 have “elevated” lead levels (even though exposure has dropped to a 50-year low). > In other words, anything above zero exposure is assumed to cause measurable lifetime damage, despite the lack of evidence.
- ezy 11y ago
  You aren't in a position to demand anything. And, admit it -- you didn't look that hard. In fact, your research was so weak, that you failed to point out additional Cato-published opinions re:lead -- literally in the top google search results for the appropriate terms. Failing to do research when being critical is not anyone else's problem but your own. If you want to apply your skepticism correctly, the point is to test your own beliefs, not ask everyone else to test theirs. Not just reading from the sources that make you comfortable or attacking easy marks, but reading sources you disagree with, with a generous attitude and thinking about the hard questions related to those. A lot of the time, you'll find you are correct! And then when someone says something you know is incorrect, you'll actually have something to say, rather than asking them to say it for you. Otherwise, one should not be happy with following a fixed ideology, and you should be happy when people point out flaws -- as no one is happy with a clock that is correct only half the time.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

> Even fairly recently libertarian organisations like the Cato Institute have been fighting against regulation of lead and against compensation for those poisoned. That's shocking and tragically sad.

fixermark 11y ago
Oh yes. The history of the Ethyl Corporation and Dr. Clair Patterson is fascinating, right up there with Rachel Carson and "Silent Spring." There's a very disturbing correlative graph between the banning of anti-knock lead additives from gasoline and the drop in violent crime rates in the United States. Correlation does not imply causation, but in this case it points feverishly at causation while wiggling its eyebrows and nodding its head suggestively.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Freakonomics suggested that the crime drop the US experienced in the 1990s was due to Roe v Wade but there is more evidence that it was because of the society-wide drop in lead exposure we experienced at the same time period.

cryoshon 11y ago

But... to argue lead is nontoxic is counterfactual!

fixermark 11y ago
Oh, definitely. But being able to argue it isn't toxic enough to necessitate a change in behavior is what makes a politician's career. Everything is toxic in the right quantity. ;)
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Since when would that stop the Cato Institute?

mason240 11y ago

>The ridiculous political bun-fight infects everything, it seems. It's a mental disease. Thanks for providing an example of the political toxicity the OP was talking about.

anon1385 11y ago
If you want to understand why the topic of lead brings out a lot of political comments when it should be something fairly uncontentious then you need to understand the history. Also I make no apologies for calling out organisations that literally lobbied to kill people.
EliRivers 11y ago
Yeah, right. In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and being free of HIV is just the first stage of infection, decrying the ridiculous political bun-fight is itself a political stance. I try not to swear in these things, but fuck me. What a ridiculous statement. What a total piece of mental masturbation. Pointing out insanity is not insanity.

kevinpet 11y ago

Citation needed. On cato.org, I can find articles arguing against retroactive liability for lead paint manufacturers (since what they did was considered safe at the time they did it), and articles arguing that the 1970s introduction of unleaded gas was handled poorly and did not reduce lead exposure quickly enough after the problems were recognized. Can you point me to anything from Cato Institute that questions in any way the toxicity of lead? Your phrase "toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument" and you associate this with libertarianism. Please support or retract this claim.

DanBC 11y ago
Here's one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amok http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amo... > However, research findings that remain controversial except in federal agencies suggest that very low lead levels can decrease children’s IQs. The FDA therefore estimates that 10 percent of all children aged 3 to 6 have “elevated” lead levels (even though exposure has dropped to a 50-year low). > In other words, anything above zero exposure is assumed to cause measurable lifetime damage, despite the lack of evidence.
ezy 11y ago
You aren't in a position to demand anything. And, admit it -- you didn't look that hard. In fact, your research was so weak, that you failed to point out additional Cato-published opinions re:lead -- literally in the top google search results for the appropriate terms. Failing to do research when being critical is not anyone else's problem but your own. If you want to apply your skepticism correctly, the point is to test your own beliefs, not ask everyone else to test theirs. Not just reading from the sources that make you comfortable or attacking easy marks, but reading sources you disagree with, with a generous attitude and thinking about the hard questions related to those. A lot of the time, you'll find you are correct! And then when someone says something you know is incorrect, you'll actually have something to say, rather than asking them to say it for you. Otherwise, one should not be happy with following a fixed ideology, and you should be happy when people point out flaws -- as no one is happy with a clock that is correct only half the time.