4 ms·

> The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership being brain damaged by lead FWIW, modern historians don't believe that. See http

by herge 11y ago

> The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership being brain damaged by lead FWIW, modern historians don't believe that. See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_cosmos_neil_degrassetyson_said_some_historians/cgyxmj3 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_co... for a rundown of the modern scholarship on the question, including a breakdown of Nriagu's arguments.

themartorana 11y ago
If the Romans knew lead pipes made water unhealthy, how did we end up with so much lead piping? (I'm not asking the question as a refutation, I'm genuinely curious - was this a lesson we forgot??)
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  You could also ask why lead was used for gasoline when it was known that lead was toxic. The reason is simple. People knew it was toxic and caused brain damage ('madness' in Roman terms) at high levels of exposure. What they didn't realise is that very small levels of exposure could cause an internal buildup over time and cause steady mental degradation. If someone is exposed to massive heavy metal poisoning and immediately goes crazy, the correlation is obvious. If an entire generation slowly gets more violent and crime rates go up, then it's much, much harder to spot the issue because everyone is changing at the same time.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    Almost everything is poisonous in large doses. This really complicates such research.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - orionblastar 11y ago
    In the USA alcohol was prohibited in the 1920s, and there was a knocking problems with gas engines going over a certain speed that needed to be fixed. They tried different additives until they found lead works. People got sick on the exhaust but the industry covered it up. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that people got sick on the lead in the exhaust that they switched to ethanol an alcohol based on corn. Prohibition was over by decades by then and ethanol was healthier than lead and solved the knocking problem plus farmers made money growing corn to add to the gas. Lead paint was the same way, they hid the fact that it made people sick so they could sell more of it. Lead pipes or copper pipes with lead soldier was used the same way and the safety risks were hidden to people as well. Lead is a neurotoxin and leads to mental illnesses and brain damage. People effected might have violent outbursts and get arrested for crimes. If there is lead in the water supplies of the poor neighborhoods that minorities live in it could be the cause of crime by those who drink the water, bathe in it, cook with it, etc. This is being hidden as well and just now is being reported on by some news media companies. Corporations get away with stuff like that because of the ignorance of the public and their short-term memories. Lead has always been a neurotoxin but people tend to forget that and it gets covered up when it is used in products and pipes and other stuff.
mike_hearn 11y ago
The rundown of the scholarship and the following debate is useful, but I found that post to be immediately suspicious as it simply asserts, repeatedly, that "legitimate scholars" and "legit historians" ignored it or don't agree. I find such language to be a strong indicator that someone is about to try overstating their case, and is trying to discourage people from challenging their assertions by dismissing other views. An unfortunately common problem with historians, I've found. I think the guy is correct that the "fall" of Rome is a complex topic and it's not entirely clear what this fall really consists of. But it's known from skeletal analysis that some Romans did indeed have very high lead levels in their bodies, we know what kinds of effects that can have, etc. Saying Rome fell exclusively because of lead piping would be perhaps overstating things, but we know that our own much more advanced society was becoming more and more violent until lead was removed from gasoline: if that connection had never been made or the solution never happened it's not hard to believe that in a hundred years or so we'd be existing in a far, far worse state.

by herge 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago

If the Romans knew lead pipes made water unhealthy, how did we end up with so much lead piping? (I'm not asking the question as a refutation, I'm genuinely curious - was this a lesson we forgot??)

mike_hearn 11y ago
You could also ask why lead was used for gasoline when it was known that lead was toxic. The reason is simple. People knew it was toxic and caused brain damage ('madness' in Roman terms) at high levels of exposure. What they didn't realise is that very small levels of exposure could cause an internal buildup over time and cause steady mental degradation. If someone is exposed to massive heavy metal poisoning and immediately goes crazy, the correlation is obvious. If an entire generation slowly gets more violent and crime rates go up, then it's much, much harder to spot the issue because everyone is changing at the same time.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Almost everything is poisonous in large doses. This really complicates such research.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- orionblastar 11y ago
  In the USA alcohol was prohibited in the 1920s, and there was a knocking problems with gas engines going over a certain speed that needed to be fixed. They tried different additives until they found lead works. People got sick on the exhaust but the industry covered it up. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that people got sick on the lead in the exhaust that they switched to ethanol an alcohol based on corn. Prohibition was over by decades by then and ethanol was healthier than lead and solved the knocking problem plus farmers made money growing corn to add to the gas. Lead paint was the same way, they hid the fact that it made people sick so they could sell more of it. Lead pipes or copper pipes with lead soldier was used the same way and the safety risks were hidden to people as well. Lead is a neurotoxin and leads to mental illnesses and brain damage. People effected might have violent outbursts and get arrested for crimes. If there is lead in the water supplies of the poor neighborhoods that minorities live in it could be the cause of crime by those who drink the water, bathe in it, cook with it, etc. This is being hidden as well and just now is being reported on by some news media companies. Corporations get away with stuff like that because of the ignorance of the public and their short-term memories. Lead has always been a neurotoxin but people tend to forget that and it gets covered up when it is used in products and pipes and other stuff.

mike_hearn 11y ago

The rundown of the scholarship and the following debate is useful, but I found that post to be immediately suspicious as it simply asserts, repeatedly, that "legitimate scholars" and "legit historians" ignored it or don't agree. I find such language to be a strong indicator that someone is about to try overstating their case, and is trying to discourage people from challenging their assertions by dismissing other views. An unfortunately common problem with historians, I've found. I think the guy is correct that the "fall" of Rome is a complex topic and it's not entirely clear what this fall really consists of. But it's known from skeletal analysis that some Romans did indeed have very high lead levels in their bodies, we know what kinds of effects that can have, etc. Saying Rome fell exclusively because of lead piping would be perhaps overstating things, but we know that our own much more advanced society was becoming more and more violent until lead was removed from gasoline: if that connection had never been made or the solution never happened it's not hard to believe that in a hundred years or so we'd be existing in a far, far worse state.