5 ms·

One day, in the far future, it will be discovered that ubiquitious plastic has profound but subtle effects on intelligence, fertility and general health. Amendi

One day, in the far future, it will be discovered that ubiquitious plastic has profound but subtle effects on intelligence, fertility and general health. Amending that will be like moving out of the slow zone. The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water.

jstanley 8y ago
Despite the harmful effects of lead, the Roman civilisation might well have been better off for it anyway. Did they have access to a more suitable material that wasn't prohibitively expensive? (I legitimately don't know; maybe clay pipes would work?)
- Qworg 8y ago
  Clay pipes did work. Lots of places in the empire had clay, even over long distances.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
> Scarborough wrote that Nriagu's basic premise couldn't be trusted because of sloppy work. He also concluded that the Romans were aware of the harm lead could cause, that lead poisoning wasn't endemic in their society and that Rome did not fall because of it. > Yet French researcher Hugo Delile and his team, reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, concluded that such concentrations were "unlikely to have been truly harmful." The group also claimed that enough criticism of Nriagu's theory had been amassed over three decades to largely debunk it. > "Lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome’s demise," Delile wrote.
- madaxe_again 8y ago
  It wasn’t the pipes, it was the wine, which they sweetened with lead acetate. Delile’s paper only touches on water supply, rather than lead as a deliberate addition to diet.
snovv_crash 8y ago
The Romans used lead acetate to sweeten their wine. In comparison I don't think the lead pipes were a problem.
- dvlsg 8y ago
  I suppose we could blame high fructose corn syrup, then.
olavk 8y ago
> The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water. True, but the theory that this affected public health is a myth.
- Arbitrary4657 8y ago
  Do you have any supporting statements? I'm just curious.

jstanley 8y ago

Despite the harmful effects of lead, the Roman civilisation might well have been better off for it anyway. Did they have access to a more suitable material that wasn't prohibitively expensive? (I legitimately don't know; maybe clay pipes would work?)

Qworg 8y ago
Clay pipes did work. Lots of places in the empire had clay, even over long distances.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

> Scarborough wrote that Nriagu's basic premise couldn't be trusted because of sloppy work. He also concluded that the Romans were aware of the harm lead could cause, that lead poisoning wasn't endemic in their society and that Rome did not fall because of it. > Yet French researcher Hugo Delile and his team, reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, concluded that such concentrations were "unlikely to have been truly harmful." The group also claimed that enough criticism of Nriagu's theory had been amassed over three decades to largely debunk it. > "Lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome’s demise," Delile wrote.

madaxe_again 8y ago
It wasn’t the pipes, it was the wine, which they sweetened with lead acetate. Delile’s paper only touches on water supply, rather than lead as a deliberate addition to diet.

snovv_crash 8y ago

The Romans used lead acetate to sweeten their wine. In comparison I don't think the lead pipes were a problem.

dvlsg 8y ago
I suppose we could blame high fructose corn syrup, then.

olavk 8y ago

> The roman civilization used lead pipes for drinking water. True, but the theory that this affected public health is a myth.

Arbitrary4657 8y ago
Do you have any supporting statements? I'm just curious.