3 ms·

From the linked article: "One in three hoses tested had levels of lead that exceeded drinking water standards — one as high as 18 times the level."

by dhosek 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The standard for lead in drinking water is set where it is so a kid can drink the tap water from day 1 and not suffer any ill effects. There are municipalities all over the country delivering water that meets these standards through some amount of lead or leaded fittings. In light of that it seems disingenuous to complain that a hose (as opposed to the water coming out of the hose) has 18x that much lead. If the lead has no reasonably means by which it will get into someone then what's the big deal? I'm not saying I want more lead but you gotta pick your battles when it comes to chemically. Anything is bad if you have enough exposure. If the amount of lead people are exposed to is not gonna have any effect in their lifetime then lets check that box and move on to the next chemical.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Any amount of lead is harmful, just because you don’t notice the effects doesn’t mean there are none.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? And before you say "well if you construct a study and have a control group, etc, etc", yes, ok, fine, you can measure really small changes that way. What happens when the harm is below the noise threshold of that too? There's a million things in our world that are gonna give us cancer or whatever in 50yr. Having some lead painted antique trinket that sits on a shelf or leaded brass in your hose nozzle isn't going to harmfully affect anyone if it's practically your only voluntary exposure. It's like smoking one cigarette once. Sure it's not good for you but it's also not going to be what kills you.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? Your parent didn't say below a measurable threshold, they used a much weaker "you don't notice." Lead has been shown in countless studies to be harmful, and a lot of its effects are subtle like behavior and learning problems, hyperactivity, lower intelligence, men's fertility, fetal health, cardiovascular problems, kidney function... so you might not notice low grade lead poisoning but it can still be slowly wrecking your body.
    - wahern 6y ago
      > How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? AFAIU, the claim in the literature is that nobody has found a dosage without a measurable effect, at least at population scale. Now, that may simply be because nobody has setup a study to test a dosage at the limits of what can be measured. But in any event the claim is based on numerous studies that postdate most quantitative lead level thresholds. Those regulatory thresholds haven't been updated because the consensus opinion now, in light of the believed mechanism of action in neurological tissue and epidemiological data, is that any ingestion can potentially have a lasting, detrimental impact, however slight; and the consensus goal, however aspirational, is to eliminate all lead exposure during developmentally critical years. Punching somebody in the head might not cause any meaningful, discernible damage, but nobody is suggesting it's benign, and nobody is going to invest any effort to determine the minimum impact force or number of impacts below which damage is indiscernible or nonexistent. You just aim to avoid all punches to the head, period. Any quantitative thresholds, such as number of known concussions, are simply designed to help allocate limited resources for aggressive interventions. The same is true for lead--preexisting federal and state blood lead levels are designed (or rather reconstrued, ex post) to be a trigger for intervention, not a threshold below which we presume the absence of damage. It's an important distinction. Of course, it's understood that lead is not only pervasive in the natural environment, but in our industrial processes and especially in our built environment. That's why Federal law deliberately declassified lead as hazardous waste--to make it cheaper and easier to remove and dispose of post haste. Contrast that with asbestos or other hazardous, sometimes more benign, substances. I remember when everybody on HN complained about the EU banning leaded solder. I think most of the complaints missed the point--there is no safe level for lead in the environment considering its effect on neurological development. We can't objectively set a specific level that we can honestly, knowingly live with as a society, so the policy is simply to slowly, methodically remove it as best we can.
- crpatino 6y ago
  So, you are saying you never drank from a hose as a kid, or ever saw any other kids drinking from hoses? The fact that the phrase "drink from the hose" is used as a metaphor on top of the literal meaning should suggest this is a common human experience, at least in the US. Of course, it is already known that tap water is no safe for human consumption, everybody will buy bottled water (or brave the ill effects, if they are poor enough) and be done with it. The problem is when you advertise tap water as drinking safe, spend tax money on delivering safe water to every home in the municipality, and then fail to control the quality/safety of plumbing inside said houses.

From the linked article: "One in three hoses tested had levels of lead that exceeded drinking water standards — one as high as 18 times the level."

by dhosek 6y ago

From the linked article: "One in three hoses tested had levels of lead that exceeded drinking water standards — one as high as 18 times the level."

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The standard for lead in drinking water is set where it is so a kid can drink the tap water from day 1 and not suffer any ill effects. There are municipalities all over the country delivering water that meets these standards through some amount of lead or leaded fittings. In light of that it seems disingenuous to complain that a hose (as opposed to the water coming out of the hose) has 18x that much lead. If the lead has no reasonably means by which it will get into someone then what's the big deal? I'm not saying I want more lead but you gotta pick your battles when it comes to chemically. Anything is bad if you have enough exposure. If the amount of lead people are exposed to is not gonna have any effect in their lifetime then lets check that box and move on to the next chemical.

thatcat 6y ago
Any amount of lead is harmful, just because you don’t notice the effects doesn’t mean there are none.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? And before you say "well if you construct a study and have a control group, etc, etc", yes, ok, fine, you can measure really small changes that way. What happens when the harm is below the noise threshold of that too? There's a million things in our world that are gonna give us cancer or whatever in 50yr. Having some lead painted antique trinket that sits on a shelf or leaded brass in your hose nozzle isn't going to harmfully affect anyone if it's practically your only voluntary exposure. It's like smoking one cigarette once. Sure it's not good for you but it's also not going to be what kills you.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? Your parent didn't say below a measurable threshold, they used a much weaker "you don't notice." Lead has been shown in countless studies to be harmful, and a lot of its effects are subtle like behavior and learning problems, hyperactivity, lower intelligence, men's fertility, fetal health, cardiovascular problems, kidney function... so you might not notice low grade lead poisoning but it can still be slowly wrecking your body.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > How is something harmful if the effects are below a measurable threshold? AFAIU, the claim in the literature is that nobody has found a dosage without a measurable effect, at least at population scale. Now, that may simply be because nobody has setup a study to test a dosage at the limits of what can be measured. But in any event the claim is based on numerous studies that postdate most quantitative lead level thresholds. Those regulatory thresholds haven't been updated because the consensus opinion now, in light of the believed mechanism of action in neurological tissue and epidemiological data, is that any ingestion can potentially have a lasting, detrimental impact, however slight; and the consensus goal, however aspirational, is to eliminate all lead exposure during developmentally critical years. Punching somebody in the head might not cause any meaningful, discernible damage, but nobody is suggesting it's benign, and nobody is going to invest any effort to determine the minimum impact force or number of impacts below which damage is indiscernible or nonexistent. You just aim to avoid all punches to the head, period. Any quantitative thresholds, such as number of known concussions, are simply designed to help allocate limited resources for aggressive interventions. The same is true for lead--preexisting federal and state blood lead levels are designed (or rather reconstrued, ex post) to be a trigger for intervention, not a threshold below which we presume the absence of damage. It's an important distinction. Of course, it's understood that lead is not only pervasive in the natural environment, but in our industrial processes and especially in our built environment. That's why Federal law deliberately declassified lead as hazardous waste--to make it cheaper and easier to remove and dispose of post haste. Contrast that with asbestos or other hazardous, sometimes more benign, substances. I remember when everybody on HN complained about the EU banning leaded solder. I think most of the complaints missed the point--there is no safe level for lead in the environment considering its effect on neurological development. We can't objectively set a specific level that we can honestly, knowingly live with as a society, so the policy is simply to slowly, methodically remove it as best we can.
crpatino 6y ago
So, you are saying you never drank from a hose as a kid, or ever saw any other kids drinking from hoses? The fact that the phrase "drink from the hose" is used as a metaphor on top of the literal meaning should suggest this is a common human experience, at least in the US. Of course, it is already known that tap water is no safe for human consumption, everybody will buy bottled water (or brave the ill effects, if they are poor enough) and be done with it. The problem is when you advertise tap water as drinking safe, spend tax money on delivering safe water to every home in the municipality, and then fail to control the quality/safety of plumbing inside said houses.