3 ms·

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.
- thatcat 6y ago
  The ability to measure things like intelligence accurately doesn't determine the threshold at which there is an effect. This isn't about whether or not you die - there are other risks worth considering.
- crpatino 6y ago
  Well Mr. Trollaway, it is fun to argue, isn't it? > And before you say ... What happens when the harm is below the noise threshold of that too? Since you are at HN, you should know the answer to that. If the scientist doing the study is any good, the study will find very weak correlation and the conclusion will be something along the lines of "we have found no statistically significant evidence that lead released by faucets result in adverse health condition over a period of X months/years. More research is needed to measure long term exposure". On the other hand, what I read was "I promise you, you will find no scientific evidence that lead is bad. Do not look at the man behind... sorry, do not waste your time looking for peer reviewed articles that disprove my point". > There's a million things in our world that are gonna give us cancer or whatever in 50yr Perhaps a million is an exaggeration, but precisely because there are thousands of molecules that cause barely measurable damage is because you have to take them all seriously. 100 years ago there were order of magnitude less variety of molecules, so even if people then had greater exposure, it was a reasonable expectation that they may only develop symptoms on their old age, or never at all. But now, since there are lots of them, each chipping away at your body, you may be seriously ill in a time frame that matters. >in 50 yr So, you are saying that it is Ok that old people just roll and die? Even if we accept the implicit claim that only old people is affected (I am assuming 50 + 20-ish here), the problem is that they don't just die. They spend their last years pointlessly suffering chronic diseases. They are forced into early retirement (loss of human capital, from a macro point of view) and they either deplete their savings or end up spending a part of their children's income on their care. They find themselves unable to lead an independent life (again, placing a burden on both family and the state). They crowd medical services that were designed with and overall healthy population in mind, and then somebody else dies because they did not receive the care they needed in time. > if it's practically your only voluntary exposure > It's like smoking one cigarette once You are assuming that you can control how much of a exposure you have. If you allow hazardous materials into the INFRASTRUCTURE around you, you are committing your future self to the task of avoiding the hazard over and over again. Given that humans have limited attention span and will force, it is much better to make the decision once and not allow the hazardous material in the first place.

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.
thatcat 6y ago
The ability to measure things like intelligence accurately doesn't determine the threshold at which there is an effect. This isn't about whether or not you die - there are other risks worth considering.
crpatino 6y ago
Well Mr. Trollaway, it is fun to argue, isn't it? > And before you say ... What happens when the harm is below the noise threshold of that too? Since you are at HN, you should know the answer to that. If the scientist doing the study is any good, the study will find very weak correlation and the conclusion will be something along the lines of "we have found no statistically significant evidence that lead released by faucets result in adverse health condition over a period of X months/years. More research is needed to measure long term exposure". On the other hand, what I read was "I promise you, you will find no scientific evidence that lead is bad. Do not look at the man behind... sorry, do not waste your time looking for peer reviewed articles that disprove my point". > There's a million things in our world that are gonna give us cancer or whatever in 50yr Perhaps a million is an exaggeration, but precisely because there are thousands of molecules that cause barely measurable damage is because you have to take them all seriously. 100 years ago there were order of magnitude less variety of molecules, so even if people then had greater exposure, it was a reasonable expectation that they may only develop symptoms on their old age, or never at all. But now, since there are lots of them, each chipping away at your body, you may be seriously ill in a time frame that matters. >in 50 yr So, you are saying that it is Ok that old people just roll and die? Even if we accept the implicit claim that only old people is affected (I am assuming 50 + 20-ish here), the problem is that they don't just die. They spend their last years pointlessly suffering chronic diseases. They are forced into early retirement (loss of human capital, from a macro point of view) and they either deplete their savings or end up spending a part of their children's income on their care. They find themselves unable to lead an independent life (again, placing a burden on both family and the state). They crowd medical services that were designed with and overall healthy population in mind, and then somebody else dies because they did not receive the care they needed in time. > if it's practically your only voluntary exposure > It's like smoking one cigarette once You are assuming that you can control how much of a exposure you have. If you allow hazardous materials into the INFRASTRUCTURE around you, you are committing your future self to the task of avoiding the hazard over and over again. Given that humans have limited attention span and will force, it is much better to make the decision once and not allow the hazardous material in the first place.