8 ms·

Interesting, I had assumed they just didn’t know that lead was bad back then. What’s even weirder is how there are still people today who insist that banning le

Interesting, I had assumed they just didn’t know that lead was bad back then. What’s even weirder is how there are still people today who insist that banning leaded gasoline was an key example of government overreach. Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance.

heymijo 5y ago
Two beliefs became entrenched: 1. that lead is natural to the human body, and 2. that a poisoning threshold for lead existed Robert Kehoe, working for GM, was the chief advocate for leaded gasoline, and really the only person/lab doing research on lead until Clair Patterson stumbled into it while measuring the age of the earth. [0,1] A modern equivalent might be if Facebook was the only organization researching social media's impact on society, while being able to set the paradigm/assumptions about said safety for half a century. So even when Patterson's research was published in 1965, it took time to change the paradigm, and more time to phase out lead's use. Should anyone want to read a narrative about the intertwined lives of Midgley, Patterson, Kehoe and lead, then this Mental Floss article is a good read. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campai... [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...
sircastor 5y ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson said in an episode of Cosmos that even the Romans understood lead was dangerous, but it was a convenient metal to work with, so they used it anyway
- lazide 5y ago
  More than just dangerous, it was a known death sentence to be working in lead mining/smelting and a common poison [https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...]. Like you note, it was also extremely convenient and relatively cheap. Pretty sure at least some of the chemicals we’re using now in soaps or for food processing will have something nasty associated with them once time has passed.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    It will probably be Triclosan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns
    - ak217 5y ago
      It's already been phased out
- tedd4u 5y ago
  And not just and convenient metal, but a preferred food and wine sweetener. For real!
  - jhallenworld 5y ago
    They should have used diethylene glycol, like the Austrians: https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html I wonder which tastes better?
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Also an important pigment (white lead), which was not only widely used in paints until the 20th century (though the US amongst others still hasn't signed the 1923 white lead convention), but also hugely popular cosmetics (skin whiteners): lead powder, lead paints, lead/mercury, lead/vinegar (venetian ceruse).
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Roman's also knew asbestos was bad. It was well documented that sending a slave to work in asbestos mines meant they would get lung sickness, and some slaves tried using masks made of pig bladder when mining.
  - kubanczyk 5y ago
    Citation needed. Seems that the few available Roman primary sources do not support it: Rachel Maines "Asbestos and Fire" pp. 27-28 https://books.google.com/books?id=5r2jEGLvxP4C&pg=PA28 https://books.google.com/books?id=5r2jEGLvxP4C&pg=PA28 AFAIK work in any Roman mine was considered a death sentence in the long run.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hippich 5y ago
> Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were arguing about different things despite seemingly talking about the same one. For example, you could be arguing that preventing people poisoning by lead is good, where the other person were arguing that people should bear more responsibility instead of pushing it on the third-party. I.e. I don't think the person you were arguing with was thinking "yeah, breathing lead is a good idea, let's fill the air with lead!". Perhaps I am too naive...
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  That would be a generous interpretation.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
    - hippich 5y ago
      Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.
wpietri 5y ago
America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. It of course sounds insane when you say it baldly like this, which is why it rarely gets stated openly. But a lot of traditional societal structures depend on harm to others, so there's a big constituency for the suffering of others when it benefits the speaker.
- ithacaman 5y ago
  The complexity is in proving what harm is being done and to whom.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - artificial 5y ago
      Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
      - Klinky 5y ago
        Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.
darkerside 5y ago
Is nuclear energy "bad"? You'll find people arguing both sides of the issue today, but nobody argues that it is 100% safe. Sure, lead was a poison, but that didn't mean that its inhaled long term effects were known, and to say it was obvious in hindsight demonstrates a lack of empathy due to the curse of knowledge.

heymijo 5y ago

Two beliefs became entrenched: 1. that lead is natural to the human body, and 2. that a poisoning threshold for lead existed Robert Kehoe, working for GM, was the chief advocate for leaded gasoline, and really the only person/lab doing research on lead until Clair Patterson stumbled into it while measuring the age of the earth. [0,1] A modern equivalent might be if Facebook was the only organization researching social media's impact on society, while being able to set the paradigm/assumptions about said safety for half a century. So even when Patterson's research was published in 1965, it took time to change the paradigm, and more time to phase out lead's use. Should anyone want to read a narrative about the intertwined lives of Midgley, Patterson, Kehoe and lead, then this Mental Floss article is a good read. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campai... [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...

sircastor 5y ago

Neil deGrasse Tyson said in an episode of Cosmos that even the Romans understood lead was dangerous, but it was a convenient metal to work with, so they used it anyway

lazide 5y ago
More than just dangerous, it was a known death sentence to be working in lead mining/smelting and a common poison [https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...]. Like you note, it was also extremely convenient and relatively cheap. Pretty sure at least some of the chemicals we’re using now in soaps or for food processing will have something nasty associated with them once time has passed.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  It will probably be Triclosan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns
  - ak217 5y ago
    It's already been phased out
tedd4u 5y ago
And not just and convenient metal, but a preferred food and wine sweetener. For real!
- jhallenworld 5y ago
  They should have used diethylene glycol, like the Austrians: https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html I wonder which tastes better?
- masklinn 5y ago
  Also an important pigment (white lead), which was not only widely used in paints until the 20th century (though the US amongst others still hasn't signed the 1923 white lead convention), but also hugely popular cosmetics (skin whiteners): lead powder, lead paints, lead/mercury, lead/vinegar (venetian ceruse).
thatguy0900 5y ago
Roman's also knew asbestos was bad. It was well documented that sending a slave to work in asbestos mines meant they would get lung sickness, and some slaves tried using masks made of pig bladder when mining.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  Citation needed. Seems that the few available Roman primary sources do not support it: Rachel Maines "Asbestos and Fire" pp. 27-28 https://books.google.com/books?id=5r2jEGLvxP4C&pg=PA28 https://books.google.com/books?id=5r2jEGLvxP4C&pg=PA28 AFAIK work in any Roman mine was considered a death sentence in the long run.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hippich 5y ago

> Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were arguing about different things despite seemingly talking about the same one. For example, you could be arguing that preventing people poisoning by lead is good, where the other person were arguing that people should bear more responsibility instead of pushing it on the third-party. I.e. I don't think the person you were arguing with was thinking "yeah, breathing lead is a good idea, let's fill the air with lead!". Perhaps I am too naive...

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
That would be a generous interpretation.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
  - hippich 5y ago
    Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.

wpietri 5y ago

America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. It of course sounds insane when you say it baldly like this, which is why it rarely gets stated openly. But a lot of traditional societal structures depend on harm to others, so there's a big constituency for the suffering of others when it benefits the speaker.

ithacaman 5y ago
The complexity is in proving what harm is being done and to whom.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - artificial 5y ago
    Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
    - Klinky 5y ago
      Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.

darkerside 5y ago

Is nuclear energy "bad"? You'll find people arguing both sides of the issue today, but nobody argues that it is 100% safe. Sure, lead was a poison, but that didn't mean that its inhaled long term effects were known, and to say it was obvious in hindsight demonstrates a lack of empathy due to the curse of knowledge.