10 ms·

Millions of lives and $Ts in health damage has been done and continues to be done by lead[0]. And it was largely avoidable because the dangers were known. 99

Millions of lives and $Ts in health damage has been done and continues to be done by lead[0]. And it was largely avoidable because the dangers were known. 99 years ago the League of Nations signed a treaty banning indoor leaded paint. The US, of course, declined to join and it took another 50 years before it took action. Concerns were raised about leaded gasoline, industry steamrolled the science. And it was just a couple of months ago that the final country (Algeria) stopped producing leaded consumer road fuel. For a good history see https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea... [0] An Update on Childhood Lead Poisoning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645046/ As many as 500,000 US children (2.5%) under 6 years have BLLs ≥5 µg/dL. Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually in lost US economic productivity.6

adminscoffee 5y ago
we have a similar issue going on now with hormone disrupters in basically in most hygienic products (shampoo, body wash), containers, beauty products. it's causing a lot of issues and there are studies showing this recently, it was connected to sudden deaths each year. we need an overhaul. if this was a bug or a glitch in some software it would have been fixed in a few weeks
selimthegrim 5y ago
I think Algeria was using up stockpiles rather than actively producing
- decentman 5y ago
  Per the Wikipedia article, they continued to produce it until July 2021 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History
zionic 5y ago
>industry steamrolled the science. Not only that, industry paid for "science" that hid the dangers. People today however seem to strangely think this doesn't happen anymore.
- christophilus 5y ago
  It's genuinely hard to know how to make sense of information. I'm generally skeptical of "big anything", whether that's business or government. Incentives can be screwy at any scale, but once you get to very large numbers, incentives seem to simply go off the rails. Industry and governments have a pretty terrible track record of skewing data to suit their needs-- sometimes with a truly tragic consequences. That's why my initial stance on COVID vaccines was to be skeptical of the industry claims. This lumped me in with a lot of quacks, and with a political (US) group with whom that I don't normally align much. It's been a strange few years. At this point, I'm not sure I know how to strike a balance between healthy skepticism and paranoia. Regarding the vaccines, I'm fully vaccinated, as enough time has passed to get me to a place where I think the stats bear it out.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    I don’t know if it is really that incentives change when you get very big, as much as it is that you become more capable of achieving desires that are counter to the public good. At smaller scales, your power isn’t enough to override the preferences of the masses. Get big enough, and you can.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    While not impossible, it’s much harder to create false stats when going through clinical review with the FDA. Super double extra when the lives of the world are at stake and the total eyeballs on a single vaccine are so high.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      But the processes are very flawed leading to the wrong stats being used to make decisions. For example, an experimental vaccine isn't given out widely till there is good data that it is safe (often taking years). However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as there are even rough indications that it is safer than COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone. Every month you spend doing more safety tests, millions of people die. The same is happening right now for malaria treatments which are being trialled. Skipping the trial and handing it out untested will probably save more lives.
downrightmike 5y ago
If you live near a small airport, you are probably still being poison by leaded fuel https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
orangepurple 5y ago
[flagged]
andrepd 5y ago
> Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually in lost US economic productivity It's quite disturbing to phrase things this way.
- nybble41 5y ago
  I don't see it as disturbing, just focused. This phrasing helps to put the problem into perspective from one particular point of view—the cost in economic productivity. It does not imply that this is the only cost, or that there aren't other equally valid perspectives to consider.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Yes - the quantification of the problem helps with comprehension but also opens the door for balancing trade offs in a manner we'd likely find distasteful. If the lead industry generated 60 billion of completely new money I'd still be in favor of outlawing it even if it was a net loss for the economy - since general quality of life is lowered by lead poisoning (especially since it has been linked strongly to anger issues).
twofornone 5y ago
I really don't appreciate the way we retroactively demonize various industries with hindsight that was not available in the past. The fact that leaded paint was known to be harmful does not imply that it was known that burning leaded gas and dumping lead into the giant atmosphere was also enough of a problem to be concerned. That requires research to prove. The same way that oil companies did not "know" that the petroleum they were producing in the 80s was causing climate change. That also took decades of research to confirm. Meanwhile all of us benefited from both petroleum and leaded gasoline. Im not apologizing on behalf of shitty corporate behavior and dishonest research funding, but we should be reasonable about accusations of negligence. Hindsight is 20/20.
slownews45 5y ago
My big complaint is that a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES. b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in registrations after 1/1/2023. d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025. Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this - and does not care. I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child. The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY? Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now. "There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood lead concentrations as low as 5 µg/dL may be associated with decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Wait until you read up on Toxicologic Assessment of Jet Fuel which covers mostly JP-8, the military stuff, but it is also used in trucks, because they can! Or Toxicologic Profile of Jet Fuel which also covers the civil stuff, Jet A. No Chemtrailer here, btw.
- nawgz 5y ago
  Damn, it makes so much sense that aviation fuel is leaded. I have been a fortunately healthy person for my life, but at one point I lived downtown San Jose (which for the non-locals has an airport in the middle of the city), right under the main landing/takeoff path. I got sick 6x a year or more. After 1 and 2/3 years, I realized that it was probably the planes and moved away, and now I haven't been sick since except maybe once or twice (over 3y). Just awful.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    It's unlikely to have been a direct cause given the (relatively) low levels of lead avgas generates, but it almost certainly has some effect. The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood? Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible." Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.
paulmd 5y ago
And yet we still have people making the "but the science on climate change wasn't and still isn't absolutely definitive" defense of Michael Crichton in a different thread yesterday. Climate change denialism is the lead poisoning denialism of the modern era. You can actually see the denialism happening in real-time with actual posters here on HN, this is the same way it worked back then, this is how people delude themselves into thinking they're making a scholarly defense of "facts and the scientific process" when in reality they're just buying into industry propaganda designed to play on that instinct. Nobody need wonder how it might have happened, it's happening right before your own eyes in these very threads.
bawolff 5y ago
We've know much longer than that. From around 20 BC "Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead [PbCO3, lead carbonate] is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious, there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it fixing on the different members, and daily burning them, destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels, nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the flavour being preserved in them" - Virtuvius VIII.6.10-11

adminscoffee 5y ago

we have a similar issue going on now with hormone disrupters in basically in most hygienic products (shampoo, body wash), containers, beauty products. it's causing a lot of issues and there are studies showing this recently, it was connected to sudden deaths each year. we need an overhaul. if this was a bug or a glitch in some software it would have been fixed in a few weeks

selimthegrim 5y ago

I think Algeria was using up stockpiles rather than actively producing

decentman 5y ago
Per the Wikipedia article, they continued to produce it until July 2021 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History

zionic 5y ago

>industry steamrolled the science. Not only that, industry paid for "science" that hid the dangers. People today however seem to strangely think this doesn't happen anymore.

christophilus 5y ago
It's genuinely hard to know how to make sense of information. I'm generally skeptical of "big anything", whether that's business or government. Incentives can be screwy at any scale, but once you get to very large numbers, incentives seem to simply go off the rails. Industry and governments have a pretty terrible track record of skewing data to suit their needs-- sometimes with a truly tragic consequences. That's why my initial stance on COVID vaccines was to be skeptical of the industry claims. This lumped me in with a lot of quacks, and with a political (US) group with whom that I don't normally align much. It's been a strange few years. At this point, I'm not sure I know how to strike a balance between healthy skepticism and paranoia. Regarding the vaccines, I'm fully vaccinated, as enough time has passed to get me to a place where I think the stats bear it out.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  I don’t know if it is really that incentives change when you get very big, as much as it is that you become more capable of achieving desires that are counter to the public good. At smaller scales, your power isn’t enough to override the preferences of the masses. Get big enough, and you can.
- azinman2 5y ago
  While not impossible, it’s much harder to create false stats when going through clinical review with the FDA. Super double extra when the lives of the world are at stake and the total eyeballs on a single vaccine are so high.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    But the processes are very flawed leading to the wrong stats being used to make decisions. For example, an experimental vaccine isn't given out widely till there is good data that it is safe (often taking years). However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as there are even rough indications that it is safer than COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone. Every month you spend doing more safety tests, millions of people die. The same is happening right now for malaria treatments which are being trialled. Skipping the trial and handing it out untested will probably save more lives.

downrightmike 5y ago

If you live near a small airport, you are probably still being poison by leaded fuel https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

orangepurple 5y ago

[flagged]

andrepd 5y ago

> Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually in lost US economic productivity It's quite disturbing to phrase things this way.

nybble41 5y ago
I don't see it as disturbing, just focused. This phrasing helps to put the problem into perspective from one particular point of view—the cost in economic productivity. It does not imply that this is the only cost, or that there aren't other equally valid perspectives to consider.
munk-a 5y ago
Yes - the quantification of the problem helps with comprehension but also opens the door for balancing trade offs in a manner we'd likely find distasteful. If the lead industry generated 60 billion of completely new money I'd still be in favor of outlawing it even if it was a net loss for the economy - since general quality of life is lowered by lead poisoning (especially since it has been linked strongly to anger issues).

twofornone 5y ago

I really don't appreciate the way we retroactively demonize various industries with hindsight that was not available in the past. The fact that leaded paint was known to be harmful does not imply that it was known that burning leaded gas and dumping lead into the giant atmosphere was also enough of a problem to be concerned. That requires research to prove. The same way that oil companies did not "know" that the petroleum they were producing in the 80s was causing climate change. That also took decades of research to confirm. Meanwhile all of us benefited from both petroleum and leaded gasoline. Im not apologizing on behalf of shitty corporate behavior and dishonest research funding, but we should be reasonable about accusations of negligence. Hindsight is 20/20.

slownews45 5y ago

My big complaint is that a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES. b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in registrations after 1/1/2023. d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025. Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this - and does not care. I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child. The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY? Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now. "There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood lead concentrations as low as 5 µg/dL may be associated with decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Wait until you read up on Toxicologic Assessment of Jet Fuel which covers mostly JP-8, the military stuff, but it is also used in trucks, because they can! Or Toxicologic Profile of Jet Fuel which also covers the civil stuff, Jet A. No Chemtrailer here, btw.
nawgz 5y ago
Damn, it makes so much sense that aviation fuel is leaded. I have been a fortunately healthy person for my life, but at one point I lived downtown San Jose (which for the non-locals has an airport in the middle of the city), right under the main landing/takeoff path. I got sick 6x a year or more. After 1 and 2/3 years, I realized that it was probably the planes and moved away, and now I haven't been sick since except maybe once or twice (over 3y). Just awful.
- slownews45 5y ago
  It's unlikely to have been a direct cause given the (relatively) low levels of lead avgas generates, but it almost certainly has some effect. The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood? Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible." Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.

paulmd 5y ago

And yet we still have people making the "but the science on climate change wasn't and still isn't absolutely definitive" defense of Michael Crichton in a different thread yesterday. Climate change denialism is the lead poisoning denialism of the modern era. You can actually see the denialism happening in real-time with actual posters here on HN, this is the same way it worked back then, this is how people delude themselves into thinking they're making a scholarly defense of "facts and the scientific process" when in reality they're just buying into industry propaganda designed to play on that instinct. Nobody need wonder how it might have happened, it's happening right before your own eyes in these very threads.

bawolff 5y ago

We've know much longer than that. From around 20 BC "Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead [PbCO3, lead carbonate] is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious, there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it fixing on the different members, and daily burning them, destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels, nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the flavour being preserved in them" - Virtuvius VIII.6.10-11