5 ms·

They also knew it was toxic, but deliberately put on displays claiming that it wasn’t, even midgley would pour it over his hands despite knowing the danger and

by olliej 4y ago

They also knew it was toxic, but deliberately put on displays claiming that it wasn’t, even midgley would pour it over his hands despite knowing the danger and intentionally avoiding it in all other cases. They also used medical testing to mislead: showing people could consume it and lead wouldn’t be detected in their urine. Apparently that showed it was safe, and no one said “then where did the lead go?”. Happily he also invented the machine that killed him so at least he was egalitarian in his harm.

Weneedlead 4y ago
[flagged]
- moring 4y ago
  Why is that question important? It's interesting from a scientific point-of-view, but the answer doesn't change the fact that it is there. The answer might help us predict where to find much or little of it, though.
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    The fact that it has always been there casts a great doubt on the claims about its toxicity. It can be found through the ages in human remains and in geological remains that clearly predate people.
    - jamespo 4y ago
      Irrelevant
- versteegen 4y ago
  This is nonsense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ says > There is no such level of lead that appears to be necessary or beneficial to the body and no “safe” level of exposure to lead has been found. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poison... says > There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects. > The body stores lead in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. Lead stored in bone may be released into the blood during pregnancy, thus exposing the fetus. Undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more lead if other nutrients, such as calcium or iron, are lacking.
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    It's a lie. The effects are always beneficial except in extreme doses. No dose that makes no difference is exactly what you would expect from a nutrient. Lead activates the proteins it supoosedly poisons: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_lead_and_calcium_interact_positively_in_activation_of_calmodulin https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_... Yes, teeth and bones use most of the lead that you consume. But why is there lead in the teeth of neandethals? https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-old-neanderthal-teeth-reveal-evidence-of-lead-poisoning https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-o... Yes, iron overload seems to interfere with lead. Calcium not so much, it seems it rather makes lead used for building more bone. Licking lead causes cravings for calcium rich food.
    - eternityforest 4y ago
      Where's the evidence that those proteins need "activating"? The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. For that matter, activating and poisoning aren't even mutually exclusive, you can run an engine too fast and burn it, work out till you get rhabdo and your P looks like T, etc. To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. Lots of stuff is just mildly bad, it kills some people, sickens others, but not enough to affect population growth so Darwin continues not caring while people die and suffer. Maybe they had some lead containing tools or medicines or something, of the sort we can avoid now because of safety standards. Our ancestors were exposed to lots of unhealthy stuff, including battle axes, most of us would prefer to minimize it to below that level, and continually improve things.
      - Weneedlead 4y ago
        >The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. We're arguing what the 'default' is. I'm arguing the default state is with lead. It would be strange for a protein to evolve to get so easily activated by a toxin. >To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. I thing it's completely uncontroversial that the current typical human health is at the historic rock bottom. There is no reason theoretical or not to believe it is toxic in the first place, except for the strange claim that the body uses it in error. >The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. That's an absurd claim, and really grasping at straws, don't you think? Mote that the remains aren't many. It isn't that they sieved through thousands of teeth to find a couple that were poisoned.
- samtho 4y ago
  > Most people are critically malnourished, so it holds on to any that it can get. This is not how chemistry works. The body will use (catalyze) what you give it, but the more reactive substances are used quicker and in greater abundance. Also who are these people that are critically malnourished? In the western world at least, we have access to all the vitamins and minerals we need just by way of the food we eat even on a relatively poor diet.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- eternityforest 4y ago
  People didn't invent heart disease or brain damage or bleeding to death either, none of those are healthy. The body might absorb all kinds of shit that isn't healthy, including carbon monoxide and pure americium, just like a computer holds onto malware and a lake holds onto PFAS. Even most scientifically proven essential nutrients are poison if you have more than the optimal amount. That's literally what getting fat is, the body holding onto things that have no benefit because of some chemical pathway left over from when we didn't have refrigerators and might need to walk for 4 days without food. Evolution didn't give people a very effective "stop absorbing calories" function so why would we expect a "stop absorbing lead" function to be much better? People didn't make it but people moved it where it could be taken in, and processed it into more active compounds.
- crote 4y ago
  Your body will also hold on to DDT, nicotine, or even radioactive iodine. The only thing that shows is that it is quite bad at getting rid of harmful substances.

by olliej 4y ago

Weneedlead 4y ago

[flagged]

moring 4y ago
Why is that question important? It's interesting from a scientific point-of-view, but the answer doesn't change the fact that it is there. The answer might help us predict where to find much or little of it, though.
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  The fact that it has always been there casts a great doubt on the claims about its toxicity. It can be found through the ages in human remains and in geological remains that clearly predate people.
  - jamespo 4y ago
    Irrelevant
versteegen 4y ago
This is nonsense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ says > There is no such level of lead that appears to be necessary or beneficial to the body and no “safe” level of exposure to lead has been found. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poison... says > There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects. > The body stores lead in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. Lead stored in bone may be released into the blood during pregnancy, thus exposing the fetus. Undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more lead if other nutrients, such as calcium or iron, are lacking.
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  It's a lie. The effects are always beneficial except in extreme doses. No dose that makes no difference is exactly what you would expect from a nutrient. Lead activates the proteins it supoosedly poisons: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_lead_and_calcium_interact_positively_in_activation_of_calmodulin https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_... Yes, teeth and bones use most of the lead that you consume. But why is there lead in the teeth of neandethals? https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-old-neanderthal-teeth-reveal-evidence-of-lead-poisoning https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-o... Yes, iron overload seems to interfere with lead. Calcium not so much, it seems it rather makes lead used for building more bone. Licking lead causes cravings for calcium rich food.
  - eternityforest 4y ago
    Where's the evidence that those proteins need "activating"? The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. For that matter, activating and poisoning aren't even mutually exclusive, you can run an engine too fast and burn it, work out till you get rhabdo and your P looks like T, etc. To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. Lots of stuff is just mildly bad, it kills some people, sickens others, but not enough to affect population growth so Darwin continues not caring while people die and suffer. Maybe they had some lead containing tools or medicines or something, of the sort we can avoid now because of safety standards. Our ancestors were exposed to lots of unhealthy stuff, including battle axes, most of us would prefer to minimize it to below that level, and continually improve things.
    - Weneedlead 4y ago
      >The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized. We're arguing what the 'default' is. I'm arguing the default state is with lead. It would be strange for a protein to evolve to get so easily activated by a toxin. >To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible. I thing it's completely uncontroversial that the current typical human health is at the historic rock bottom. There is no reason theoretical or not to believe it is toxic in the first place, except for the strange claim that the body uses it in error. >The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful. That's an absurd claim, and really grasping at straws, don't you think? Mote that the remains aren't many. It isn't that they sieved through thousands of teeth to find a couple that were poisoned.
samtho 4y ago
> Most people are critically malnourished, so it holds on to any that it can get. This is not how chemistry works. The body will use (catalyze) what you give it, but the more reactive substances are used quicker and in greater abundance. Also who are these people that are critically malnourished? In the western world at least, we have access to all the vitamins and minerals we need just by way of the food we eat even on a relatively poor diet.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
eternityforest 4y ago
People didn't invent heart disease or brain damage or bleeding to death either, none of those are healthy. The body might absorb all kinds of shit that isn't healthy, including carbon monoxide and pure americium, just like a computer holds onto malware and a lake holds onto PFAS. Even most scientifically proven essential nutrients are poison if you have more than the optimal amount. That's literally what getting fat is, the body holding onto things that have no benefit because of some chemical pathway left over from when we didn't have refrigerators and might need to walk for 4 days without food. Evolution didn't give people a very effective "stop absorbing calories" function so why would we expect a "stop absorbing lead" function to be much better? People didn't make it but people moved it where it could be taken in, and processed it into more active compounds.
crote 4y ago
Your body will also hold on to DDT, nicotine, or even radioactive iodine. The only thing that shows is that it is quite bad at getting rid of harmful substances.