3 ms·

Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. Messing with it or changing the environmental equilibrium i

Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. Messing with it or changing the environmental equilibrium is often what what increases risk / makes it a non-negligible risk. See also: EPA's embarrassing DC screw-up where replacing chlorine with a "safer" alternative caused lead chemical pathways to reverse and lead levels to spike: years of deposits into non-lead infrastructure -from (previously removed) lead pipes- suddenly became unstable and began leaching back into water due to the chemistry change. The leadfree water system suddenly had a lead problem, because some one at the EPA decided that the chlorine system was a bigger problem than it really was. Especially when it comes to these types of (potential) remediation projects, never assume that the unknown unknowns will be harmless, or even less risky than the no-build alternative.

beerandt 3y ago
Separately, the US has a problem in that activism has largely become its own industry, existing for the sake of itself more than for its founding causes. When an industry depends on problems to exist, problems will be always be found. When goals and reasons-to-be are accomplished, very few seem willing to 'admit' their victory - and give up their self-important justification for whatever selfimage they've built on top their cause. So the cause is extended or a new one is invented. "In conclusion, further study - and more research funds - is needed."
- dumpsterlid 3y ago
  [dead]
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > When an industry depends on problems to exist, problems will be always be found. If your "industry" is finding the poisons that we human are putting into the Earth, then I think it is true that problems will always be found.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    If by no other means than adding things to the list constitutes a poison or how much of a given supposed poison is safe.
- jujube3 3y ago
  What are you even talking about? What "industry" depends on calling attention to lead poisoning? As best as I can tell not many people care about issues with lead.
  - sclarisse 3y ago
    Idk, it seems reasonably obvious that there is activism and litigation and nonprofits and bureaucracies all studying environmental issues, and these are all operated by people, many of whom get more money and attention was a result of the concerns they raise. There is some opportunity for a conflict of interest. One question, though, is whether they take that opportunity. Another more salient question is whether the Wall Street Journal, of all the possible papers, has fallen under the influence of such groups. And it certainly seems as if they’ve found some people with elevated lead levels in blood, and ground and water samples that exceed EPA limits.
hammock 3y ago
>Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. Messing with it or changing the environmental equilibrium is often what what increases risk / makes it a non-negligible risk. This is also true of heavy metal poisoning in human bodies. The treatment for metals poisoning is to ingest chelating agents which, in theory, bind to the heavy metals and carry them into the bloodstream, where they are then excreted via urine or other means. Unfortunately a sometimes side effect of this therapy is the unsettling of metals from, e.g. fat stores and the relocation of them into the brain, making things worse rather than better
jujube3 3y ago
> Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. That didn't happen here. Those lead cables are leaching into local surface water and the environment. Although this article focuses mainly on the harm to workers.

beerandt 3y ago

Separately, the US has a problem in that activism has largely become its own industry, existing for the sake of itself more than for its founding causes. When an industry depends on problems to exist, problems will be always be found. When goals and reasons-to-be are accomplished, very few seem willing to 'admit' their victory - and give up their self-important justification for whatever selfimage they've built on top their cause. So the cause is extended or a new one is invented. "In conclusion, further study - and more research funds - is needed."

dumpsterlid 3y ago
[dead]
JKCalhoun 3y ago
> When an industry depends on problems to exist, problems will be always be found. If your "industry" is finding the poisons that we human are putting into the Earth, then I think it is true that problems will always be found.
- Aloha 3y ago
  If by no other means than adding things to the list constitutes a poison or how much of a given supposed poison is safe.
jujube3 3y ago
What are you even talking about? What "industry" depends on calling attention to lead poisoning? As best as I can tell not many people care about issues with lead.
- sclarisse 3y ago
  Idk, it seems reasonably obvious that there is activism and litigation and nonprofits and bureaucracies all studying environmental issues, and these are all operated by people, many of whom get more money and attention was a result of the concerns they raise. There is some opportunity for a conflict of interest. One question, though, is whether they take that opportunity. Another more salient question is whether the Wall Street Journal, of all the possible papers, has fallen under the influence of such groups. And it certainly seems as if they’ve found some people with elevated lead levels in blood, and ground and water samples that exceed EPA limits.

hammock 3y ago

>Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. Messing with it or changing the environmental equilibrium is often what what increases risk / makes it a non-negligible risk. This is also true of heavy metal poisoning in human bodies. The treatment for metals poisoning is to ingest chelating agents which, in theory, bind to the heavy metals and carry them into the bloodstream, where they are then excreted via urine or other means. Unfortunately a sometimes side effect of this therapy is the unsettling of metals from, e.g. fat stores and the relocation of them into the brain, making things worse rather than better

jujube3 3y ago

> Lead tends to stabilize in-situ in most installations over time to be fairly safe and non-reactive. That didn't happen here. Those lead cables are leaching into local surface water and the environment. Although this article focuses mainly on the harm to workers.