3 ms·

The roman science on lead was far from conclusive to them as well...

gruez 2y ago
They didn't have the scientific method back then so it's unclear what phrases like "conclusive" in today's context would even mean to them. That said, wikipedia suggests they know of the dangers: >In the 2nd century BC the Greek botanist Nicander described the colic and paralysis seen in lead-poisoned people.[32][5] Dioscorides, a Greek physician who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote that lead makes the mind "give way".[122][263] >Julius Caesar's engineer, Vitruvius, reported, "water is much more wholesome from earthenware pipes than from lead pipes. For it seems to be made injurious by lead, because white lead is produced by it, and this is said to be harmful to the human body."[264] Gout, prevalent in affluent Rome, is thought to be the result of lead, or leaded eating and drinking vessels. Sugar of lead (lead(II) acetate) was used to sweeten wine, and the gout that resulted from this was known as "saturnine" gout.[265]
- zug_zug 2y ago
  Just having the scientific method doesn't mean we know what's true. We just know what's easy to observe. The vast majority of what there is to know about human health hardly have a clue (e.g. psychology). By the same token we also don't really know what the long-term effects of having plastic in your testicles are over your lifespan, because we don't have an easy way to get this data on a million people and look for correlations. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Where did I claim otherwise? If you read my comments more carefully you'd see I never made such claim. For instance in my original comment said "the science on microplastics seem... far from conclusive". That's not the same as claiming there's evidence that there's no negative effects from microplastics. Moreover, that comment is in reply to a comment which says that there is evidence that microplastics was causing "various problems" and was "probably affecting everyone".

They didn't have the scientific method back then so it's unclear what phrases like "conclusive" in today's context would even mean to them. That said, wikipedia suggests they know of the dangers: >In the 2nd century BC the Greek botanist Nicander described the colic and paralysis seen in lead-poisoned people.[32][5] Dioscorides, a Greek physician who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote that lead makes the mind "give way".[122][263] >Julius Caesar's engineer, Vitruvius, reported, "water is much more wholesome from earthenware pipes than from lead pipes. For it seems to be made injurious by lead, because white lead is produced by it, and this is said to be harmful to the human body."[264] Gout, prevalent in affluent Rome, is thought to be the result of lead, or leaded eating and drinking vessels. Sugar of lead (lead(II) acetate) was used to sweeten wine, and the gout that resulted from this was known as "saturnine" gout.[265]

zug_zug 2y ago
Just having the scientific method doesn't mean we know what's true. We just know what's easy to observe. The vast majority of what there is to know about human health hardly have a clue (e.g. psychology). By the same token we also don't really know what the long-term effects of having plastic in your testicles are over your lifespan, because we don't have an easy way to get this data on a million people and look for correlations. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Where did I claim otherwise? If you read my comments more carefully you'd see I never made such claim. For instance in my original comment said "the science on microplastics seem... far from conclusive". That's not the same as claiming there's evidence that there's no negative effects from microplastics. Moreover, that comment is in reply to a comment which says that there is evidence that microplastics was causing "various problems" and was "probably affecting everyone".