2 ms·

I think these guidelines are also a political problem. They need to balance risk, communication, and what is feasible given the resources available and threat l

I think these guidelines are also a political problem. They need to balance risk, communication, and what is feasible given the resources available and threat level. That’s not an easy thing to do. Still I am deeply skeptical that the people publishing these guidelines are considering these aspects effectively when their lead guideline puts 25% of residential areas in the US “at risk”.

refurb 2y ago
The EPA's position is "there is no safe level of exposure to lead" in drinking water. But the question is - is that based on science? And if detection methods continue to improve, will we hold to that statement? Will we tell people not to drink water that contains 0.00001 parts per trillion? There clearly is some level of lead exposure where the level of effect cannot be distinguished from an individual not exposed.
- Anotheroneagain 2y ago
  You will always see a difference, because it's essential, so every little but makes you less deficient. That is all they did, they never determined which way it is better. It's only assumed to be better - that the protein won't get activated is better, the way you look is supposedly better, the way you think is supposedly better. Even though people got ugly, sick, and the world is in "polycrisis"
- notjulianjaynes 2y ago
  A blood lead level of 1 ug/dl is enough to increase ADHD symptoms in children[1]. Children absorb lead more readily than adults and lead bioaccumulates. The CDC's action level for childhood BLL is 3.5ug/dl. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892926/
  - refurb 2y ago
    Holy uncontrolled confounding factors Batman!
  - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
    No. Look at the actual results - the problematic behavior peaks at 5mcg/dl. They are simply too disabled to be impulsive below that. Ritalin actually appears to replace or allow an otherwise lead dependent process.

refurb 2y ago

The EPA's position is "there is no safe level of exposure to lead" in drinking water. But the question is - is that based on science? And if detection methods continue to improve, will we hold to that statement? Will we tell people not to drink water that contains 0.00001 parts per trillion? There clearly is some level of lead exposure where the level of effect cannot be distinguished from an individual not exposed.

Anotheroneagain 2y ago
You will always see a difference, because it's essential, so every little but makes you less deficient. That is all they did, they never determined which way it is better. It's only assumed to be better - that the protein won't get activated is better, the way you look is supposedly better, the way you think is supposedly better. Even though people got ugly, sick, and the world is in "polycrisis"
notjulianjaynes 2y ago
A blood lead level of 1 ug/dl is enough to increase ADHD symptoms in children[1]. Children absorb lead more readily than adults and lead bioaccumulates. The CDC's action level for childhood BLL is 3.5ug/dl. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892926/
- refurb 2y ago
  Holy uncontrolled confounding factors Batman!
- Anotheroneagain 2y ago
  No. Look at the actual results - the problematic behavior peaks at 5mcg/dl. They are simply too disabled to be impulsive below that. Ritalin actually appears to replace or allow an otherwise lead dependent process.