[HN Gopher] Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thoug... ___________________________________________________________________ Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study Author : wglb Score : 273 points Date : 2023-09-21 15:55 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (medicalxpress.com) (TXT) w3m dump (medicalxpress.com) | hinkley wrote: | Recently read that sweat concentrations of heavy metals can be | about 7-8 times higher than blood serum levels. So you can sweat | out heavy metals, but just barely. My guess is you lose more in | skin flakes and hair. | rngname22 wrote: | epic water filter + nalgene 32 oz hdpe bottle is a great, | lightweight filtered drinking water on-demand system | | filter pitchers are easy to use and a good safe guard against | poor plumbing if you haven't had your home water tested | djmips wrote: | It is my understanding that the common filter pitchers don't | filter out lead. | gpt5 wrote: | That's not correct. It depends on the water filter. A common | Brita filter doesn't filter lead. But the referenced filter | (Epic) does. There are other filters that can do that, the | most popular is ZeroWater, which you can check their | datasheet https://www.zerowater.eu/wp- | content/uploads/ZeroWater-NSF-ce... | myth_drannon wrote: | The problem with ZeroWater is it filters out everything. I | would be always thirsty after drinking from ZeroWater, it | was a weird feeling. | whichfawkes wrote: | So then you have to remineralize it... | | But how are those minerals being sourced, and does that | mixture contain lead? Ugh, it never ends. | londons_explore wrote: | Be dubious of those claims. Lead can be in hundreds of | chemical compounds. I very much doubt they have tested the | filter against all of them. | | Only reverse osmosis will do a decent job of removing lead, | and even that won't be perfect. | hedora wrote: | HDPE Nalgene bottles probably leach PFAS: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/Nalgene/comments/wqdgbi/are_nalgene... | | Glass or stainless steel would be a better choice (especially | for storage). | rngname22 wrote: | My old bottle with this same filter was glass, but it was | very heavy and it also ended up shattering when I was | climbing a mountain and lost my balance and had to toss it | onto a nearby ledge. And the filter itself filters a lot of | pfas and other microcontaminants. | | "That's why we've taken a layered approach, incorporating a | variety of high-performance filter media into one powerful | filter. Crafted and rigorously tested in the United States, | this multi-layered filter is engineered to effectively target | both tap water pollutants such as chlorine, microplastics, | lead, PFAS, and more, as well as outdoor water contaminants | like bacteria, viruses, and microbial cysts like | cryptosporidium and giardia." | | And the lid and straw itself is also made of plastic. Life is | hard and something is better than nothing. | bobmaxup wrote: | Whats my risk of exposure to lead from improperly made glass | or stainless steel? | londons_explore wrote: | Stainless steel could easily contain quite some ppm of | lead. Metals are frequently recycled, and hard to separate. | | Glass could also contain lead in contaminants - but actual | metallic lead won't end up in the finished product - but | lead oxides might well. | | Having said that... There are probably many devices in your | house or supply chain which deliberately contain lead in | double digit percentages. Worry about those before worrying | about contamination. | spacephysics wrote: | Micro plastics in the Nalgene, especially if it's exposed to | any sort of heat. | | There's no BPA, but there have been "cousins" of BPA created | that essentially are just as, if not more, harmful | jopsen wrote: | While a lot of this appears to be estimates... it's pretty wild | of 30% of deaths from cardiovascular are caused by lead. | | Mostly in low/middle income countries. | | > It's items in the kitchen that are poisoning them | | On a positive note: This is something that can be fixed. | lkbm wrote: | I'm reminded of an old SSC post[0]: | | > See, my terrible lecture on ADHD suggested several reasons | for the increasing prevalence of the disease. Of these I | remember two: the spiritual desert of modern adolescence, and | insufficient iron in the diet. And I remember thinking "Man, I | hope it's the iron one, because that seems a lot easier to | fix." | | The discovery that we can dramatically reduce mortality by the | relatively straightforward solution of _using pots and pans | that don 't contain lead_ is a cause for excitement. Compare | that to the solutions like "convince people to exercise more | and eat less (or less tasty) food". We _know_ how to make our | dishes lead-free! | | [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed- | biolo... | jstarfish wrote: | Wow. How does one develop an iron deficiency in America? | Bread and breakfast cereals are fortified with it and it's in | multivitamins, eggs, pasta, most meats, and even some | chocolate. I get spinach and peas aren't for everyone, but | how does one end up with a deficiency in _iron_ when it 's | added to the trashiest of food? | | (We shit on it now, but maybe this is why the "food pyramid" | was shaped so contrary to current sensibilities? Or maybe | it's a _potassium_ deficiency mislabeled as something else.) | Natsu wrote: | One problem with a lot of the studies is that the studies have | a lot of confoundeing and estimates of lead's harm seem to be | rising even as exposure decreases, which should make people | stop and think more. But this doesn't come up that much because | it is obviously bad for you, and there's generally no good | reason not to avoid exposure and not many people care about | precisely how bad it is for you. | | But it's weird that lead exposure has been dropping while the | things it's supposed to cause don't seem to be decreasing in | proportion to the lack of exposure. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _estimates of lead 's harm seem to be rising even as | exposure decreases, which should make people stop and think | more_ | | Is the effect size or confidence rising? The latter makes | sense. We're moving from a population systematically exposed | to lead (no control) to one with lead-free kids for a change. | hinkley wrote: | You think the effect of a toxin is a certain curve. A giant | initiative to remove it is moderately successful, but the | numbers in the population are not coming down as much as | you expected. | | Is it that the toxin is correlated with another substance | that is responsible for part of the harm? Is it corruption | and the cleanups have been faked, leading to underreporting | of exposure without underreporting of results? Or did you | underestimate the harm at lower exposures (maybe because | you underestimated the exposure of some of your subjects)? | | Science is hard. As is public policy. | Natsu wrote: | Effect size, at least for harm to IQ: | | What is the effect of 1 mg of lead on IQ? | | Good studies from the different research eras can be used | to illustrate how lead effect sizes have changed over time. | | Landrigan et al. (1975) represents the Early Era. In this | study, there were 46 children in the high lead group and 78 | in the control group. Their respective BLLs were 48.3 and | 26.9 in 1972 and 40.5 and 26.5 in 1973, and they were 8.3 | and 9.3 years old, respectively. So we have a gigantic 14 | mg/dL gap between these groups. The high lead group had an | average IQ of 88.02 versus 92.88 for the low lead group, or | a 4.86 point IQ gap, and thus a per mg effect of 0.35 IQ | points. | | Baghurst et al. (1992) represents the Middle Era. In this | study, there were 494 children who had IQ results, and they | were divided into quartiles by BLLs. The mean | concentrations of blood at assessment age were 6.6 mg/dL | for the lowest quartile, 10.1 for the second, 13.7 for the | third, and 20.0 for the final one. Their IQs were 109.6, | 107.7, 102.7, and 98.7, respectively. Going from the lowest | to the highest lead exposure quartiles, we have a BLL | difference of 13.4 mg/dL and an IQ difference of 10.9 | points. Going quartile to quartile, the effect of 1 mg of | lead was 0.54 IQ points, 1.39 IQ points, and then 0.63 IQ | points, with the aggregate (1 - 4) being 0.81 IQ points. | | Kim, Yu & Lee (2010) represents the the Modern Era. In this | study, there were 302 children who were median-split by | BLLs. The high BLL group had a mean BLL of 3.74 and the low | BLL group had a mean of 1.92 with IQs of 106.4 and 110, | respectively. These differences of 1.82 mg/dL and 3.60 IQ | points mean that the per mg/dL IQ drop was 1.98 points. | highwaylights wrote: | I'd be interested to know how someone can be sure that the | cookware/tableware/cutlery in their home is safe. | | Is this a result of far lower standards in other places or just | a result of that being the region that was tested for the | report (the post doesn't say, it just mentions that samples | were collected from developing countries). | | This could very easily be a massive problem in the developed | world too and you wouldn't know from the report here. | mrob wrote: | Here's a study showing various levels of lead leaching into | drinks from ceramic mugs found in the US: | | https://foodsafetyandrisk.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186. | .. | | Important quote: "The estimated daily dose of lead exceeded | the California Maximum Allowable Dose Level of 0.5 mg per day | for one of the five mugs tested." | | Previous HN discussion: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29606600 | nayuki wrote: | I probably dodged this ceramic problem because I drink from | borosilicate glass beakers. (Yes, I buy new, unused labware | for cooking/drinking use.) | asdff wrote: | Are those not too fragile for daily use? A pint glass is | so much thicker in comparison than a beaker. | coding123 wrote: | How can it be fixed? | conkeisterdoor wrote: | If I'm reading the GP correctly, by replacing kitchen items | containing lead with alternatives that don't contain lead. | | That should be much easier and less expensive to do than eg, | replacing lead pipes in the house or town/city that may be | delivering poisoned drinking water. | eterps wrote: | Is there a way to know which alternatives don't contain | lead? | narrator wrote: | DMSA, which is the treatment for lead poisoning, is cheap, can be | taken orally and has a good safety profile. Shame that doctors | are not more familiar with it. | shawnz wrote: | Doctors certainly are familiar with chelation therapy (like | DMSA) as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning (like from lead) | astrange wrote: | Since taurine can be used to chelate lead, I propose everyone | drink a lot of Monster. | hcrean wrote: | [flagged] | colechristensen wrote: | Jet fuel never contained lead. (re: "chemtrails") | | Old small piston-engined aircraft are now in the processes of | validating and phasing out leaded fuel. | | The primary sources of lead people consume will be from | industrial pollution, old paint, and old water pipes. | cooper_ganglia wrote: | I honestly don't know enough about the theories to dismiss or | validate them offhand, but the article quotes an official as | saying that it seems as though the primary issue is that things | like ceramic cookware and other household items had more lead | in them than initially believed: | | > Fuller said part of this "missing piece of the puzzle" was | revealed in a Pure Earth report released on Tuesday, which | analyzed 5,000 samples of consumer goods and food in 25 | developing countries. | | >It found high rates of lead contamination in metal pots and | pans, ceramic cookware, paint, cosmetics and toys. | | >"This is why poorer countries have so much lead poisoning," | Fuller said. "It's items in the kitchen that are poisoning | them." | adasdasdas wrote: | Anyone worried about lead should take calcium pills with vitamin | D which helps absorption. Calcium should always be taken with | food otherwise your body just ignores it. It works because your | body interprets lead as calcium. | m00x wrote: | You mean calcium reduces lead absorption? | | Edit: Ah, vitamin D helps calcium absorption, which then | reduces lead absorption. | digitcatphd wrote: | Studies like these always make me wonder what the equivalent of | this today. Microplastics? Carbon? What else? | mschuster91 wrote: | Chemical pesticides, nitrogen runoff from fertilizer | (particularly cow dung), nuclear waste, all the CO2 from the | 300-ish years of industrial scale fossil fuel usage, hundreds | of years of devastation brought onto local wildlife which drove | _a lot_ of species to extinction, leftover from bombs and | chemical weapons that was just casually dumped into the ocean | after WW2 [1], leftover from silicon production (a shitload of | Silicon Valley is superfund sites [2]), land mines and | unexploded ordnance in former fighting areas such as the "zone | rouge" from WW1 [3] or what's going to be left behind in | Ukraine, all the NBC weapons that especially the US and | (Soviet) Russia manufactured. | | [1] https://www.geo.de/wissen/forschung-und- | technik/weltkriegsmu... | | [2] | https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_rouge | chinathrow wrote: | TikTok? | rabuse wrote: | Social media has caused the largest brain drain we've ever | seen. | colordrops wrote: | Pretty much anything our ecosystem hasn't had time to evolve | and adapt to is likely going to have some deleterious effect on | the life forms within. | fodkodrasz wrote: | > Carbon | | could you elaborate? | nayuki wrote: | Probably referring to climate change / global warming. Carbon | dioxide doesn't kill people by itself, but it can trigger | floods, droughts, heat waves, etc. that will harm human | habit. | amluto wrote: | Lead. It's not gone. | | And maybe some PFAS? We don't have great data, and PFAS isn't | reliably disclosed in products. (Also, surely different | perfluorinated chemicals have different effects.) | hombre_fatal wrote: | There are lead detection q-tip swab kits but annoyingly they | also test positive for copper. I didn't realize that until | after I threw out a copper tongue scraper. | | But I did find that one of my girlfriend's keychain trinkets | tested positive while saying "stainless steel". | xnx wrote: | PM2.5 particulates https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable- | particulate-matte... | Exuma wrote: | Its not gone... pretty much every single person that shoots | guns need to be aware of this. Of course gun people don't care | about their health and they think with their 45 ug/dL lead | level that youre "overreacting"... | | D-Lead is a very good company for deleading that i use | obsessively, when shooting | | I once called them and talked to an engineer about lead for | like 1.5 hours. I think it really surprised him someone was so | interested and he was happy to share. | Modified3019 wrote: | It's definitely a concern of mine, thanks for the heads up | about that company. | | For those that aren't aware, the primer in cartridges | typically have lead styphnate, barium nitrate, and tetrazene, | among other things. So even if your bullets have a complete | copper jacket, you still get significant lead particulate | exposure, especially indoors or with a suppressor with high | back pressure. No idea if whatever smokeless powders are used | are doped with something _fun_ or not. Bullets with exposed | lead have additional concerns, as the surface gets flash | melted /vaporized in addition to particles generated from | barrel friction. This all adds up. | | Never clean guns/suppressors with vinegar (acetic acid), | because that just creates lead acetate, a highly | bioavailabile form of lead that makes elemental lead look | safe by comparison, and legally and morally requires proper | hazardous waste disposal. | | Fortunately there are alternatives showing up now, including | some with lead free primers, but damn if it isn't expensive, | and as expected copper/zinc/mild steel bullets have trouble | competing with lead for performance because it comes down to | mass. | asdff wrote: | Are lead pellet air rifles even worse then? I remember | cleaning the barrel of one and the cleaning tool was so | very dirty. | Exuma wrote: | The lead acetate thing is fun to research, I went down that | rabbit hole once, not because I'd ever do it but I like | watching other people do it. It is called "the dip" and | theres tons of videos saying DONT DO THIS but then showing | you how to do it, haha. It turns bright blue or purple, I | can't remember... but it's very colorful. Reminds me of the | good old days of emerald green which was made of arsenic in | the 1920s. | 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: | So is IQ a "largely pseudoscientific swindle" to quote a popular | article from a few years ago, or is it not? Because if the | consensus is that it doesn't matter, then why bother using it as | a metric here? | dralley wrote: | It's complicated. Firstly because there are a lot of "IQ | studies" that cited in places such as The Bell Curve that had | utterly horrendous methodology. Second because there is a lot | of cultural baggage around the very concept of IQ, as if it | were a measure of someone's intrinsic intelligence rather than | just measuring the result of the combination of intrinsic and | environmental factors. | [deleted] | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | I think it depends on the scope of what's being addressed as | "IQ". As far as I know, there are some fairly robust methods | and results around IQ, but it's usually hard to make the leap | from those to a sales pitch for any particular | product/service/policy/program in a similarly robust way. So | any given invocation of IQ in the wider world has a high | likelihood of being somewhere between scientifically sketchy | and outright nonsensical. It's reminiscent of quantum mechanics | and epigenetics in that sense. | paulpauper wrote: | taleb's argument has changed to IQ only matters for downside, | not upside. | astrange wrote: | Not changed, that's always what the article he was referring | to said. | bluGill wrote: | Yes and no. IQ isn't useful for saying anything about a | particular person. However it is a consistent measure so if one | group tests different from a different one we should suspect | there is something wrong and look deeper. | seventytwo wrote: | It's not that binary. IQ is like any other statistical measure | of human characteristics - it's very nuanced. | | The IQ tests measure _something_ and we can correlate that | thing with other aspects like academic performance, other test | scores, income, wealth, etc. | | It's a useful comparative metric, but it is not useful when | people try to use it for things like racist bullshit. | emodendroket wrote: | Do you have another suggestion? Many of the criticisms of IQ | seem less relevant in this context. | CodeWriter23 wrote: | Just a data point here, an acquaintance of mine gave himself lead | poisoning by visiting the shooting range too often for target | practice. I think he wears a breather when he goes now. | 98codes wrote: | Wow -- how often for how long were/are they going? | bloaf wrote: | There was a recent study which found child blood lead levels | were higher in areas with high gun ownership after | controlling for socioeconomics. | | https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/higher-rates- | of-f... | CodeWriter23 wrote: | I don't know how much their exposure was but I'd estimate | they are closer to the skinny edge of the bell curve. | mrguyorama wrote: | Maybe they had especially bad practices, like never washed | their hands, exclusively eats finger food after picking | through their spent bullets and licks their fingers? | GaryNumanVevo wrote: | Lead dust settles everywhere, gets into your lungs, | especially if it's an indoor range. | GaryNumanVevo wrote: | Yep, also a reason why I refuse to take my children to an | indoor range. Lead dust gets everywhere, I also keep separate | set of shooting clothes which I wash outdoors to avoid | contaminating my children's clothing. | cltby wrote: | Question for any IQ skeptics here (e.g. "it just measures your | ability to take tests" or "it just tells you how rich your | parents are"): what's your response to studies like this? Is | there anything that can be said about the effect of lead on | cognitive function? Why might IQ be a good measure of lead- | induced stupidification, but unreliable for literally anything | else? | raincole wrote: | If the chemical can complete nullify the advantages of having | rich parents, how doesn't it sound bad enough...? | colechristensen wrote: | IQ is a mediocre-at-best metric for intelligence. | "Intelligence" is probably real and variable among people, but | poorly defined, very hard to test, and subject to a whole lot | of opinion. | | IQ is bad at comparing people from different backgrounds, | especially across cultures, languages, etc. | | _But_ IQ can be a valid comparison for a single non-cultural | variable. i.e. lead exposure in otherwise identical cohorts. | cltby wrote: | > otherwise identical cohorts. | | You could do this stratification/matching for any IQ study. | What's special about lead-IQ? | hedora wrote: | I assume the study authors controlled for such things. For | example, they could bin the study participants by socioeconomic | group, race, location, etc, etc, etc, and then show the average | IQ loss per bin. | | I haven't read the study, but statisticians do this stuff for a | living, and there are definitely ways to control for sample | biases that let you distinguish between "poorer people have | lower IQs and are exposed to more lead, and the root cause of | both is being poor", and "lead leads to lower IQs within all | socioeconomic groups we could think of and measure" | cltby wrote: | But these controls could be done for any IQ-related study. Is | IQ-skepticism based on the belief that IQ researchers | generally don't use controls? That lead-IQ researchers alone | do this? | mkoubaa wrote: | Most IQ skeptics think IQ correlates with intelligence. The | argument is generally over how good a proxy it is for | intelligence and what conclusions can and can't be drawn from | statements about IQ | [deleted] | csa wrote: | > "it just measures your ability to take tests" | | This is largely wrong. One could be a master at test-taking and | not come close to a high score. | | That said, familiarly with the test/item structure almost | certainly helps, especially for folks with the potential to | score high (see below). | | > or "it just tells you how rich your parents are") | | Hmm... family wealth and IQ may be correlated, but not | perfectly so. There are plenty of low-IQ rich people and also | plenty of high-IQ poor people. | | > what's your response to studies like this? | | Probably too many confounding variables. That said, this study | is a publishable unit that can push one or more funded agendas, | so here we are. | | > Is there anything that can be said about the effect of lead | on cognitive function? | | While I know a bit about IQ, I don't know much about the | details of the relationship of IQ and lead. | | > Why might IQ be a good measure of lead-induced | stupidification | | Maybe it's not. See "funded agendas" comment above. | | > but unreliable for literally anything else? | | (the main reason I replied is below) | | People really need to let go of this idea in a reasonably | reliable way. | | 1. IQ measures reasoning ability. It is quite good at measuring | this. | | 2. People put a lot of weight onto how IQ correlates with a | bunch of other things, but these are not things that IQ tests | are designed to measure. As such, these correlations may not be | meaningful in some cases. So the "literally anything else" that | IQ is allegedly not good for is almost entirely things that IQ | tests are not designed to measure. I don't think it's prudent | to disregard the test/measure because of misuse by some folks | (typically within agendas). | | 3. People get very self-conscious about IQ scores. Let me help | with that. IQ scores are a measure on a particular day that can | vary from day to day for any one person. For any given test | taker, they are trying to optimize what they score out of a | theoretical max (i.e., their "true IQ"). Many, many things | cause people to score lower than their potential max -- lack of | sleep, lack of food, external distractions, distress (physical, | mental, emotional), anxiety, ambivalence, lack of test | familiarity, etc. Very few things cause them to score higher | than their max (it will almost certainly be within the | confidence interval). It's ok. Retake the test if it matters | (it usually doesn't). | | 4. IQ matters most in three areas, imho. The first is at the | extremes. Gifted/genius folks and learning disabled folks need | additional resources. How and whether this is implemented is | highly debated. The second is in leadership positions. You want | your leaders (e.g., in the military) to be within about 20 IQ | points of those they lead. The idea is that > 20 IQ delta folks | see the world in fundamentally different ways, so leading | someone who views the world so differently is difficult and | largely inefficient. The third is with one's significant other. | Same as above, it will be hard to be understood (if that's your | goal) by someone who is +/-20 IQ points away from you. | | I hope this helps. | gpt5 wrote: | Dude, you are spewing out random things as if they are fact. | Yet you lack an understanding of what IQ is. | | IQ is an attempt to measure a general intelligence factor | (g-factor). What happened is that researchers noticed that | people who are good at some tests tend to also be good at | other tests, even if it's from very different domain. E.g. | say you are good with math, you also tend to be good in you | language skills. This led to the assumption that there is a | general factor out there that is shared across all skills | (the g-factor). So determining how good you are at math is a | combination of your math specific skills + the g-factor. Same | with other domains. | | How do you extract the g-factor? You measure a large set of | people across a cognitive challenging set of tests, and do a | factor analysis (statistical technique) to extract a linear | g-factor. Each test can have a "g-loading" which essentially | calculates what portion of it is due to the general g-factor. | For example, one of the tests with the highest g-load is | simply hearing a sequence of numbers and repeating them in | reverse. This test has nothing to do with "reasoning skills. | Yet for some reason you claim that it's designed to measure | reasoning skills but not designed to measure "a bunch of | other things". | | You also claim that IQ varies significantly day to day, but | that has not been shown in studies. In fact, IQ measurements | tend to be remarkably stable across the person's entire adult | life. | | Than you spewed up a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about | the difference of IQ between a leader and his team. | csa wrote: | > Dude, you are spewing out random things as if they are | fact. Yet you lack an understanding of what IQ is. | | In my previous career, I did quite a bit of research on IQ. | I'm pretty sure I have a decent understanding of what it | is. | | If you take out your straw-mans and overstatements of what | I said, then I think you will be able to find research that | supports everything I said above about IQ approximately to | the degree of confidence that I stated it. | jiofj wrote: | [flagged] | rjsw wrote: | Or people just haven't tried hard enough to find a | politically correct explaination. | | I think slavery itself could be one cause of it. Restricting | the freedom to pick a partner of one group compared with | other nearby groups seems likely to have an effect. | hedora wrote: | Critical race theory explains IQ differences between | socioeconomic groups (including races) extremely well. | klyrs wrote: | Critical Race Theory is politically incorrect, under any | definition of political correctness I know | omginternets wrote: | Nit: CRT certainly offers an explanation, but I don't think | it's a particularly good one. Because it always appeals to | "systemic injustice", it can't account for things like | | 1. the persistence of between group IQ differences amongst | children people who have relocated to other | countries/culture; | | 2. the disproportionate success of certain historically- | marginalized groups; | | 3. regression to the mean; and, | | 4. other factors that marginally influence IQ scores (e.g. | single-parent household vs dual-parent household) | | without engaging in circular reasoning. | | At best, CRT's explanation is incomplete. | cjbgkagh wrote: | Does it? Most of what I've seen amounts to assume races are | have equal inherent IQ distributions, given test results | are unequal the assumption is then tests must be inherently | biased (examples of recent immigrant non-English speaking | Jews improving their IQ scores as they learned English) or | differences are caused by socio economic factors. That | logic would fall apart if the original assumption wasn't | made, but anything starting with a prior that races can | have different IQ distributions is thrown out as racist. | The progressive book 'The Genetic Lottery' kind-of makes | the case for polygenic factors considered evenly | distributed amongst the races as a basis for that | assumption but in my view their logic has a number of holes | in it. If there is a better treatment of the topic I'm | genuinely interested in reading it. | swayvil wrote: | I think IQ reflects your general cognitive ability AND a few | other things like wealthy parents etc. | | Just like your videogame score reflects your diet and a few | other things. | | Just like lots of things. | masfuerte wrote: | It's possible for IQ to be a good population measure while | being a poor individual measure. (FWIW, I think proponents and | opponents of IQ testing all overstate their cases.) | omginternets wrote: | I think it's a pretty straightforward thing: intelligence | somewhat correlates with life/career outcomes overall, and it's | not linear. Separately, IQ tests are reasonably good, though | imperfect measures of general intelligence. Also separately, if | you look at careers where high intelligence is needed, then IQ | correlates much better. | | IQ does not principally measure test-taking abilities or SES. | Yes, those correlations exist, but their effect sizes are not | nearly as large as a certain political ideologies would have | you believe. And simultaneously, it's not as ironclad as the | _other_ political ideology would have you believe. It 's very | reliable as these things go, but noisy at the margin. | | EDIT: a sibling comment correctly points out that aggregate | effects do not always apply individuals. | swayvil wrote: | Is IQ a piece of private information? | | Does everybody in the country get an IQ test in school? Can we | just look that up in the public records? | | It sure would be useful if it was public and universal. For | tracking the effects of lead poisoning for one. Or just factoring | it into any big study. We might find something unexpected. | aidenn0 wrote: | IQ being public might be problematic; I've heard from more than | one lawyer that one ought-not use IQ as a hiring filter, unless | you have evidence that the IQ test is not biased against any | protected groups. | | Indeed, hiring from more selective universities is, to a | certain degree, a way of laundering hiring based off of IQ, | since you can pass the buck to the university itself to not be | racially biased. | swayvil wrote: | This is a common predicament. | | A piece of information that, if it was made public, would be | immensely useful in countless ways for the management of our | society, But it might also be exploited by bad people. So it | is made private. | | And the icing on the cake. We say "it's private because | privacy is intrinsically good and a _basic human right_ ". | Not, "It's private because we fear bad people". | pixl97 wrote: | >would be immensely useful in countless ways for the | management of our society, | | Such as? | | Now, maybe if one person had an IQ of 80 and the other | contender had an IQ of 105 it seems like it could be useful | in some particular fields. But for the most part you'll run | into the "I'm 200 times smarter than you because my IQ is | 102 and yours is 101". | | And there is no icing on the cake. Privacy is a multipolar | topic and there are many pros and cons around it. | | We have rights not because they are some intrinsic part of | the universe, or inalienable text written by a deity, we | have rights because people working together and learning | from the past mistakes in history have decided that | something better than what was is attainable, and the | moment we forget it something worse will take its place. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | There are some races with average scores of 70. Can you | believe it? | | Why of course I am talking about "white america" in 1900s | [1]. | | [1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter | | > Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a | slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly | 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a | higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900. | uoaei wrote: | Goodhart's law strikes again. | | As soon as IQ becomes a measurable thing, populations that | measure it will act in ways that increase it. Shocking, I | know. | bmacho wrote: | Indeed, except that IQ has not became a thing to optimize | for, and even if it was, there are no known ways to | increase it. | polski-g wrote: | There is one way: | | https://gwern.net/embryo-selection | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Education and QoL seem to be correlated. | swayvil wrote: | It's interesting how closely tied "goodness" and | "intelligence" are. | | To make a mistake is to be a bad person. To be stupid is | to be bad. | | I can call you weak. I can even call you ugly, cowardly | or a flibbertigibbet. But if I call you stupid look out! | | Like our whole worth as humans is summed in our ability | to talk smart and solve riddles like a trained animal. | | Which seems pretty stupid. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | It will seem even stupider once computers can | convincingly do all the "intelligent" things better than | us. | | In fact, they can already _seem_ smarter, even when they | 're not. | | Maybe we can move on to prioritizing humans on other | criteria -- like how nice they are to each other, how | good they are at making nice art, or skiing an amazing | line down a mountain, etc. | aidenn0 wrote: | > I can call you weak. I can even call you ugly, cowardly | or a flibbertigibbet. But if I call you stupid look out! | | This might be a bit peculiar to the HN crowd; calling | someone cowardly is fighting-words in many groups. | gpt5 wrote: | In general, if you are using any test in your hiring that | does not relate to the job responsibilities, you are not | allowed to use a test that doesn't have equal outcomes for | any protected class. | raincole wrote: | [flagged] | PartiallyTyped wrote: | It's almost as if circumstances matter and we should be | looking for ways to improve :thinking:... I don't think | anyone would classify white people from the US from the 1900s | as mentally handicapped but, well, at least someone else said | that and it wasn't me. | | > Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a | slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly | 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a | higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900. | raincole wrote: | And if the public (sometimes even people in academia)'s | reaction to any data they don't like is outrage, how could | we look for ways to improve anything? | yieldcrv wrote: | reminds me of those comic where the adult explains to the kid | that every physical attribute was explained by genetics | | and then stumbles over his words trying to explain cognitive | ones as inherently different | | was just a funny perspective I'm not trying to start a pogrom | with this observation | swayvil wrote: | If we neutered everybody who scored under 130 IQ, what do | you think society would look like in 3 generations? | whatshisface wrote: | It'd collapse from underpopulation and there'd be no | guarantee that the survivors would be any smarter because | "smart genes" interact in complex and nonlinear ways - if | they didn't we'd have already evolved to a point they did | due to the strong selective pressures already acting on | us. | [deleted] | Willish42 wrote: | This feels like a good time to bring up the lead-crime hypothesis | (flaws and all). For those who don't know, there's a strong (if | faulty) correlation between lead levels in preschool children and | crime rates: https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/17991876/crime-drop- | murder-lea... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis | | Regardless of what you think about the hypothesis, the growth and | crunch in lead levels during the last many decades is astounding | and probably still has many bad effects on IQ and related | factors, at least in the US | jeffbee wrote: | The subsequent evidence is so strong that I don't think it's | appropriate to call it faulty. In the paper "Life After Lead" | they study a boundary effect of children who were just above | and just below treatment thresholds for blood lead levels and | the outcomes in terms of crime, school success, etc are stark. | Figure 4(F) particularly. | | https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20160056 | myshpa wrote: | Even american eagles are increasingly dying of lead poisoning. | | https://gasanature.org/bald-eagles-across-the-us-are-being-f... | | _Lead found in the bullets of hunters, who tend to hunt larger | game like deer, poison the meat of the deer. Once the lead enters | the gastrointestinal tract, it becomes toxic. If the deer runs | and can't be recovered by the hunter, it typically will die and | be consumed by scavengers - like the bald eagle._ | jeffbee wrote: | There have always been people on this site who think RoHS was a | conspiracy. There are a few people who do not take the public | health problems caused by lead very seriously. | the__alchemist wrote: | I have a conspiracy theory that people recommending leaded | solder (And reacting hostilely to suggestions it may be | dangerous) are demonstrating the effects of lead exposure. | | I don't buy the "just wash your hands" argument. | sokoloff wrote: | I don't think leaded solder is dangerous to the home | hobbyist, provided reasonable precautions are taken (no food, | drinks, or smokes on the bench and wash your hands | immediately upon getting up from the bench). | | If you're repairing something that used leaded solder, you | pretty much have to use leaded solder. That's fewer and fewer | things post-RoHS, but when you have something older, you're | going to use leaded or you're going to have a bad time. | | With a decent iron and flux, hand soldering with lead-free | solder is fine. All my new work is lead-free, but I have zero | concerns having my kids work with leaded solder at the | frequency and using the reasonable precautions. | Syonyk wrote: | And you can't, with a straight face, tell me that lead free | solder matters, while we're still using lead acid batteries | with dozens of pounds of lead in every car out there (to within | a rounding error, and, yes, it includes almost all EV/PHEVs). | The list of exemptions is very long. | | Lead free solder is _objectively worse_ as a solder for just | about any metric related to longevity. So you have to weigh the | risks of lead in solder against the reduced longevity of entire | electronic devices from solder joint failures. Lots of BGA | components have had problems related to their solder, and the | usual result is that the entire device gets thrown out. | klondike_ wrote: | Lead free solder is fine. When RoHS was first implemented, a | lot of manufacturers had trouble changing their processes for | the new solder. The result was a plague of bad, broken solder | joints. | | Nowadays, lead free solder is accounted for starting in the | design stage. Manufacturers have had 15+ years of experience | with leadfree solder and have largely worked out the issues. | | Lead-acid batteries are extensively recycled. Electronics are | usually just dumped in the trash, making the lead issue much | more important. | pixl97 wrote: | >while we're still using lead acid batteries with dozens of | pounds of lead in every car out there | | Mostly those cars stay outside and the batteries tend to be | expensive and highly recycled, electronics on the other hand, | show up everywhere and have a poor history of recycling. | jeffbee wrote: | Battery retailers will pay you $25 for the old one and even | if you just dump it, desperate people will collect it and | hump it down to the recycler to get the core refund. | | Nobody wants your old soldered electronics. That stuff is | nothing but trash. | jhallenworld wrote: | Batteries are recycled, check it out: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNGg0P7B5fI | londons_explore wrote: | In the last year, how many tons of lead ended up in solder? | | And how much has gone into fuels (especially aviation fuel)? | sokoloff wrote: | The EPA estimate for avgas is roughly 500-600 tons of lead | annually (depending on the exact estimation factors used). | | I found an estimate of lead from e-waste (all sources of | lead, not just solder) being 58,000 tons per year, roughly | 100x the avgas figure. | djmips wrote: | Does anyone know the the risk is for electronics hobbyist? | weaksauce wrote: | considering almost all of this is in poor countries i'd say you | are low risk if you solder infrequently and always have good | airflow. that said there's no safe level of lead so wear a | properly fitted p100 respirator if you want to be as safe as | you can be. | snuxoll wrote: | I typically use lead-free solder unless I'm dealing with some | annoyingly massive thermal mass like a joystick anchor, but I | use the same rule whenever I'm dealing with solder, fishing | weights, and ammo: wash hands before they go near my face after | handling lead products. _Inorganic_ lead is not readily | absorbed through the skin (that 's not to say it cannot be, or | never is), so generally speaking as long as you avoid ingesting | it (hence wash hands after handling it) there's little to worry | about. | mrob wrote: | Soldering doesn't get hot enough to make significant lead fumes | (although flux fumes are also bad to breathe). The main risk | from lead solder is from cleaning your soldering iron. Both the | common techniques (damp sponge and brass wool) make many tiny | balls of solder. They can be hard to see, and because they're | round and dense, they can travel much farther than you expect | by rolling and bouncing. They can get caught in clothing, and | from there potentially fall into food. | | I don't personally use lead solder for this reason. If you have | a good temperature-controlled iron then SAC305 is almost as | easy to use. | mschuster91 wrote: | Unless you're dealing with electronics made prior to 2006, | almost all of what you'll be soldering with is lead-free. Thank | the EU's RoHS directive for that. | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst... | rkagerer wrote: | There's a lot of argument that lead-free solder isn't as good | (or easy to use) and several hobbyists still use leaded | solder. | Syonyk wrote: | Have you ever tried the lead free stuff as compared to a | good 60/40 or something like that? | | It's horrid to use. And the lead-free stuff is far worse in | manufactured equipment - how many devices have failed early | due to BGA solder joint failures that basically didn't | exist before RoHS requirements? I think the nVidia 8600M | issues were traced to that, and plenty of other BGA | equipment since 2006 or so has failed rather early. | XorNot wrote: | Your hobby really isn't worth breathing lungfuls of | leaded-solder fumes. Manufacturing is done by robot, not | you sitting over a desk (said as someone who was doing | this till I realized it myself). | CarVac wrote: | It's only horrid when the flux it comes with is crap. | Most people try the cheapest garbage they can find on | Amazon, and that's the problem. | | I use Chipquik SAC305 with water-washable no-clean flux | core and I actually prefer working with it over Sn63Pb37. | mschuster91 wrote: | Yep, I was around for that shitshow with two laptops. | Soldergate was annoying but to be honest there haven't | been any similar issues at scale I'm aware of, as the | issue was identified and fixed. | bluGill wrote: | Solder comes in many different alloys. Some of them are | really terrible. However some of the better ones are | pretty good. Spend some money to find a good one. If you | can find a manufacture they often have a lot of data and | will tell you which is good for what. Often bad solder is | great for some purpose, but that purpose may be something | not useful for you (you probably don't need the maximum | strength joints as one example), cheap while still | working is useful at industrial scales, but odds are $75 | of the most expensive solder will outlast your lifetime | so why cheap out? | snuxoll wrote: | Lead-free solder can be a bitch to work with for some | projects due to the higher melting point, and I do keep a | spool of leaded wire around for that reason - but generally | speaking for most hobbyist uses it's a non-issue as long as | you have a relatively modern iron that can output enough | heat (and retain it). | AdamH12113 wrote: | Yeah, a good iron and wire with a decent flux core helps | a _lot_. Lead-free solder will never melt like butter the | way leaded does, but I solder with it fairly often at | work and it 's not a show-stopper by any means. | snuxoll wrote: | Flux in general is probably the most important right | after making sure you have an iron capable of handling | the thermal recovery (you can't get the shit to stay | liquid long enough if your iron can't handle keeping | temp). The difference between relying on the flux core in | even my leaded solder and adding a tap of my MG Chemicals | flux when making a joint is night and day. | | My lead-free joints come out nicely rounded and shiny | just like my leaded ones with some practice and the right | consumables. But I certainly have to break out hot air | station more than I would when using leaded solder to | deal with larger thermal masses (and why I will still | break out my spool of leaded wire on rare occasion when | I'm working with temp-sensitive components and just want | it on the freaking board). | giantg2 wrote: | Yeah I use lead free for some stuff. I have switched back | to lead for finer work since it just behaves better. Seems | like the sweet spot for lead free is very small - too cold | and you get a weak dome connection, too hot and it doesn't | want to leave the tip. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Not nitpicking but solder for military and public transport | applications is exempt and still used, due to better | performance under vibration and shock. | Syonyk wrote: | Don't lick your boards, wash your hands before you eat, and if | you're really concerned, wear gloves while handling solder | wire. | | The smoke from soldering isn't lead - a soldering tip is (if | it's not literally glowing into the yellows) far, far too cold | to vaporize any lead from solder - you need to be 1500+C for it | to start being a problem, and you're not soldering that high. | It's rosin smoke, and if you're in doubt, leave your iron in a | puddle of solder - it shouldn't smoke, it should just sit there | liquid after the initial rosin has burned off. | | The rosin smoke isn't great, but it's not a lead toxicity | issue. | | Your concern is lead on your hands from the wire, and then | eating afterwards without a good scrubbing. I don't think it | will penetrate your skin, but you could always wear a pair of | gloves if you wanted. There are some shooting sports soaps that | are designed to help really rip any lead off your hands, so you | might use one of those if you're concerned. | CarVac wrote: | None if you use quality lead-free solder. | tpmx wrote: | Unfortunately lead-free solder is a lot harder to solder | with; it just doesn't flow as nicely. Companies doing it in | an automated way have long figured it out though. | | This is why hobbyists are often still using leaded solder, | particularly outside of the EU. But also in the EU, because | it just flows so damned nice. | CarVac wrote: | That's not actually true though. | | I find SAC305 to wick into joints faster than leaded solder | does, provided you have quality flux in the solder. | | If you get the cheapest lead-free solder you can find on | Amazon it will be bad. | | Doubly so if you have a non-temperature-controlled | soldering iron. Too cold, and it won't melt effectively. | Too hot, and exposed metal will oxidize rapidly. | djmips wrote: | What is your favoured temperature for let's say through | hole DIP connections? | hedora wrote: | I'd like to point out that, although it is illegal to put lead in | water supply lines in the US, there is a loophole that allows it | in hot water lines. | | As a result, for certain fittings, most big-box hardware stores | only sell the leaded variants, and label them "hot water heater | supply line" or something similar. | sandworm101 wrote: | A few feet of hot water pipes in fittings won't create a | problem. Think of the thousands of feet of pipe that water runs | through, where it often sits for days, then spends a fraction | of a second in a tap or shower nozzle. Worried? Just run the | tap for half a second before drinking. | CyberDildonics wrote: | That doesn't make any sense. Half a second is barely enough | time for water to move through the hose from the wall to the | faucet. | bluGill wrote: | That depends on the chemical makeup of the water (I think PH, | but maybe something else). Some water will dissolve lead | quickly and thus be unsafe, while others will not. Some water | will leave a coating on the insides of pipes and so the lead | doesn't even touch the water (this coating can build up over | time though), while others will clean that coating off and so | lead can touch the pipe. | giantg2 wrote: | Something interesting to point out is that until about 2014 | "lead-free" plumbing could in fact contain amounts of lead. I | forget the cut-off level but it was something like 8%. | | I'm not all that worried about lead. In most places it's not an | issue because of how restricted it's been, we have tests for it | in products, tests in people, etc. I'm more concerned about | plastics, forever chemicals, etc which are everywhere, aren't | routinely tested for, and have known negative impacts (not on | the same severity as lead). | yterdy wrote: | This comment doesn't make sense, particularly wrt TFA. | giantg2 wrote: | What doesn't make sense? | soperj wrote: | the article says it's more poisonous and causes more IQ | loss than previously thought. | [deleted] | brianwawok wrote: | [flagged] | thiht wrote: | Why are there so many loopholes in every single US law? | | Everytime there's a major health issue or anything extremely | anti consumer it's because of a loophole in the formulation of | a US law. | | Are US lawmakers that bad? Or is it judges who interpret laws | literally instead of using the intent? | jstarfish wrote: | People shit on California's Proposition 65, but the notices | at Fry's made me aware of the lead content of solder, and the | ones at Michael's highlighted the lead in Christmas | decorations, lights, and fake trees/garland. | | I went most of my life ignorant of all of this. But banning | stuff outright seems like it would be counterproductive to | either industry (banning soldering would be disruptive) or | public image ("Liberals declare war on Christmas!"). | | (Tangential mention of McDonald's, whose warnings highlighted | the acrylamide released in the potato-frying process.) | XorNot wrote: | Lead-free solder exists though. It works fine - | particularly for plumbing where you don't have tin-whisker | concerns. | | The only problem I've ever had with it is (1) that it turns | out Bunnings in Australia sells utterly atrocious flux (the | good stuff is also non-toxic, potable compatible and made | in USA - and it works perfectly) and (2) that people aren't | aware enough of the problem (i.e. my parents house has lead | solder all through the plumbing where my father didn't know | there was a difference and extended it). | | EDIT: For any Australians out there - this one - | https://www.totaltools.com.au/154135-la-co-56g-soldering- | flu... - buy this one. This is the one which works. | gmkabro wrote: | It's money. The answer is money. Somebody makes money by | producing lead-infused products, so they pay off lawmakers to | add a loophole that allows them to continue making money. | tlrobinson wrote: | Bill Gurley's recent talk is worth a watch | https://youtu.be/F9cO3-MLHOM | ip26 wrote: | There are often fairly sensible reasons or good intent behind | many of them. People don't normally drink hot water; it's not | a great idea, as it has higher levels of dissolved solids and | higher risk of contamination by organisms (like | legionnaires). Meanwhile, lead helps make metals and solders | more resilient to high temperatures and fatigue at low cost. | Banning lead from the hot side could therefore decrease | reliability and increase cost, for arguably little to no | health benefit. | | I don't have a vested interest in the lead industry, but it's | pretty clearly not simple maleficence. | CyberDildonics wrote: | Basically nothing you said here is true. | | _People don 't normally drink hot water_ | | People drink hot water all the time not to mention cooking, | tea, instant coffee and more. | | _legionnaires_ | | That's from water being stagnant for long periods of time. | | _lead helps make metals and solders more resilient to high | temperatures_ | | Not only is this not true, but water is never going to go | above boiling. Propane torches (used for soldering pipes) | burns at 1,980C | | _Banning lead from the hot side could therefore decrease | reliability_ | | This is ridiculous. Soldered pipes have been in use for | over 70 years. Where are getting this idea? | kube-system wrote: | If you write laws without an exceptions for exceptional | cases, then you get more laws with unintended consequences. | trashface wrote: | There is also an exception for leaded gas in small/private jets | ("AVGas") so its used in some of those formulations. | jstarfish wrote: | That can't be the only exception. Maybe nobody sells it | premixed anymore but back in the 90s we had to mix lead | additive into gasoline for vintage motorcycles. | placesalt wrote: | It took ages, but that is finally being phased out | | > On February 23, 2022, the FAA joined aviation and petroleum | industry stakeholders to announce a comprehensive public- | private partnership to transition to lead-free aviation fuels | for piston-engine aircraft by the end of 2030. | | https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas | slapshot wrote: | No jets use or have ever used leaded products. Jets run on | Jet-A, which is a close relative of kerosene. It has never | been leaded. The purpose of lead was to prevent cylinders | from prematurely detonating ("knocking") in internal | combustion engines. Jets do not have any cylinders to knock; | the fuel burns continually in an open combustion chamber. | | You may have been thinking of 100LL (100 Low Lead) fuel for | piston engined planes. Many airports stopped selling 100LL in | January of 2022. The FAA has approved a lead-free replacement | in fuels like UL94 that are steadily replacing 100LL. | sokoloff wrote: | > Many airports stopped selling 100LL in January of 2022. | | Really? That is news to me. Googling reveals that _two_ | airports did that, both in the same county: Reid-Hillview | Airport (KRHV) and San Martin Airport (E16). | slapshot wrote: | Bay Area bias, sorry. Many airports _near me_ did. I have | no knowledge about Oklahoma. | sokoloff wrote: | > Many airports _near me_ did. | | Could you list a few of the many? I looked around Bay | Area airports, and found most of them selling 100LL: | KSFO - San Francisco International Airport - $9.90 | KHAF - Half Moon Bay Airport - $6.42 | KOAK - Metro Oakland International Airport - $8.21/$8.64 | KHWD - Hayward Executive Airport - $7.99/$7.55 | KPAO - Palo Alto Airport - $6.35/$6.95/$6.59 | CA35 - San Rafael Airport - $6.84 | KSJC - Norman Y Mineta San Jose International Airport - | $10.07/$8.95 KLVK - Livermore Municipal Airport - | $6.54/$7.54 KCCR - Buchanan Field | Airport - $7.15/$6.98 KDVO - | Gnoss Field Airport - $7.67/$7.87 | KAPC - Napa County Airport - $9.20 | 0Q3 - Sonoma Valley Airport - $8.00 | C83 - Byron Airport - $6.35 | 0Q9 - Sonoma Skypark Airport - $6.30 | O69 - Petaluma Municipal Airport - $6.95 | GuB-42 wrote: | At last! I live in France and it is still 100LL everywhere, | except for ultralights which mostly use automotive gas | (mogas) or sometimes UL91. | | But do they actually sell it everywhere? My experience with | aviation is that change happens incredibly slowly. The | simple fact that they still use that abomination that is | 100LL is telling. Poisoning thousands of people for decades | just because of paperwork essentially. As an amateur pilot, | I understand the idea of using only tried and tested | solutions, you really want things to be reliable up there, | but our representatives can at least make the necessary | efforts to make our already environmentally questionable | hobby not needlessly poison people. | sokoloff wrote: | > exception for leaded gas in small/private jets | | Jets run on jet fuel (which is basically kerosene and has no | lead). Avgas is used in many piston-powered small aircraft. | amluto wrote: | There's another loophole: "lead free" means that the wetted | surface is no more than 0.25% lead (by mass, I think). | | As far as I know, lead has nice properties as an element added | to brass alloys. _Which is not an excuse for using it, IMO._ | | (Why is any of this still a thing? Stainless steel is cheaper | than copper these days, and it's a great material as long as | you aren't trying to screw one piece of stainless steel into | another, and there isn't a great reason why one should need to | do much of that. And there are some excellent plastics | available, too.) | thfuran wrote: | Are there? It seems like plastics are shaping up to be the | modern day lead. | ironmagma wrote: | Those don't seem like comparables though. Lead is just one | (or arguably a handful of) compounds, while there are at | least dozens of species of plastic. | hadlock wrote: | Lead roofing tends to get recycled into bullets in time of | war, but those roofs that don't, are typically there | forever (400+ years) and never leak. Some plastics are UV | resistant due to additives but even copper struggles to | compete with lead as a roofing material. You only need to | look back to the 1970s to find PEX water piping and the | disaster/flooding it can cause due to age. | sokoloff wrote: | Are you thinking of _polybutylene_ pipe, rather than Pex | (cross-linked polyethylene)? | jacquesm wrote: | Plastics for potable water tend to be copper lined where I | live, not sure what is used elsewhere. | tredre3 wrote: | I've never heard of copper-lined PEX, can you tell me | more? | jacquesm wrote: | I still have a length of it in storage but I don't know | the brand by heart. It was pretty expensive stuff and it | needed weird fittings, which were also expensive, the | inner liner was blue, that much I do recall. In the end I | mostly regretted going for plastic, I'd probably use | regular copper pipe and crimp fittings again, less hassle | and I'm just more familiar with it. | amluto wrote: | Do you mean PEX-Al-PEX? It's mostly obsolete now, in | favor of "oxygen barrier" PEX. The latter is generally | approved for potable use, but there's no reason to use | it. It's intended for closed-loop heating or cooling | systems that contain non-stainless iron alloys, and the | idea is that any oxygen initially in the water will be | rapidly depleted, and deoxygenated water is not | corrosive. | londons_explore wrote: | I think op may be referring to 'barrier pipe', which is a | plastic -copper-plastic sandwich, which is designed to | keep out pollutants which can diffuse through the plastic | - eg. Diesel oil. | | If you don't use it for underground water pipes in | cities, you'll normally get complaints from homeowners | about 'chemical smelling' water, particularly first thing | in the morning when water has been sitting stationary in | pipes all night. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | oh dear i forgot that plastics are permeable to | petrochemicals lile paper is to water | sbradford26 wrote: | So most likely that is focused on hydronic heating systems. | Personally at my local home improvement store all the fitting | in the plumbing section are listed as potable/lead free. | | If you have some examples of fittings that you are referring to | I would be interested. I can only really find hydronic | circulator pumps that are only low lead instead of lead free. | doctorpangloss wrote: | What are we going to do? Pass a law? To force the millions of | voters paying hardly any property tax who bought their lead- | loaded homes in 1983 for $40,000 in Los Angeles and San | Francisco, now worth $1.1m, to you know, fix them? Then will we | pay for the even greater rise in rents? I hate lead, pollution | and my incredibly cheap landlord, but I feel like I have no | choice in California. | lkbm wrote: | That seems like a non-sequitur. He's saying that _new_ | fittings contain lead. Step one is to ban _those_. | | This does leave existing homes with old fittings, but | "stopping the bleeding" doesn't require retrofits. The old | housing stock will gradually be replaced/updated. | Accelerating that trend is the logical next step, but it's a | second, separate step. | cj wrote: | > What are we going to do? Pass a law? | | Yes! | | It wouldn't burden existing homeowners because such laws | almost always grandfather in existing structures. | | When they banned lead paint and asbestos, I don't think | anyone immediately repainted their walls or replaced their | asbestos drywall. It slowly phases out over a number of | decades. | brianwawok wrote: | > When they banned lead paint and asbestos, I don't think | anyone immediately repainted their walls or replaced their | asbestos drywall. It slowly phases out over a number of | decades. | | Kinda. Or, rich people got it replaced right away. Poor | people are still living it with it today. | | Go test a $500k and a $100k (this is midwest price not SF | price) house for Lead and Asbestos. I bet you find very | different results on the average. | XorNot wrote: | Inequality isn't an argument against taking the necessary | regulatory measures, it's an argument to work on the | inequality (or subsidize the retrofits). | cj wrote: | My grandmother's house still has asbestos in it ($400k | house in New York). Short of tearing her house down and | building a new one there's no way to fix that, but | decades later I'm benefitting from the ban by living in | an asbestos-free house built after the ban. Gotta start | somewhere even if the benefit isn't felt by everyone at | the same exact point in time. It would definitely benefit | the rich first since they tend to be the ones building | new property. | deepsun wrote: | There's zero harm from asbestos as long as you don't mess | with it. Your grandmother is safe. | | Tearing her house down, on the other hand, can actually | be bad for her, if she's staying near it while they mess | with her asbestos. | arcticbull wrote: | There's not really any issue with asbestos as long as you | leave it alone and don't mess with it. It doesn't need to | be torn out unless you're renovating. | | > "THE BEST THING TO DO WITH ASBESTOS MATERIAL IN GOOD | CONDITION IS TO LEAVE IT ALONE!" [1] | | [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/safety-education/safety- | guides/home/asb... | turtlebits wrote: | Use a water filter. | doug_durham wrote: | You obviously didn't live in the SF Bay area in the 80's. | Houses were not that cheap even then. | tshaddox wrote: | And they're more than $1.1m now. | aidenn0 wrote: | I had a stop valve that went bad and I wanted to replace it | with a ball-valve because I prefer quarter-turn valves for | shutoff valves. No ball-valves at the hardware store were lead | free. | weaksauce wrote: | just a fair warning that you should close that quarter-turn | valve very gradually when there is running water if you ever | find a non-leaded version... water hammer can and will burst | the weakest of your pipes. | toast0 wrote: | If we're warning about valves, be sure that your gate | valves are fully open (or fully closed), otherwise the gate | will erode and may erode to the point where it can no | longer close. | jhoechtl wrote: | Is this actually a thing? I know there are videos of watwr | hammer on youtube (US centric) | | There are no regulations afaik in Europe in domestic = no- | industrial plumbing and sure we have quarter valves which | you can quickly turn off. I never ever heard of a bursting | pipe because of water hammmer. | p3rls wrote: | I am a plumber and sprinkler tech (nyc) and literally | have never seen a broken pipe that could reliably be | traced to water hammer damage. | | Really would only be concerned if you are building fire | safety systems. Now those sudden GPMs need some support. | rdevsrex wrote: | When I lived in South Africa and the power went off | frequently, the water went off because it couldn't be | pumped. It absolutely was a thing in the water came back | on. I could totally hear it in the roof. | kube-system wrote: | I use quarter turn ball valves everywhere and slam the | crap out of them. If a pipe bursts from that, it needs to | be fixed, and I'd rather it happen while I'm there | slamming valves around than when I'm not home. | | But it has never happened. | ilyt wrote: | For those that do not know, Practical Engineering has video | on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoLmVFAFjn4 | aidenn0 wrote: | Less of an issue for area shutoff valves (e.g. under-sink) | , since most of the time they are used before doing | maintenance and there is little flow at the time. | | We did have a plumber (!!) damage our pressure regulator by | turning the whole-house shutoff valve (inches away from the | regulator) too quickly; that was a bit annoying. | pixl97 wrote: | And/or stick a hammer preventer in your piping in multiple | places. | jstarfish wrote: | I had no idea it was unsafe to drink from green garden hoses | until it was pointed out by an RV salesman trying to sell me a | white hose for potable water-- in my 20s. I thought he was full | of shit, but I was proven wrong. | | Hot water lines can't be the only loophole causing lead | ingestion. | jhallenworld wrote: | Interesting, I had no idea (I thought only the fittings would | have lead, but it's the hose material): | | https://toxicfreefuture.org/press-room/new-study-rates- | best-... | rightbyte wrote: | Dear mother no why? Why does the Home Depot garden hoose | have 6.8% led in it ... | | All these small environmental dangers add up. And they are | so hard to keep track of. I would never suspect a water | hoose to contain led. Let alone 6.8%. | hinkley wrote: | When I moved I did a search not only for garden hose without | lead but also without phthalates and BPA. There are a few | goodun's out there. Expensive though, but I also have hose | connections that don't leak because tolerances and decent | seals. | georgeg23 wrote: | In particular I would recommend the ELEY Garden Hose | tomjakubowski wrote: | Why is it specially allowed in hot water lines? | bluGill wrote: | Hot water heating is where it is allowed. Some houses have | hot water heating which should never touch tap water and so | lead won't be a problem (well it might be to plumbers working | on it). | | Lead is an amazing material, too bad it is toxic, because | from a materials stand point it is very useful to put a | little into many different metals to useful properties. | tgv wrote: | I think that is allowed because we don't drink from the hot | water tap. | raincole wrote: | But when I googled hot water tap the first images it showed | were... uh... | | https://www.sinks-taps.com/articles/2018/9/21/the- | benefits-o... | fsckboy wrote: | hahaha ok, but that product is a hot-water heater built | into your kitchen tap to do away with your hot water | kettle. Presumably, that's not plumbed to your teapot | with a lead boiler and faucet. (weird, "plumbed" means | "leaded") | lainga wrote: | ...We don't...? Who? | xboxnolifes wrote: | In the past it was common knowledge not to. It's of much | more uncertainty as house plumbing has changed. | crote wrote: | That's because it is primarily a historical artifact[0]. | Most modern plumbing heats water on-demand, which pretty | much entirely avoids the risk of storage tank | contamination or Legionella. | | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA | mrguyorama wrote: | >Most modern plumbing heats water on-demand | | Where is this the case? These kind of things are | extremely locational and here in the US it seems like 45 | gallon hot water tanks are still the norm. We had a fad | with "on demand" hot water heating but everyone gave up | on it when the "it saves you money" part didn't work so | well. | amelius wrote: | I know people who fill their water boiler with hot tap | water ... | hutzlibu wrote: | Me too and it always felt wrong to me and never did it | myself. Now I have a solid reason. | | Oh and you should not drink directly from the warm tab | water, as warm water that was standing some time, has way | more microorganisms .. a point my 2 year old is not yet | accepting. | nayuki wrote: | I fill my water distiller with hot tap water. Guaranteed | to be safe. Yes, I'm talking about a machine that boils | the water, collects the steam, and condenses it back to | water. It removes absolutely everything. | explaininjs wrote: | Absolutely everything... that has a boiling point higher | than water's. It won't do anything to remove alcohol, for | instance. Or any other contamination that boils off | before water does. | | Ofc you _could_ discard the head and tail of your | distillation operation... | jhoechtl wrote: | You shouldn't drink distilled water for a prolonged time | as it will desalinate your body and depreve it from rare | minerals. | asdff wrote: | A banana probably has more than enough electrolytes to | counter this | thfuran wrote: | If the water was already hot because I was doing something | else, I'll make soup or pasta with a pot of hot water. If | the kitchen were closer to my water heater, I'd do it more | consistently. | giantg2 wrote: | You're never supposed to cook with hot tap water. Even if | lead is not a concern, there are other possible | contaminants that can leech from plastic and copper | pipes, or from the tank itself. | munificent wrote: | If you ever find yourself cleaning the inside of a hot | water heater some day, it will disabuse you of that | habit. | | I'm sure it's mostly harmless, but they accumulate a | truly horrific amount of mineral deposits and other weird | gunk in there. | abraae wrote: | Looking inside a kettle in London provides the same | experience (at least when I lived there). | | Now we live on rain water and the inside of the kettle is | pristine, despite bird crap on our roof and flora in the | guttering. | asdff wrote: | For things like an instapot where you add a cup of water | to it, you are actually supposed to use distilled water. | I used tap for years with mine and got all sorts of | mineralization. It took quite a bit of vinegar to get | that off, and now everything looks pristine since I have | been using distilled water. You might consider using it | for your next kettle, although perhaps the minerals in | tap do something to the taste of the tea. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Do you buy hundreds of liters of distilled water? That | doesnt sound practical | thfuran wrote: | They accumulate gunk that was present in the cold water | supply. | asdff wrote: | If its not quite hot enough you can end up having a nice | incubator for bacteria | uoaei wrote: | Restaurants are sometimes equipped with hot water lines | from the water district and a filler tap right above or | near the stove so that boiling water doesn't take so long. | insanitybit wrote: | If I'm making tea I do. I can't imagine that lead is | boiling off... | dboreham wrote: | That's a terrible way to make tea, fwiw. | insanitybit wrote: | I want to stress that I actually don't give a shit (I am | not that into tea, I just drink it sometimes, it's not a | big deal to me), but I am _curious_ as to why. | bmacho wrote: | Unrelated to the tea, but cold water is somewhat safer to | drink than water coming from your boiler, that's why. | insanitybit wrote: | IDK, they said "a terrible way to make _tea_ ", I'm | assuming there's some sorta tea lore that I'm unaware of | WillPostForFood wrote: | You should switch to using the cold water tap to fill | your kettle! Also, when you see what kind of build up can | happen in a hot water heater, you'll definitely want to | avoid drinking from the hot water tap. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAzKts6Wp1Q&t=207s | [deleted] | mikewarot wrote: | That's not lead, that's limescale[1]. Dissolved limestone | is carried through the pipes, and settles out as scale. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limescale | sokoloff wrote: | It's not allowed in any water lines used for drinking or | cooking. I would read that as not allowed on hot water lines | serving the kitchen for sure (and I suspect most plumbers | would agree). | | The warning on items from my plumbing supply house for lead | containing items is prominent, pops up on each "add to cart", | and says "This product does not comply with the "Safe | Drinking Water Act," which requires that products meet low- | lead standards in order to be used in systems providing water | for human consumption (drinking or cooking). This item is for | non-potable (non-human consumption) water applications only." | | It is allowed in hydronic heating, HVAC/R, and irrigation | fittings (which of course don't have a human consumption | element to them). | [deleted] | teawrecks wrote: | what I'm hearing is that if I already have 5mg/dL, then I might | as well get all 20. | scythe wrote: | Italics mine: | | >The study, described as "a wake-up call", also estimated that | exposure to the toxic metal causes young children _in developing | countries_ to lose an average of nearly six IQ points each. | | >Their model estimates that 5.5 million adults died from heart | disease in 2019 because of lead exposure, _90 percent of them in | low- and middle-income countries_. | | >The research also estimated that children under five lost a | cumulative 765 million IQ points due to lead poisoning globally | in 2019, with _95 percent of those losses coming in developing | countries_. | | In the article, the 1 IQ point loss level is shown at about 0.25 | ug/dL. I don't think this is likely in the US from brass pipe | fittings containing 0.5% lead or whatever. I'm not saying that | tight lead regulations are/would be bad, but this study seems to | focus on the _far_ higher disease and death burden of lead in | less developed countries. | | Dealing with lead exposure in developing countries would likely | have large returns for the global economy, and since plenty of | lead pipes were probably laid by colonial powers, has the ring of | a moral imperative. But how? | TheBlight wrote: | This is why I stopped eating paint chips. | clumsysmurf wrote: | Some of my bloodwork revealed subclinical lead poisoning. Part | of the investigation was to take the dirty A/C filter in for | lab analysis of the dust. I had lead in that filter, so I moved | out. No idea where it came from. | | EDIT: It was an apartment. FWIW, even new apartments can have | other issues, like a brand new place my friend was working on | had rampant mold issues (built & exposed throughout monsoon | season). So you really have to be careful. | fyloraspit wrote: | Perhaps significant enough vaper from plumbing solder made it | into AC unit or some other building or trade technique which | involves some lead | sokoloff wrote: | Plumbing solder is overwhelmingly lead-free and has been | for years. Even if leaded solder was used, the vapors from | soldering are flux residues, not lead. | giantg2 wrote: | Who bought the place after disclosing airbourne lead dust in | the house? | acuozzo wrote: | Perhaps OP had a rental with an in-unit AC unit which is | pretty common here in the US. | sokoloff wrote: | If it was a rental, GP would never know who moved in next. | (I would describe leaving a rental as "moved out" and | leaving a house I owned as "sold it". Given they used | "moved out", I'd wager even-money it was a rental.) | pixl97 wrote: | Soils in many major US cities can have high amounts of | lead. If you're not controlling how much dust is tracked in | that very well could be detected. | asdff wrote: | In california if you sign a lease for a building built at | least 20 years ago you probably get a boilerplate lead | warning document as well. Its like a prop 65 situation | where so many things are labelled that the label itself | loses meaning. | clumsysmurf wrote: | It was an apartment with central cooling. | brianwawok wrote: | if you are renting (in most / all? of the US), no way the | next person would know. | giantg2 wrote: | "For example, the relationship between lead in blood and heart | disease is based on a survey" | | What, just a survey? What is the mechanism that causes this? | Heart disease is a major killer, but I assume most of it is due | to lack of exercise and terrible diet. | jmount wrote: | And lead is still allowed in aviation fuel. The planes (only | piston?) are spraying it all over you every day. | seventytwo wrote: | Is this actually true? I think that's changed. Also - how much | of a problem is it? What kind of lead exposure do I receive | from a small airplane flying over me one day? What does this | risk compare to, say, smoking? Or not wearing my seat belt? | | Simply stating that a bad thing exists is not enough. | tjohns wrote: | It's true, but that's because there was no legally approved | alternative until about a year ago. | | Now that there's an approved unleaded replacement for 100 | Octane avgas (G100UL), I expect leaded fuel will disappear | quickly. Airports are currently in the process of installing | the new tanks to dispense it. | | Many of the bay area airports already started offering | unleaded 94 Octane (UL94) at the pump as of earlier this | year. | | (Pilots don't like leaded fuel any more than anyone else. | It's way too easy to get on your skin during a preflight | check. We really want it gone.) | bittercynic wrote: | According to this, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas | | edit to add: I suspect a small plane flying over you one day | is no problem at all, but there are many general aviation | airfields very close to places where people live and work. | tjohns wrote: | It's being actively phased out. The replacement for 100LL was | literally just approved by the FAA a year ago, after decades of | work. | | Many of the bay area airports have already started offering | 94UL unleaded fuel, and the others across the country are | likely to follow suit shortly. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-21 23:00 UTC)