Live data from Hacker News

Lead is even deadlier than was feared

theguardian.com

121–130 of 184 posts

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that article goes on to talk about various non-lead substitutes you should add... I know why unleaded vs leaded, but there are substitutes for lead that are designed for use in classic cars but don't actually contain lead, that's what I was asking the difference of. Basically, why use actual lead in gas when lead substitute exists and is recommended for classic cars as an additive to unleaded fuel?

I believe that lead in petrol / gasoline still exists as there are not one but two effects from lead. One is that lead helps promoting burning of the gasoline versus explosion or knocking. Two is that lead is a great lubricant for the valve surfaces, preventing them eroding, leaking or sticking as they open / close. Eroding causes the engine to lose compression and efficiency, and sticking (as I have experienced firs…

Engines of previous eras were designed to leverage the 'lead' in gasoline as a lubricant and act as a 'cushion' to the valve seats and valves as the fuel flowed through the engine. Not adding a 'lead' substitute can damage your valves, and ethanol is to be avoided at all costs to protect the engine.

Engine 'knock' (multiple explosions on a single piston ignite cycle as different pockets of fuel mixture ignite) is also minimized by having 'lead' in the fuel.

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that article goes on to talk about various non-lead substitutes you should add... I know why unleaded vs leaded, but there are substitutes for lead that are designed for use in classic cars but don't actually contain lead, that's what I was asking the difference of. Basically, why use actual lead in gas when lead substitute exists and is recommended for classic cars as an additive to unleaded fuel?

I believe that lead in petrol / gasoline still exists as there are not one but two effects from lead. One is that lead helps promoting burning of the gasoline versus explosion or knocking. Two is that lead is a great lubricant for the valve surfaces, preventing them eroding, leaking or sticking as they open / close. Eroding causes the engine to lose compression and efficiency, and sticking (as I have experienced firs…

This is correct, but it's also been overstated how important the lubricating properties of leaded gasoline were in these engines - while the harmful health effects were understated. [1]

[1] www.walshcarlines.com/pdf/mechanicalimplications.d4e.pdf

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#124
post #117

Sadly, there is a good chance your daily coffee was contaminated by lead from the espresso machine that made it (even current models do this!): http://coffeegeek.com/forums/espresso/machines/728315?Page=1

Hm, looking at those numbers if you went by the worst possible readings, and assuming 4 espresso coffees a day with the average length of 30ml you'd get

    0.042mg/ml * 0.030ml * 4 = 5.04µg of lead
According to https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=9 adults absorb 20% on a full stomach and up to 80% empty.

So always eat before your espresso! Though a commercial machine running a regular takeaway workload is unlikely to have much lead in due to the volume of water going through it.

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#126

"Looking back, it seems insane. Bluntly put, we took a known poison and – for three quarters of a century – used it in machines that puffed it out in breathable form. Then we drove them millions of miles a day, all over the world, regularly dosing billions of people with the toxin." We are still doing just that, even though we are using milder poisons now.

At least where i live (which happens to be the same place as the author of the article), a high percentage of houses have lead water pipes so i don't think it seems that crazy that it was added to petrol

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BPA and other xenoestrogens scare me the most. Men's sperm counts have gone down 50% in the last 30 years, nobody knows why, but the estrogens in our products/water/air aren't out of the question. It's scary how little it scares everyone else.

With an ever expanding world population, possibly on the verge of unsustainable, would a plummeting birth rate necessary be a bad thing? Sure it would mean redesigning how we see the world (the retirement and economic models), but we can either tackle it now or when it's forced upon us.

Well if the only effect was a plummeting birth rate, then maybe it wouldn't be bad, but it's also been testosterone levels that have dropped considerably[1], which according to that site "[decreased testosterone] is often associated with diabetes, abdominal obesity, sexual dysfunction, depression and other adverse conditions."

There have also been increases in those who identify as LGBT[2]. Such massive increases in younger generations can't be explained away by cultural changes IMO. I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time that exposure to hormonal disruptors has increased, changes in gender and drops in testosterone have been found.

[1] https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/pr...

[2] http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises...

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#128

We still allow Flouride in toothpaste and we actively put it in drinking water, and I believe it’s worse than lead.

> worse than lead

You're a smart person, easily capable of understanding how false and damaging this nonsense is.

For perspective, municipal water is fluoridated at 0.5-1.5 mg/L. Can you guess what would happen to you if your drinking water contained that much soluble lead? Here's a hint: it doesn't involve living very long.

Please stop spreading this bullshit.

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#129

Serious question: does this mean I need to start being a lot more careful about lead debris generated by hobbyist soldering?

You should treat the lead debris you generate as any other poison. (how have you been treating it?) As far as soldering safely, you should definitely keep in mind that your biggest health risk is inhaling burnt flux, and lead-free solder generates a lot more of that smoke. Lead-free solder is more dangerous to your health. There's some more information here (archive.org because I don't know where this is on the new W…

This is how I have understood it. The real danger in using lead for soldering, is not the inhaling of the smoke/vapors, but that you are touching lead and will later touch your eyes and mouth.

Using lead for soldering is likely fine, but be extra judicious about washing your hands, avoid touching mucous membranes.

Re: Lead is even deadlier than was feared

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I don't know why people still use leaded solder in the first place? I only use lead free solder for my hobby projects, and it works fine.

Because it's easier. When I started soldering, the lead-free stuff was finnicky but I had nearly no problems with leaded solder. Regardless, you should have good ventilation when soldering. A small fan to suck smoke away, maybe even a mask, and take care to clean your hands and the area like you would any other harmful material (e.g. oil).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN