Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#51

Post by leonry »

ceejayoz wrote: post #37
paulpauper wrote: post #28

Whether it's increased crime or lowered IQ, lead is likely not as potent as the media hype would suggest. According to a meta study of lead vs. crime the results are inconclusive. Very high exposure to lead my cause a couple point reduction of childhood IQ, which may be temporary and not everyone exposed to lead has a reduced IQ. Regarding lead & IQ and lead & crime ,some links to studies (and the meta study): https:…

This comment would be a lot more useful with a link to the specific study you're referring to, instead of a fairly vague hint of its existence.

Only tangentially related, but you may find the following little thread amusing: https://nitter.fdn.fr/literalbanana/status/15041549669984665...

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#52

Post by thesausageking »

csee wrote: post #13

Practically, what should one do to avoid lead poisoning here and now? Lead petrol is banned. Lead paint is banned. Lead pipes are a problem in some areas, but let's assume we don't live in these areas. What do we need to look out for?

The CDC has a good site on lead exposure:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources.htm

The biggest concerns are lead paint in older homes, contaminated soil, food and cosmetics, and toys and other consumer products.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#53

Post by CSSer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #23
csee wrote: post #13

Practically, what should one do to avoid lead poisoning here and now? Lead petrol is banned. Lead paint is banned. Lead pipes are a problem in some areas, but let's assume we don't live in these areas. What do we need to look out for?

Small plane fuel is still leaded. I know a few air fields in my area that were converted to housing developments and/or parks/retail/offices. I assume the ground is still contaminated in those areas, and any fruits from plants growing on it will be contaminated also. I also assume small planes rain down lead wherever they fly.

Just wanted to add that it's planned to be phased out by 2030 now[0]. Kind of insane they're giving them that long if you ask me but I guess it's better than nothing.

[0]: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-industry-chart-path-elimina...

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#54

Post by andrew_ »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #39

Is there anything that can even be done to treat lead exposure long ago?

> The half-life of lead varies from about a month in blood, 1-1.5 months in soft tissue, and about 25-30 years in bone (ATSDR 2007).

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf

Even low lead levels in children can cause developmental issues. Not necessarily abnormalities, but possible issues vary widely.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#55

Post by eropple »

mindslight wrote: post #45
eropple wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster to whom you are replying is completely correct. It's not the same thing as thinking the windows they're putting in are ugly. It's not even like asbestos mitigation, where stupid decisions there only really impact the people who live there. These are health and safety risks to people around you, not just you yourself. It's a community concern. Your neighbors' decisions around lead management and mitigation…

Sure, it's a community concern. This gives neighbors the right to express their concerns and offer advice and help, not to overbearingly insist that work is only done by "professionals" who magically bless the situation. Legally, it's generally commercial activity (eg contractors) that is regulated. Thus, after you've talked to your neighbor about best practices for mitigating lead dust, you've effectively exhausted…

I used to own a property management company and I have overseen multiple home remodels (while doing one largely by myself right now). Hazardous material management on a work site are not somehow beyond regulation because it's not "commercial activity", that's preposterous. Homeowner-executed projects can be stop-worked just like everything else and hazardous material management is a standard part of code enforcement.

As to your postscript--yes, clueless or careless DIYers probably need the hammer swung at them, and hard, when they do something to create negative externalities. You have the right to not be poisoned by your neighbors. Even if they make you sue them to enforce that right, that still isn't "harassment", and it is genuinely and deeply gross to characterize it as such.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#56

Post by wpietri »

holidayacct wrote: post #25

I'm from a family that has been in real estate since the 80s. Lead remediation was a mandatory requirement in the late 70s. There is almost no lead anywhere in the country except for cities where there were old industrial manufacturing plants or places where there was illegal dumping of materials. You literally can't sell a home or purchase a home with lead issues because no one will purchase the property. There are…

It amazes me how long "the new thing has ruined the children" has been a trope.

You manage to combine two generations of it. Television started ruining children when the Boomers were growing up. The Millennials were ruined by the early internet. And now I hear the Zoomers are being ruined by TikTok. (Presumably Gen X was ruined by cable TV, which you left out.)

But that's just recently. The earliest iteration of this moral panic that I know of involved novels: https://www.economist.com/1843/2020/01/20/an-18th-century-mo...

That's right, the kids have been ruined since before America existed! Truly, it's amazing this steady worsening of the youth has not destroyed life as we know it.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#57

Post by paulpauper »

Alex3917 wrote: post #48
wpietri wrote: post #46

> This amounted to a total loss of 824,097,690 IQ points, disproportionately endured by those born between 1951 and 1980 That is interesting, but what I really wonder about is more subtle cognitive effects. Did it make people meaner? More easily led? Less collaborative? And as previously discussed here, lead was a known toxin when leaded gas was invented: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-..…

At the risk of stating the obvious, IQ points aren't a measure and adding them up doesn't yield a meaningful number. It's like adding up the numbers on football player's jerseys; if the total of a team's numbers goes up, that doesn't make the team better. Similarly, a reduction in the total amount of "IQ points lost" could easily correspond to more damage to cognitive intelligence caused by lead exposure.

you are comparing something entirely cosmetic to something that is predictive and of real consequence

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#58

Post by ivanech »

Posted this in another thread about lead exposure: the Lead Exposure Elimination Project (https://leadelimination.org/) is an organization that's working to solve the problem of lead exposure internationally. I've been giving money on a monthly basis and have been blown away by their progress.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#59

Post by wpietri »

Alex3917 wrote: post #48
wpietri wrote: post #46

> This amounted to a total loss of 824,097,690 IQ points, disproportionately endured by those born between 1951 and 1980 That is interesting, but what I really wonder about is more subtle cognitive effects. Did it make people meaner? More easily led? Less collaborative? And as previously discussed here, lead was a known toxin when leaded gas was invented: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-..…

At the risk of stating the obvious, IQ points aren't a measure and adding them up doesn't yield a meaningful number. It's like adding up the numbers on football player's jerseys; if the total of a team's numbers goes up, that doesn't make the team better. Similarly, a reduction in the total amount of "IQ points lost" could easily correspond to more damage to cognitive intelligence caused by lead exposure.

If you're looking for a sports analogy, I think it's sort of like "change in total seconds it takes the players to run the 100-yard dash". Not directly tied to success, and in some sense a pretty arbitrary measure, but a number that's nonetheless concerning to see get worse.

I agree IQ is a pretty bad measure. And if you would like to go back and redo this study with a better one, I'm sure we (and this study's authors) would be grateful for the result. But since it's the measure we have, I'd say it's better than nothing, and this factoid is a good way to spark interest in the scale of the phenomenon.

Re: Half of US population exposed to adverse lead levels in early childhood

#60

Post by azinman2 »

sjmm1989 wrote: post #44
systemvoltage wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw, solder fumes are not lead, but flux.

Good to know. I've always wondered, cause I accidentally got a good whiff of it once and ... my cheeks were red for what felt like hours or a day. My memory of it is hazy. I've got ventilation going much stronger now.

It’s not good to be inhaling flux either.
Post reply on HN