Live data from Hacker News

Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

talesoftimesforgotten.com

111–120 of 208 posts

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#111
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead, or pewter [0]? Which was and still does sometimes contain lead which acidic drinks like wine can leach the Pb into solution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pewter

Don’t (virtually) all crystal “glasses” also contain lead?

Yeah, and most leach into the wine. It's less of an issue with wine glasses since the wine is not in them very long, but decanters are a cause for concern. Tbh, I refuse to use crystal glass at all. Cheaper stuff is simply safer.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#112
post #15

So often any of these single causal theories forget to look at timespan. Which was either decades or centuries... If system survived previously with mostly same things in place there is really no reason why such thing as lead pipes would be the cause of downfall part. By any reasonable conclusion the culprit in such case should be some disruptive innovation. In the end gradual natural degradation of system is much mo…

If we extended that line of thought into current times, what would that lead to?

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#113

> Take Caligula as an example. We all know him as the mad emperor who supposedly once declared war on Neptune, then ordered his soldiers to attack the sea and take seashells as booty. The problem is that this story and the others like it all come from extremely late, hostile sources such as the biography Life of Caligula by Gaius Suetonius Tranquilus (lived c. 69 – after c. 122 AD) and Roman History by Kassios Dion (…

Basically when an emperor died he was either transformed into a god or demonized depending on which was more politically convenient to his successor. The truth seemed more like the emperors were quite similar in their cruelty and competence compared to the exaggerations of the surviving propaganda about them.

> demonized depending on which was more politically convenient to his successor

Didn't they straight up remove some people from historical records? [0]

That's something that stuck with me when visiting the Pula Arena in Croatia; In there was plaque, as old as the colosseum, where a name was scratched out.

Sadly the plaque didn't have any explanation with it, so I just assume that's a case of damnatio memoriae.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae#Ancient_Rome

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could earnestly profile even a few scientists who have personally flip-flopped their way to tenure like that, you'd surely have a red carpet welcome across a thousand podcasts and alt-media outlets Heck, maybe you could even get tenure somewhere if you happened to have academic creds of your own. Surely someone's done it? Are you familiar with any such profiles that you could share?

How to get published: "Other authors are wrong." How not to get published: "The general consensus is right." So although individuals may not flip-flop constantly, fields as a whole do. Pick almost any topic in almost any field (especially humanities) and read papers 10-20 years apart. There's a constant cycle. The cycle becomes self reinforcing too, because now you can interact with previous criticisms ( Dr. A said t…

As someone who made their living publishing scientific papers for over a decade and amassed a track record that showed that I was pretty good at it, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are absolutely wrong about this.

A much better approximation to the truth would be something like this:

How not to get published: "Other authors are wrong."

How to get published: "These specific other authors are right, and I have built upon the solid foundation laid by their brilliant work to do this other thing that may or may not have any actual utility or be of interest to anyone."

[UPDATE] I actually did once publish a paper [1] that explicitly described (some of) the reasons that one of the then-leading theories in my field was wrong and how I thought it could be improved. It was more or less the beginning of the end of my career. I don't know if there was any causal relationship between these two events, but there was definitely a temporal one.

And now that I reflect upon it, it wasn't even me who pointed out the problem, I was actually just citing Ralph Hartley who had pointed out the problems seven years earlier. He was, AFAICT, never heard from again either.

[1] https://www.coursehero.com/file/60834776/tlapdf/

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t (virtually) all crystal “glasses” also contain lead?

Yeah, and most leach into the wine. It's less of an issue with wine glasses since the wine is not in them very long, but decanters are a cause for concern. Tbh, I refuse to use crystal glass at all. Cheaper stuff is simply safer.

Stupid question, but what if someone offers you a drink in it?

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#116
post #43
post #36

Beethoven, too, is suspected to have died from lead poisoning. In his case, too, a drinking cup for wine made of lead is the prime suspect.

Lead, or pewter [0]? Which was and still does sometimes contain lead which acidic drinks like wine can leach the Pb into solution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pewter

Tomatoes took a while to get popular in Europe because rich people where eating them off of pewter plates and the acid in the tomatoes leached the lead out and made them sick.

It was the poor people without pewter plates that made tomatoes in Europe popular.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#118

This article argues against the fall of the roman empire being caused by severe lead poisoning. I would argue that it was more likely caused by widespread minor lead poisoning. If everyone is more forgetful and learns slower, then that isn't something that will be written in history books - the people themselves will just consider that 'normal'. Yet an empire of forgetful and slow-learning people won't be efficient.…

> Strategic mistakes will be made by rulers, but will also be made by local rulers and individual families. "Should we plant corn or wheat this year?" - someone with intellect may read a book to discover the best crop or do a small scale trial, while someone with lead poisoning may just do the same as he did last year because it takes less mental effort.

That seems to be transplanting modern education and growth norms onto a historic situation. Roman literacy was exceptionally high by the standards of ancient civilisation, which meant that one in ten people (probably not farmers) could read a book and doing the same as last year or as their ancestors was the rule rather than some sort of anomaly. People smart enough to make substantial changes would tend to be stopped far more by social structures than any minor slowdown to their cognitive abilities. In that sense, if lead poisoning had effects on modern information and intellect driven civilisations so small it took some pretty thorough statistical analysis against a backdrop of rapid growth to convince us there was anything to the theory at all, it seems unlikely it could have made so much more difference to daily life in Ancient Rome. A cognitively impaired Emperor could do a lot of damage, but the inherent flaw in the system was that sort of power also flowed to natural born idiots and every civilisation has those.

Re: Lead poisoning probably did not cause the downfall of the Roman Empire

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that happening. Thinking about Canada. The other day I calculated it would take 25 hours of work for the minimum wage worker to afford a weekend camping. And I think that's a pretty good indication we're pretty close collapse. Workers not being paid enough, and out of control inflation is how the soviet system collapsed.

That’s actually a really interesting metric. Cost of living has really shot up in Canada while wages have stagnated. Everyone knows that housing has increased dramatically. This leads to less disposable income obviously. I’m 40 and grew up in Edmonton. Once or twice a year, as a kid and into my late 20s, my family and and/or I did a hotel type vacation in Banff or Jasper once a year, which seemed expensive at the tim…

I'm in NZ, a few years ago a colleague and I would bitch to each other that we are in the top 10% of salary earners in the country, but we felt not that well off. We were worried about affording a house that wasn't a damp, drafty shit hole. But people in our position a generation or two ago were buying boats and beach houses.

We have been getting fucked for a while now.

Post reply on HN