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

Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 479 posts

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#321

Post by alex_h »

munificent wrote: post #265
thfuran wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They accumulate gunk that was present in the cold water supply.

Yes, but water coming from the cold water tap has spent less time sitting in that accumulated stuff.

Seems like the presence of the accumulated gunk in the cylinder means the hot water must be cleaner by definition? The accumulation being the net difference between what was dissolved in the incoming water and what is dissolved in the outgoing water.

With the exception of gunk that is from the lining of the cylinder itself of course.

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#322

Post by tbrownaw »

the__alchemist wrote: post #192
jeffbee wrote: post #4

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.

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.

Leaded solder isn't a problem to work with, it's a problem when it contaminates landfills.

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#323

Post by darkerside »

Willish42 wrote: post #228

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…

What is a faulty correlation? They're correlated or they're not. There's may be a faulty casual attribution, but that is another topic.

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#324

Post by Willish42 »

npunt wrote: post #287
Willish42 wrote: post #228

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…

I like this roundup [1] as it hammers the point home with tons of observations across cultures, times, contexts, and methods of analysis. For instance, different cultures phased out lead gas at different times, and their subsequent crime charts were offset by the equivalent years. [1]: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...

Thanks, this is way more thorough than the links I was able to find / select from a quick search at the time.

If anything, I think I've accidentally experienced a lesser case of [Cunningham's Law](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law), where the veracity of the hypothesis is arguably pretty clear-cut and I just lacked the evidence, and the internet is obliged to correct/help in that regard!

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#325

Post by Willish42 »

darkerside wrote: post #323
Willish42 wrote: post #228

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…

What is a faulty correlation? They're correlated or they're not. There's may be a faulty casual attribution, but that is another topic.

I had meant that despite the statistical correlation being objective and strong, the logic behind a causal link was faulty.

That might not be the case though (?), see https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le... from the other reply

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#326

Post by keepamovin »

Also, it makes people irritable and more hostile. so if you noticed your city becoming more rude and less polite, it may be that a lot of the people are getting borderline psychotic or personality disorder because of unenforced lead regulation violations.

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#327

Post by keepamovin »

Willish42 wrote: post #325
darkerside wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a faulty correlation? They're correlated or they're not. There's may be a faulty casual attribution, but that is another topic.

I had meant that despite the statistical correlation being objective and strong, the logic behind a causal link was faulty. That might not be the case though (?), see https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le... from the other reply

Do you mean faulty, logic, or faulty, supporting evidence? I think if something is plausible, but unsupported by evidence, the logic can be sound, but the supporting evidence faulty; but if something is implausible, then it would be the logic that was faulty and to me it seems like that crime and behavioral changes are caused by lead is certainly plausible, so I don’t think it’s a logical failure here. It may just be a failure of the evidence.

So.. How do you know the evidence is faulty, though? I mean, can you definitively prove it’s faulty? if you can’t, then you have to consider there’s a possibility that it’s causal?

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#328

Post by refurb »

hedora wrote: post #6

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.

What parts of a hot water supply line contain lead. Can you share a link?

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#329

Post by refurb »

I count five uses of the word "estimate" in the method section and I didn't even copy the entire thing.

In this modelling study, we used country blood lead level estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019. We estimated IQ loss (presented as estimated loss in IQ points with 95% CIs) in the global population of children younger than 5 years using the blood lead level–IQ loss function from an international pooled analysis. We estimated the cost of IQ loss, which was calculated only for the proportion of children expected to enter the labour force, as the present value of loss in lifetime income from the IQ loss (presented as cost in US dollars and percentage of gross domestic product with a range). We estimated cardiovascular deaths (with 95% CIs) due to lead exposure among people aged 25 years or older using a health impact model that captures the effect of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality that is mediated through mechanisms other than hypertension. Finally, we used values of statistical life to estimate the welfare cost of premature mortality (presented as cost in US dollars and percentage of GDP).

Re: Lead poisoning causes more death, IQ loss than thought: study

#330

Post by arthur2e5 »

asdff wrote: post #181
nayuki wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably dodged this ceramic problem because I drink from borosilicate glass beakers. (Yes, I buy new, unused labware for cooking/drinking use.)

Are those not too fragile for daily use? A pint glass is so much thicker in comparison than a beaker.

Mechanically more fragile than soda glass, but tougher to temperature shock -- admittedly not that useful for drinking, considering regular mugs also don't often break with boiling water. Good for cooking though: just check out the people mourning these real borosilicate Pyrex measuring cups.

To me it's mostly about the aesthetics. I've broken one or two over five years, but they are just too charming to give up on… Light, holds plenty of liquid, and good for pouring from.

Post reply on HN