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

401–410 of 479 posts

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

#401

Post by rendall »

thiht wrote: post #200
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.

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?

> Or is it judges who interpret laws literally instead of using the intent?

It's hard to interpret intent in a way that is consistent and fair. A ruling that does not go by what is written down is open to be criticized, while a ruling that adheres to the letter is almost never overturned.

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

#402

Post by ern »

civilized wrote: post #297
Natsu wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effect size, at least for harm to IQ: What is the effect of 1 μg 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 th…

The figure in the article shows a diminishing marginal effect of increasing lead exposure, so this is all quite consistent with the theory. I sure am wondering how much of the late 20th century Flynn effect was due to diminishing lead poisoning.

I sure am wondering how much of the late 20th century Flynn effect was due to diminishing lead poisoning

Given that the Flynn effect seemed to be strongest in the era of high-lead petrol and has dropped off, I can't see how it could have had an effect

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

#403

Post by kortilla »

giantg2 wrote: post #97
thfuran wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

This is not taught in the US and we blend hot and cold together. Why are the lines blended at the faucet if that’s the case?

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

#404

Post by kortilla »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #293
mikewarot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, I didn't say it was lead. It is just a dirty, unpleasant container. Not where you want to get your drinking water, especially for tea. It isn't just limescale in your hot water heater, it is whatever your water pipe carries in and accumulates in the tank. We lived at the beach and had to flush sand out every couple years.

Your cold water carries the same junk into your tea. It’s just missing the settling tank that would separate it out.

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

#405

Post by epivosism »

thiht wrote: post #200
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.

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?

Why can antelope still run faster than most cheetahs?

What I mean is that you only see what survives. The thousands of products which used to have lead which don't anymore are gone, out of sight out of mind. The ones which someone forgot, or someone bribed a politician to preserve, or even ones which were created specifically afterwards and which the law had no way to even know about, to ban, are what you see.

Dynamic systems have this property, and it's hard to get permanent dominance since both sides keep adjusting.

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

#406

Post by WalterBright »

datavirtue wrote: post #294
amluto wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I recently fell in love with copper pipes. So many advantages, so easy to work with. Quick and nearly fool-proof. I tried introducing some stainless fixtures and did not have a good time with it. I'm not a pro by any means but I do all of my own plumbing and gas work in my house. Haven't had one issue out of iron gas pipe or copper water lines. I was actually planning a pex install/replacement, and I have worked with…

Stainless and copper do not mix. See galvanic corrosion.

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

#407

Post by fodkodrasz »

nayuki wrote: post #133
fodkodrasz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carbon could you elaborate?

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.

Oh, I though probably the carbohydrates... Sugar kills!

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

#408

Post by fsckboy »

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.

selection bias can cause faulty correlations. If you select on the basis of a correlation, you don't get to say you found a correlation.

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

#409

Post by gpt5 »

csa wrote: post #295
gpt5 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s make it easy - please cite the research that shows that an IQ gap of 20+ leads to worse leadership results.

> Let’s make it easy - please cite the research that shows that an IQ gap of 20+ leads to worse leadership results. Iirc, Greatness: Who Makes History and Why cites some research on this very topic. There is more to be found — I’m sure you can find it if you try yourself or ask a librarian at a good academic library. I will also add that you have conveniently ignored the fact that I prefaced that specific section wit…

The reality is that it’s very difficult to come by any research that shows that higher IQ leads to worse outcome (which your delta hypothesis claims).

We also know that iq correlated over 0.95 between same person taking the test on a different day, so any claim around daily fluctuation is exaggerated except for outlier cases. Your claims paint a different picture.

Post reply on HN