Lead exposure is a global health problem that we have a clear path to solving - enable governments to track and remove sources of lead. If you're looking for a worthy recipient of your EOY donations, do check out the Lead Exposure Elimination Project:
There are better causes to donate to, in my opinion. Pb is nasty stuff, but the purported risks have been inflated beyond what's actually grounded in solid evidence.
The term "Pb poisoning" has two different meanings: traditionally it's referred to blood lead levels above about 50 mcg/dL, at which demonstrable symptoms occur (slowed reaction times, etc). But in recent decades, it's also used to describe much lower levels (>15 mcg/dL, >10 mcg/dL, or even >5 mcg/dL), for which the only evidence of harm comes from observational studies.
Observational studies establish correlation, not causation, and there are good reasons to doubt that the observed correlations are due to Pb neurotoxicity. The relationship between Pb exposure and cognitive/behavioral outcomes is intractably complicated, because for most children Pb exposure is primarily from dirt/dust ingestion, which in turn correlates with a child's developmental status, household cleanliness, and subtle aspects of parenting behaviors (in addition of course to more widely appreciated factors like age/condition of the home). Poor nutrition also causes higher BLLs.
It's been demonstrated that publication bias in the Pb literature has steadily risen over time, as reported effect sizes have increased. Several studies have found Pb correlations which resemble a U curve, where children with the highest blood lead levels have better cognitive/behavioral outcomes than those with intermediate BLLs (because outside the range of BLLs which are primarily driven by dirt/dust ingestion, "something else is going on", which doesn't correlate as well with cognitive/behavioral outcomes).
Dirt/dust ingestion (and therefore, BLLs) drop precipitously around age 2, because this is around the time when children outgrow mouthing behavior - some children a bit earlier, some children a bit later. BLL measurements at this age therefore a metric of developmental status. Or alternatively, this is the age at which "lead causes the most harm".
My argument is of course not that you should go paint your child's nursery with chrome yellow. Ingesting paint chips can be enough to put a child into the "actual lead poisoning" BLL range (drinking water from lead pipes generally cannot). But excluding exposure from leaded gasoline (which was formerly the dominant source of exposure, but which has fortunately been banned almost everywhere) and people living near smelting facilities, it's probably not the scary ubiquitous IQ-point larcenist that it's made out to be.
This remarkably old advice from a time before modern water treatment, sacrificial anodes, and automated temperature control is also why so many recipes instruct to "fill a pot with cold water" before it's boiled.
Although, seeing the inside of an old water heater is all anyone would need to convince them to leave the hot water for washing.
If it’s a lead trap… wouldn’t that mean the water that comes out has less lead in it than the water that goes in? Assuming the water going into the heater is the same as the water coming out of your cold tap.
This is a really stupid testing method. They should have tested both water supplies at the faucet. This does seem to indicate the hot water tank is removing lead from the water and thus you would be better drinking it than cold unless something is going on between the heater and your faucet.
Unless you have a tankless water heater and no lead pipes in your house, in which case it’s fine to use the hot water from the tankless water heater for food / coffee / tea. At least that’s my understanding.
Most dishwashers are connected to hot water. Some higher end dishwashers can work with cold water, but the cheaper ones don’t. Does this mean using a dishwasher is a problem as well?
I don't follow. My hot water is heated up about 60cm before the tap, as it runs through. Is that a regional thing? Are you saying that you're keeping a large quantity of water at temperature at all times just in case someone might need it later? Wouldn't that be super inefficient energy-wise?
All environmental sources of lead that can readily contaminate humans should be removed. This is a good move. It would be great to see an international treaty on this, with goals and enforcement for signatories.
Its been on the books since the 90's, but it would cost too much just to repaint lead painted homes, so nothing much has gotten done. Highlights of the program: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/2000s.html
At the cost of hundreds of billions and disruption of nearly every road in the USA, yes.
Doing it in the more vulnerable areas should be done first and if the lead solder has stabilized, work those areas last. Over a period of 20-30 years is better since that's roughly how long it took to install in the first place. This would lower the price and economic costs too. (this is what they do btw)
How harmful is lead in solder used to join copper pipes? Lead free solder was mandated only around 1986, so presumably there are a lot of copper pipes around using solder containing lead.
The exposed/wetted area of a soldered joint is pretty damn small and I’d expect those 40 year old joints have reached an acceptable steady state by now.
That’s not an excuse to use leaded solder on supply pipes as plumbing with lead-free solder is perfectly easy, but I don’t sweat* the old copper pipes in my 1920s home.
non-zero harm but it's necessarily a lot less than making the whole thing out of lead. think about the difference between a square inch of lead exposed per joint versus many square feet. not a one-to-one comparison since the shear stress at a joint will be higher, but such a relatively smaller area it will have a relatively tiny impact.
It seems like removal of lead pipes is overkill? Typically lead pipes develop a layer of deposits that pacify the metal, stop corrosion and prevent lead from leeching out.
The Flint water crisis was a cock-up by the water utility that resulted in loss of pacification and leeching of lead, but that a mistake that can be prevented.
Seems like regular water testing (already done) is a reasonable solution. I could see decommissioning of lead pipes (i.e. an work done needs to replace them) but a wholesale "removal all lead pipe whether or not they contribute to lead exposure" seems like overkill.
> Following the rule's adoption, chemical engineer Abigail Cantor started testing the water after it was treated with phosphate that authorities recommended they use to prevent lead from leaching into water. But what she found was shocking.
> "[I] found that the lead increased four times over the untreated water using the highest recommended phosphate product," Cantor says.
> Typically lead pipes develop a layer of deposits that pacify the metal, stop corrosion and prevent lead from leeching out.
Was going to come here to say this. Saying that, old pipes do need to eventually be replaced. But I wouldn’t freak out if you have lead pipe running into your house, especially no new ones have been installed for many decades.
It would probably be better to have a longer term solution. $45 billion for lead today. I'm guessing in another generation they're choose to remediate some other contamination like PFOAs or some plastics used in pipe liners.
At this point it'd be better to just give grants for installing home water filters and then use the money from chlorination to supply an annual filter stipend. Cover all the issues at once.
I wish we had a public database of who approved lead pipes after a date when they were known to be dangerous. Same with all of the other health and environmental threats we face with micro plastics, PFAS, glyphosate, freon, etc etc etc, going back 100 years.
With that database, we could create liens on the corporations/families/individuals which profited from passing their externalities onto the public. Then they could pay for the cleanup and/or go bankrupt.
Where I'm going with this is that the current power structure in the US is built on ignorance. Many millionaires and billionaires are only wealthy because they've gamed the legal system to dodge most claims against them.
Examples are the Sackler family, the Koch family, the Walton family, the list is long:
Now, I have nothing against wealth creation through hard work and building things. But when it's done by corrupting the system, at some level that must be considered unpatriotic. Yet a politician wears a lapel pin and claims to love America while accepting money from the people who hurt us. This is a failure of leadership.
I'd propose that wealthy individuals can start setting an example by doing the right thing in a very public way, or risk bringing the wrath of the masses against them. And it wouldn't take much to pull the wool off people's eyes, especially with AI. How hard would it really be to use historical precedents as training data? We're in the midst of a Global Awakening where everyone can see in real time that the mainstream news doesn't match what they see reported by real people on social media. We've also reached a level of technological development where people are starting to provide resources for themselves outside the system via renewable energy, automation, hydroponics, 3D printing, etc. Those trends point to a reduction in wealth concentration and authoritarianism.
Yet the wealthy and powerful manipulate the system even harder, running authoritarian candidates, spreading anti-intellectual propaganda, starting proxy wars.. and soon using AI to trick people to vote against their own self-interest at even more unbelievable levels. At a time when people are barely able to earn enough money to make rent and put food on the table. You don't do that when people are struggling, you do it in the boom times like the mid-2000s. I almost wonder if they have a guilt complex, like they want to get caught?
Glyphosate is one of the most studied chemicals, and it's okay. (The issue is that farm workers are not given protective gear.) Lead in pipes is also not that big of a problem as it was in gasoline.
It's definitely not great that we have strange stuff in our blood and food, but eating charred food is a lot more carcinogenic. Just to keep that in mind. Especially when you are throwing around the charge of ignorance.
Does everyone else have a subscription to the Washington post? Could we just have a system where we don’t post pay walled articles?
It seems hacker news community members are okay with posting web archive links (there are none here) in the comments but why are we even playing this game at all? Let’s not post articles without free sources.
People post the archive links, so it is fine. Enjoying paid content without paying has been a common thing in the hacker community all the way back to the days of warez on Usenet and BBSs.
1. The comments on paywalled articles are often (as is the case for this particular story) useful and interesting even if you have not read the article. I don't see why we should be deprived of an interesting thread just because some people might not have access to the article.
2. No one has to read every HN submission and participate in every thread. If a particular thread does require reading the article to get much out of the thread, do what I do--skip it.
3. If #2 is happening a lot with articles from a particular paywalled source, and it sounds like I really would have enjoyed or found the thread useful, that provides a strong hint that maybe that source is one that I should considered subscribing to.
[+] [-] luplex|2 years ago|reply
https://leadelimination.org/
[+] [-] coffeecat|2 years ago|reply
The term "Pb poisoning" has two different meanings: traditionally it's referred to blood lead levels above about 50 mcg/dL, at which demonstrable symptoms occur (slowed reaction times, etc). But in recent decades, it's also used to describe much lower levels (>15 mcg/dL, >10 mcg/dL, or even >5 mcg/dL), for which the only evidence of harm comes from observational studies.
Observational studies establish correlation, not causation, and there are good reasons to doubt that the observed correlations are due to Pb neurotoxicity. The relationship between Pb exposure and cognitive/behavioral outcomes is intractably complicated, because for most children Pb exposure is primarily from dirt/dust ingestion, which in turn correlates with a child's developmental status, household cleanliness, and subtle aspects of parenting behaviors (in addition of course to more widely appreciated factors like age/condition of the home). Poor nutrition also causes higher BLLs.
It's been demonstrated that publication bias in the Pb literature has steadily risen over time, as reported effect sizes have increased. Several studies have found Pb correlations which resemble a U curve, where children with the highest blood lead levels have better cognitive/behavioral outcomes than those with intermediate BLLs (because outside the range of BLLs which are primarily driven by dirt/dust ingestion, "something else is going on", which doesn't correlate as well with cognitive/behavioral outcomes).
Dirt/dust ingestion (and therefore, BLLs) drop precipitously around age 2, because this is around the time when children outgrow mouthing behavior - some children a bit earlier, some children a bit later. BLL measurements at this age therefore a metric of developmental status. Or alternatively, this is the age at which "lead causes the most harm".
My argument is of course not that you should go paint your child's nursery with chrome yellow. Ingesting paint chips can be enough to put a child into the "actual lead poisoning" BLL range (drinking water from lead pipes generally cannot). But excluding exposure from leaded gasoline (which was formerly the dominant source of exposure, but which has fortunately been banned almost everywhere) and people living near smelting facilities, it's probably not the scary ubiquitous IQ-point larcenist that it's made out to be.
[+] [-] instagib|2 years ago|reply
https://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/26/lead-hot-water-issue...
They’re lead traps.
[+] [-] washadjeffmad|2 years ago|reply
Although, seeing the inside of an old water heater is all anyone would need to convince them to leave the hot water for washing.
[+] [-] Infernal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doubled112|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgentry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superseeplus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kleiba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzelinskie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keepamovin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jimmc414|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downrightmike|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oyashirochama|2 years ago|reply
Doing it in the more vulnerable areas should be done first and if the lead solder has stabilized, work those areas last. Over a period of 20-30 years is better since that's roughly how long it took to install in the first place. This would lower the price and economic costs too. (this is what they do btw)
[+] [-] superseeplus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|2 years ago|reply
That’s not an excuse to use leaded solder on supply pipes as plumbing with lead-free solder is perfectly easy, but I don’t sweat* the old copper pipes in my 1920s home.
https://www.copper.org/applications/plumbing/techcorner/sold...
* That pun was inadvertent.
[+] [-] collegeburner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewstuart|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY0IscIvue4
[+] [-] quickthrower2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quickthrower2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|2 years ago|reply
The Flint water crisis was a cock-up by the water utility that resulted in loss of pacification and leeching of lead, but that a mistake that can be prevented.
Seems like regular water testing (already done) is a reasonable solution. I could see decommissioning of lead pipes (i.e. an work done needs to replace them) but a wholesale "removal all lead pipe whether or not they contribute to lead exposure" seems like overkill.
[+] [-] keep_reading|2 years ago|reply
> "[I] found that the lead increased four times over the untreated water using the highest recommended phosphate product," Cantor says.
https://www.npr.org/2016/03/31/472567733/avoiding-a-future-c...
[+] [-] vkou|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nemo44x|2 years ago|reply
Was going to come here to say this. Saying that, old pipes do need to eventually be replaced. But I wouldn’t freak out if you have lead pipe running into your house, especially no new ones have been installed for many decades.
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
At this point it'd be better to just give grants for installing home water filters and then use the money from chlorination to supply an annual filter stipend. Cover all the issues at once.
[+] [-] rendall|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h2odragon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blastbking|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xtat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackmorris|2 years ago|reply
With that database, we could create liens on the corporations/families/individuals which profited from passing their externalities onto the public. Then they could pay for the cleanup and/or go bankrupt.
Where I'm going with this is that the current power structure in the US is built on ignorance. Many millionaires and billionaires are only wealthy because they've gamed the legal system to dodge most claims against them.
Examples are the Sackler family, the Koch family, the Walton family, the list is long:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2020/12/17/billion-...
Now, I have nothing against wealth creation through hard work and building things. But when it's done by corrupting the system, at some level that must be considered unpatriotic. Yet a politician wears a lapel pin and claims to love America while accepting money from the people who hurt us. This is a failure of leadership.
I'd propose that wealthy individuals can start setting an example by doing the right thing in a very public way, or risk bringing the wrath of the masses against them. And it wouldn't take much to pull the wool off people's eyes, especially with AI. How hard would it really be to use historical precedents as training data? We're in the midst of a Global Awakening where everyone can see in real time that the mainstream news doesn't match what they see reported by real people on social media. We've also reached a level of technological development where people are starting to provide resources for themselves outside the system via renewable energy, automation, hydroponics, 3D printing, etc. Those trends point to a reduction in wealth concentration and authoritarianism.
Yet the wealthy and powerful manipulate the system even harder, running authoritarian candidates, spreading anti-intellectual propaganda, starting proxy wars.. and soon using AI to trick people to vote against their own self-interest at even more unbelievable levels. At a time when people are barely able to earn enough money to make rent and put food on the table. You don't do that when people are struggling, you do it in the boom times like the mid-2000s. I almost wonder if they have a guilt complex, like they want to get caught?
[+] [-] pas|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38500123
We still don't know much about PFAS.
It's definitely not great that we have strange stuff in our blood and food, but eating charred food is a lot more carcinogenic. Just to keep that in mind. Especially when you are throwing around the charge of ignorance.
[+] [-] justrealist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiffern|2 years ago|reply
I wish we could somehow do two things at once.
[+] [-] romafirst3|2 years ago|reply
It seems hacker news community members are okay with posting web archive links (there are none here) in the comments but why are we even playing this game at all? Let’s not post articles without free sources.
[+] [-] pvg|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
Accessible link: https://wapo.st/3T5QYnt
[+] [-] OfSanguineFire|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcanemachiner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisbrandow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkcontext|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|2 years ago|reply
2. No one has to read every HN submission and participate in every thread. If a particular thread does require reading the article to get much out of the thread, do what I do--skip it.
3. If #2 is happening a lot with articles from a particular paywalled source, and it sounds like I really would have enjoyed or found the thread useful, that provides a strong hint that maybe that source is one that I should considered subscribing to.
[+] [-] frogulis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnburnsy|2 years ago|reply
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
[+] [-] Proven|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andrewstuart|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Eumenes|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RGamma|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]