I have the same problem with this as with retro youtubers using lead solder.
Consumers are not the only ones that matter
The people working in the factoriesare exposed to lead. The people at the mines are exposed to lead. The people in shuttered ghost towns like Pitcher Oklahoma are exposed to lead. The people transporting lead are exposed to lead. People working in recycling or waste management or landfills are exposed to lead. Lead is not good to put into the manufacturing stream or the waste stream. By continuing to create demand you are continuing to put lead in the environment in forms where it gets into humans and damages their brains.
You're eactly right. I saw the blight at Herculaneum, MO in the 2000s - dozers plowing down houses in a slowly expanding circle centered on the smelter.
1 in 5 students had excess blood lead. The schools nearby were scraped down and soil was replaced whenever the lead levels got too high from the dust blowing off the open ore and slag trucks running town. The smelter didn't hit EPA requirements for 25 years, and when faced with enforcement, decided to leave rather than produce lead cleanly, because it is not economical to do so cleanly. Cheap lead offloads the environmental and health effects to someone.
As with anything in the manufacturing process, it depends how it's done. You can imagine it being done safely or dangerously, but either way, it's not a fact, it's something you imagined.
Unfortunately, we usually don't know what safety procedures were followed or whether they're adequate. This requires insight into the whole supply chain.
So, maybe it's better to be safe and ask for alternatives? But we don't know if it helps, because there are other materials and other reasons why one manufacturing process might be better than another.
Consumer purchase decisions are a very indirect way of affecting working conditions and a poor substitute for work-safety regulations.
Soldering doesn't involve boiling the lead in the solder. I worry more about the fumes from the flux than I do the solder. I just wash my hands afterward to make sure I don't ingest traces of it.
That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use end up in the environment. Even medication. So getting too fixated on a rare specialist use of lead is misguided. We should reduce the uses of lead and other toxic materials where possible, but sometimes it isn't possible or economical.
_No_ level of lead is safe and_no_ level of lead is acceptable. That's a statement from CDC, WHO, or any other 3 letter agency you could ask.
Why is it still "used". Often, the difference is in percentage of lead in products when it's intentional vs not (probably obvious). The part that may be less known is how difficult it is to ensure that steel or other metals don't have <0.001% lead still in them, and even that is far, far too high (see original statement on lead safety level).
Working in characterization of materials _can be_ difficult. I have had 3 different pieces of equipment give 10% X, 50%X, and 80% X all for exactly the same batch of the same material.
However, lead is far more established in it's characterization in metals, so _given enough care and money_ these problems don't really occur.
This company, and many others, aren't going to check - that's the government's job to worry about the safety and health of the public, and protect them if a company makes an unknowingly harmful product. The government meanwhile does not have the funding, personnel, or time to tackle such a monumental task.
This is why it takes so long to find bad products like this - it's typically on the shoulders of curious individuals.
To recap, this _should be_ a solved issue (also lead needs to come out of GA, as it has been shown to be possible for decades, and actually _harms_ the engines of small planes), but as it often is, harming people to save money spells success in our world.
As to why it's advantages, lead is really cheap and really effective. In material science there are 2 groups, those making amazing new materials, and those trying to match them without using lead or cadmium
It doesn’t reveal anything the world didn’t already know, though. There is lead, but it is within the sealed inner chamber of the cup. It isn’t accessible to drinkers.
Still, doesn’t seem wise to use lead in such a popular drinking device. With the millions sold, it’s hard to imagine there not being a few defects.
Absolute science like this, with x-ray imagery, does reveal, or rather, confirm what we needed to know. Independent verification is an important part of the process and shouldn't be discounted.
Reminds me of the scandal when Sigg water bottles were found to be painted inside with a BPA-containing varnish. At least here the lead is not in direct contact with the drink, although any manufacturing process involving lead can potentially suffer from cross-contamination.
Weren't there some other studies that found lead on the inside drinking surface?
I had assumed maybe it was the manufacturing process, maybe lead in the environment(from the solder), then some vapors condensing on the inside surface.?
Some of these images are actually 3D models you can manipulate.
I point this out every time that page is posted because it's really easy to miss. They probably should give these a slow rotating animation to make it more obvious.
> I will never understand the brief viral Stanley popularity,
it isn't the product, but the effect of viral. the effect of influencers is the thing to be looking at here. however, that's just the next evolution of marketing. to me, it is the ability to be influenced that should be studied and improved.
A lot of my friends dads worked in coal power plants (they would be the guys climbing the stack for inspection and cleaning.
They all used Stanley mugs, usually the dark green one with a little detachable cup.
Such an uncanny valley for Stanley to suddenly the be the IT mom and influencer accessory, but it’s a well trodden path from work site to boutique (I think Carhartt, Suburban SUVs, many others I am sure).
Stanley invented, or at least popularized, a new kind of tumbler. It is insulated to keep drinks hot or cold, it has large capacity but fits in cup holder, has handle to make easier to carry.
I don't like since prefer smaller water bottles, but I understand why some people would. I also don't get the viral popularity, but I understand why social promotion of something people want and is new can take off. It is turned into phenomenon that people want just cause its popular.
Funny how even before being consumed by their adopters it has already contaminated their brain and making them think they are something just because of a product.
[+] [-] doubloon|2 years ago|reply
Consumers are not the only ones that matter
The people working in the factoriesare exposed to lead. The people at the mines are exposed to lead. The people in shuttered ghost towns like Pitcher Oklahoma are exposed to lead. The people transporting lead are exposed to lead. People working in recycling or waste management or landfills are exposed to lead. Lead is not good to put into the manufacturing stream or the waste stream. By continuing to create demand you are continuing to put lead in the environment in forms where it gets into humans and damages their brains.
[+] [-] rsaxvc|2 years ago|reply
1 in 5 students had excess blood lead. The schools nearby were scraped down and soil was replaced whenever the lead levels got too high from the dust blowing off the open ore and slag trucks running town. The smelter didn't hit EPA requirements for 25 years, and when faced with enforcement, decided to leave rather than produce lead cleanly, because it is not economical to do so cleanly. Cheap lead offloads the environmental and health effects to someone.
https://health.mo.gov/living/environment/hazsubstancesites/p...
https://www.kbia.org/science-and-technology/2012-08-08/the-e...
[+] [-] skybrian|2 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, we usually don't know what safety procedures were followed or whether they're adequate. This requires insight into the whole supply chain.
So, maybe it's better to be safe and ask for alternatives? But we don't know if it helps, because there are other materials and other reasons why one manufacturing process might be better than another.
Consumer purchase decisions are a very indirect way of affecting working conditions and a poor substitute for work-safety regulations.
[+] [-] mikewarot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wakawaka28|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankharv|2 years ago|reply
What do you think SAE660 bearing bronze contains.
This level of hype is horribly misguided.
I have not witnessed one machinist harmed by lead in 40 years.
If I cared I would wear a face mask when working with bronzes.
Truthfully Hexavalent Chromium exposure from stainless scares me more.
That is a known carcinogen and I machine alot of high Chrome content stainless.
[+] [-] ShitHNsays|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] perihelions|2 years ago|reply
Why is lead so advantageous for sealing vacuum chambers that a manufacturer would risk all this backlash? Do simple epoxy glues not work?
[+] [-] chaxor|2 years ago|reply
_No_ level of lead is safe and_no_ level of lead is acceptable. That's a statement from CDC, WHO, or any other 3 letter agency you could ask.
Why is it still "used". Often, the difference is in percentage of lead in products when it's intentional vs not (probably obvious). The part that may be less known is how difficult it is to ensure that steel or other metals don't have <0.001% lead still in them, and even that is far, far too high (see original statement on lead safety level).
Working in characterization of materials _can be_ difficult. I have had 3 different pieces of equipment give 10% X, 50%X, and 80% X all for exactly the same batch of the same material.
However, lead is far more established in it's characterization in metals, so _given enough care and money_ these problems don't really occur.
This company, and many others, aren't going to check - that's the government's job to worry about the safety and health of the public, and protect them if a company makes an unknowingly harmful product. The government meanwhile does not have the funding, personnel, or time to tackle such a monumental task. This is why it takes so long to find bad products like this - it's typically on the shoulders of curious individuals.
To recap, this _should be_ a solved issue (also lead needs to come out of GA, as it has been shown to be possible for decades, and actually _harms_ the engines of small planes), but as it often is, harming people to save money spells success in our world.
[+] [-] f_devd|2 years ago|reply
As to why it's advantages, lead is really cheap and really effective. In material science there are 2 groups, those making amazing new materials, and those trying to match them without using lead or cadmium
[+] [-] frankharv|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bigyikes|2 years ago|reply
It doesn’t reveal anything the world didn’t already know, though. There is lead, but it is within the sealed inner chamber of the cup. It isn’t accessible to drinkers.
Still, doesn’t seem wise to use lead in such a popular drinking device. With the millions sold, it’s hard to imagine there not being a few defects.
[+] [-] clarkdale|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankharv|2 years ago|reply
Imagine being able to look inside a weld with this level of detail...
We have crude tools in my field compared to this...
[+] [-] fmajid|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] progbits|2 years ago|reply
Essentially the same product but cheaper because there isn't a weird hypetrain around it.
[+] [-] wizzwizz4|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FrustratedMonky|2 years ago|reply
I had assumed maybe it was the manufacturing process, maybe lead in the environment(from the solder), then some vapors condensing on the inside surface.?
[+] [-] chmod775|2 years ago|reply
I point this out every time that page is posted because it's really easy to miss. They probably should give these a slow rotating animation to make it more obvious.
[+] [-] NotYourLawyer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|2 years ago|reply
it isn't the product, but the effect of viral. the effect of influencers is the thing to be looking at here. however, that's just the next evolution of marketing. to me, it is the ability to be influenced that should be studied and improved.
[+] [-] nytesky|2 years ago|reply
They all used Stanley mugs, usually the dark green one with a little detachable cup.
Such an uncanny valley for Stanley to suddenly the be the IT mom and influencer accessory, but it’s a well trodden path from work site to boutique (I think Carhartt, Suburban SUVs, many others I am sure).
Watching SNL, I have to ask: are they not leak proof? https://youtu.be/L2tUO2mp99Q?si=zVjGlxi-rcrMW2JC
We always just use Nalgene since you can’t lose the cap and they generally don’t leak but of course accept room temp water.
[+] [-] ianburrell|2 years ago|reply
I don't like since prefer smaller water bottles, but I understand why some people would. I also don't get the viral popularity, but I understand why social promotion of something people want and is new can take off. It is turned into phenomenon that people want just cause its popular.
[+] [-] luplex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] infinitedata|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigyikes|2 years ago|reply