Lead is good

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

Well, not quite. When it comes to lead in potable water, it depends on who is responsible. Multinational capitalists’ lead is horrible, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency and Democrats’ controlled local authorities’ is not so bad. When SciAm claims “Low level lead exposure can be mitigated by good parenting, good schooling and good nutrition”, you can guess where the responsibility for lead in water lies.

Article Gauging the Effects of Lead in Scientific American of July last year was written by Mz Ellen Ruppel Shell, who co-directs the graduate program in science journalism at Boston University. No surprise there.

When I first quickly scanned the article I was pleased to see that it does not follow the usual pattern of popular “scientific” writing. Almost no doom and gloom, no catastrophic extinctions, no plagues, no suffering children – well, everybody knows the pattern. But a word ‘Flint’ rang a bell. Flint, Michigan made news some time ago, though not Main Stream News. [The Left wing view here] Probably it was too hard to twist criminal negligence of the left-leanning administrators to the currently almost compulsory anti-Trump rant.

And now? “An exhaustive study of children with blood lead levels averaging more than µ17 g/dL, published in 2013 in NeuroToxicology, concluded: ‘It is unclear whether lead exposure or early childhood confounders were driving these associations’ between lead and long-term cognitive impacts.”

Bruce Lanphear, a public health expert at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, is principal investigator for a study examining fetal and early age exposure to lead and other neurotoxic chemicals. ‘Studies in rats have shown that the effects of of lead exposure can be attenuated by environmental stimulation,’ Lanphear says. Early research showed that animals exposed to lead yet provided with enriched environment (cages with other rats as well as water mazes, exercise wheels and other stimuli) showed fewer deficits than did those from deprived situations.”

Toxicology used to be exact, non-political science. Now, who knows? PC cancer is spreading, not necessarily overtly. It would be easy to make fun out of the above reassurances – just give the victims exercise wheels. My point is that, for example the subject of fracking, in the same issue, does not get the same treatment. There the doomsday propaganda goes full bore.

Do citizens deserve to be treated as fools? Unfortunately, yes.

quill.1

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in America, Fraud, Health, Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Lead is good

  1. Doom Day says:

    That is exactly what one can expect from the science today. It will take iron brooms to cleanse that pigsty.

  2. Pink Hyena says:

    It is very sad. Scientists are now as corrupt as journalists and politicians.

  3. Gunter F says:

    We are fools; normal people would have thrown out the bastards long time ago. Charlatants turned science into big joke.

  4. Bohdan Burban says:

    Linear-No-Threshold Model: One of the favorite ploys of the EPA is to use the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model to calculate possible small negative influences on human health with small doses of a substance, even when lacking any physical evidence. Often, it is far easier for a regulator, or an epidemiologist, to declare a substance is harmful by using the LNT Model rather than using the laborious dose-response method long-established in toxicology. (”sola dosis facit venenum” – The dose alone makes the poison.)

    The LNT model was developed in the late 1940s for ionizing radiation and it was assumed that long term exposure to the radiation can cause an increase in cancer risks. The benefits of exposure to radiation are largely ignored. The model has been strongly criticized by some scientists because it can lead to absurd results. For example, long-term, prolonged exposure to the sun can lead to skin cancer in some, therefore any exposure to the sun can lead to skin cancer in some. It can be summed as: “There is no safe dose.”

    A more recent example is the administrators of the EPA lecturing US residents on exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants because the mercury emissions may reduce IQ (by an immeasurable amount). The EPA’s position was supported by a single study not supported by subsequent studies. Yet, it became part of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations promulgated by the EPA, which are being legally contested.
    Linear-No-Threshold Model: One of the favorite ploys of the EPA is to use the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model to calculate possible small negative influences on human health with small doses of a substance, even when lacking any physical evidence. Often, it is far easier for a regulator, or an epidemiologist, to declare a substance is harmful by using the LNT Model rather than using the laborious dose-response method long-established in toxicology. (”sola dosis facit venenum” – The dose alone makes the poison.)

    The LNT model was developed in the late 1940s for ionizing radiation and it was assumed that long term exposure to the radiation can cause an increase in cancer risks. The benefits of exposure to radiation are largely ignored. The model has been strongly criticized by some scientists because it can lead to absurd results. For example, long-term, prolonged exposure to the sun can lead to skin cancer in some, therefore any exposure to the sun can lead to skin cancer in some. It can be summed as: “There is no safe dose.”

    A more recent example is the administrators of the EPA lecturing US residents on exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants because the mercury emissions may reduce IQ (by an immeasurable amount). The EPA’s position was supported by a single study not supported by subsequent studies. Yet, it became part of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations promulgated by the EPA, which are being legally contested.

    A new paper with the clever title, “Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science”, has been published in Biological Theory. As one can guess from the title, the paper is not complimentary to the extensive use of the LNT model. Needless to say, this will not be the final word on the subject – far too many careers and papers in epidemiology are built on the LNT model. See links under EPA and other Regulators on the March and Below the Bottom Line.

  5. Sad Yank says:

    One expects nothing better from today’s “scientists”.

  6. Environmental says:

    Facebook shut internal forum that grew sexist, racist – …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>