Weneedlead

Nobility used to have the highest lead levels, while violent tribes used to have the lowest. How do you explain that?

Tobacco smoke contains heavy metals, smoking rises lead levels. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322790056_Blood_Lea...

11 out of the 76 short term exposed workers had myopia, while 10 out of 124 long term exposed workers had myopia, which is much less.

>any more than the baseline level

Again. Can't you see it's a circular argument? How did you determine that it's the 'baseline'?

>people are likely getting more lead than 100 years ago.

People used to get much more. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481484/ (now I looked again, it's actually an old study from 1986 that they cite, they already do show rising rates esp. in males)

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2124447

https://www.bijojournal.org/article.asp?issn=1858-6538;year=... (recalculate percentages)

I don't think I broke any rules, and my comments are on topic. Anyway, why do you fight so hard? You would get cured too.

>The body has plenty of functions that are best left on their default settings or minimized.

We're arguing what the 'default' is. I'm arguing the default state is with lead. It would be strange for a protein to evolve to get so easily activated by a toxin.

>To show it's healthy you'd need studies showing better health of exposed people, or at least some theoretical reason you'd want lead to make it even plausible.

I thing it's completely uncontroversial that the current typical human health is at the historic rock bottom.

There is no reason theoretical or not to believe it is toxic in the first place, except for the strange claim that the body uses it in error.

>The neanderthals probably ate stuff from lead rich soil or something, that doesn't prove it wasn't harmful.

That's an absurd claim, and really grasping at straws, don't you think? Mote that the remains aren't many. It isn't that they sieved through thousands of teeth to find a couple that were poisoned.

Lead deficiency makes people asocial, which is why we've seen the downturn of western industries. That was my point.

The more interesting part that people panicked that lead makes them have fewer children a century ago, not over its neurotoxicity. That was not yet "known".

Another interesting part:] >In Venezuela, where the state oil company sold only leaded gasoline until 1999, a recent report found 63 percent of newborn children with blood-lead levels in excess of the so-called safe levels promulgated by the US government.

And as of 2008, there were virtually no nearsighted people in Venezuela.

It's a lie. The effects are always beneficial except in extreme doses. No dose that makes no difference is exactly what you would expect from a nutrient.

Lead activates the proteins it supoosedly poisons: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12425341_Inorganic_...

Yes, teeth and bones use most of the lead that you consume. But why is there lead in the teeth of neandethals? https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/250000-year-o...

Yes, iron overload seems to interfere with lead. Calcium not so much, it seems it rather makes lead used for building more bone. Licking lead causes cravings for calcium rich food.

The fact that it has always been there casts a great doubt on the claims about its toxicity. It can be found through the ages in human remains and in geological remains that clearly predate people.

I licked lead in front of people. It's a nutrient, it gets used by the body. Most people are critically malnourished, so it holds on to any that it can get.

Nobody asked a much more important question: where did it come from? It's an element, people didn't make it. Why is it in coal, oil, sediments, neanderthal teeth even?

Yes, they never get to the stage when you talk nonsense when they drink alcohol. (they can't readily tell, it seems, they need to test you in some way)

I'm saying that the majority is now psychopaths.

I'm still more inclined that the drop in IQ is an artifact, but even if intelligence is improved in some way, it's useless when the person is asocial.

Not my first post, not that it matters.

The most terible thing is that it's false.

Exactly how it was posted a couple days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35206141 Essentially impossible to grow a company anymore. People are asocial, and will form cliques and constantly cheat each other. A HR filled with asocials who only hire other asocials (they have various tests, such as alcohol - asocials will never get drunk psychologically, you can talk gibberish, but they are completely fine and compete who can make you say worse nonsense) is a typical example. It's because lead was removed.

The levels have been recently lowered, IIRC.

This is the exact problem with modern science.

Yes, you really should go and look back at that horn and thoroughly recheck if it really is what it seemed like to people several decades ago.