Comments on: Lead Gutters? But the CHILDREN! http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/ Bad Science And Scary Science Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:43:09 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anon http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-34292 Anon Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:43:25 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-34292 [quote comment="34291"]Well, I guess lead gutter is not safe for kids though we can try other gutter without any dangerous materials like lead; we will put our family’s life to risk with lead substance. I guess we should be very careful to the materials that we are going to use to our home if it’s safe or a threat.[/quote]Didn't you read the post about lead gutters not actually being so dangerous? Oh right, you're just as stupid spammers who doesn't understand the existence of rel-nofollow (don't worry, I used up some your bandwidth for you).

        copper gutters said:

Well, I guess lead gutter is not safe for kids though we can try other gutter without any dangerous materials like lead; we will put our family’s life to risk with lead substance. I guess we should be very careful to the materials that we are going to use to our home if it’s safe or a threat.

Didn’t you read the post about lead gutters not actually being so dangerous?

Oh right, you’re just as stupid spammers who doesn’t understand the existence of rel-nofollow (don’t worry, I used up some your bandwidth for you).

]]> By: copper gutters http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-34291 copper gutters Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:39:56 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-34291 Well, I guess lead gutter is not safe for kids though we can try other gutter without any dangerous materials like lead; we will put our family’s life to risk with lead substance. I guess we should be very careful to the materials that we are going to use to our home if it’s safe or a threat. Well, I guess lead gutter is not safe for kids though we can try other gutter without any dangerous materials like lead; we will put our family’s life to risk with lead substance. I guess we should be very careful to the materials that we are going to use to our home if it’s safe or a threat.

]]> By: drbuzz0 http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-24632 drbuzz0 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:23:25 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-24632 [quote comment="24629"] Now by definition a decorative coating has to have a good appearance, hopefully for the life of the product, thus one would not select one that would likely be damaged in service by the very act of using it. Again drawing on a reasonable understanding of lead chemistry, I see that there is little chance of compounds being formed in this system that are both insoluble enough to deposit on soil, and and concurrently have a high biological uptake. Thus I conclude that the dangers from this installation are below the level of concern. The last point I made was a simple one: a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. When combined with mob thinking it leads to foolishness.[/quote] There has recently been an application of the "Linear non-threshold" mentality to substances like lead observing such things as "no safe level." This is also being applied to things like formaldehyde, methanol, MTBE etc. According to some, exposure to even one molecule is harmful and thus the whole idea of very strict regulations and opposition to any use of the stuff at all. Pitty, really. While not suitable for applications where toxicity is an issue, lead is just a great material. It's a joy to work with. Soft, ductile, melts easily with a blow torch, flows nicely, highly corrosion resistant, bonds well with other metals...

        DV82XL said:

Now by definition a decorative coating has to have a good appearance, hopefully for the life of the product, thus one would not select one that would likely be damaged in service by the very act of using it. Again drawing on a reasonable understanding of lead chemistry, I see that there is little chance of compounds being formed in this system that are both insoluble enough to deposit on soil, and and concurrently have a high biological uptake. Thus I conclude that the dangers from this installation are below the level of concern.

The last point I made was a simple one: a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. When combined with mob thinking it leads to foolishness.

There has recently been an application of the “Linear non-threshold” mentality to substances like lead observing such things as “no safe level.” This is also being applied to things like formaldehyde, methanol, MTBE etc. According to some, exposure to even one molecule is harmful and thus the whole idea of very strict regulations and opposition to any use of the stuff at all.

Pitty, really. While not suitable for applications where toxicity is an issue, lead is just a great material. It’s a joy to work with. Soft, ductile, melts easily with a blow torch, flows nicely, highly corrosion resistant, bonds well with other metals…

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-24629 DV82XL Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:28:22 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-24629 I'm an industrial chemist/metallurgist (retired) and in some cases I see things as a matter of commonsense logic rather than looking for peer-reviewed studies. Plating lead on copper, while relatively simple, is an added expense, not only for the equipment and labor, but also the costs occurring because of strict environmental standards that attend this process. A glance at the table of potentials eliminates the notion that this is a sacrificial coating on copper. A bit of research shows that the reason, is in fact for cosmetic purposes. Now by definition a decorative coating has to have a good appearance, hopefully for the life of the product, thus one would not select one that would likely be damaged in service by the very act of using it. Again drawing on a reasonable understanding of lead chemistry, I see that there is little chance of compounds being formed in this system that are both insoluble enough to deposit on soil, and and concurrently have a high biological uptake. Thus I conclude that the dangers from this installation are below the level of concern. The last point I made was a simple one: a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. When combined with mob thinking it leads to foolishness. I’m an industrial chemist/metallurgist (retired) and in some cases I see things as a matter of commonsense logic rather than looking for peer-reviewed studies. Plating lead on copper, while relatively simple, is an added expense, not only for the equipment and labor, but also the costs occurring because of strict environmental standards that attend this process. A glance at the table of potentials eliminates the notion that this is a sacrificial coating on copper. A bit of research shows that the reason, is in fact for cosmetic purposes.

Now by definition a decorative coating has to have a good appearance, hopefully for the life of the product, thus one would not select one that would likely be damaged in service by the very act of using it. Again drawing on a reasonable understanding of lead chemistry, I see that there is little chance of compounds being formed in this system that are both insoluble enough to deposit on soil, and and concurrently have a high biological uptake. Thus I conclude that the dangers from this installation are below the level of concern.

The last point I made was a simple one: a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. When combined with mob thinking it leads to foolishness.

]]> By: Sam Gerritz http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-24628 Sam Gerritz Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:59:20 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-24628 @DV82XL - Thanks for your considerate reply. I appreciate your perspective, and as a medicinal chemist I understand all too well the issues surrounding risk/benefit analyses. However, your reference to "fact" is where the difficulties arose in this particular situation- and I'm not trying to put you on the defensive here- can you point me to a peer-reviewed study which shows that lead-coated copper gutters do not leach lead into surrounding soils? (I agree that the soil test was a poor substitute for a well-designed study). The committee members I was interacting with could not...and that's where the "burden of proof" discussion came up. Why is it my responsibility to convince the committee that these gutters are unsafe? Given that there are plenty of non-lead-containing alternatives out there, if they can't define the risk, then why should we take it? If I understand your last point correctly, whose role is it to ensure that the public is not being exposed to environmental toxins? I'm afraid that I don't trust the private sector to have the public's best interests in mind 100% of the time... Thanks. @DV82XL – Thanks for your considerate reply. I appreciate your perspective, and as a medicinal chemist I understand all too well the issues surrounding risk/benefit analyses. However, your reference to “fact” is where the difficulties arose in this particular situation- and I’m not trying to put you on the defensive here- can you point me to a peer-reviewed study which shows that lead-coated copper gutters do not leach lead into surrounding soils? (I agree that the soil test was a poor substitute for a well-designed study). The committee members I was interacting with could not…and that’s where the “burden of proof” discussion came up. Why is it my responsibility to convince the committee that these gutters are unsafe? Given that there are plenty of non-lead-containing alternatives out there, if they can’t define the risk, then why should we take it?

If I understand your last point correctly, whose role is it to ensure that the public is not being exposed to environmental toxins? I’m afraid that I don’t trust the private sector to have the public’s best interests in mind 100% of the time…

Thanks.

]]> By: DV82XL http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-24627 DV82XL Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:33:15 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-24627 @Sam Gerritz - The critical point here is that the decision was made without reference to fact. Also it is a major issue in the case of some things like lead paint and asbestos, that the process of removing it very very often releases more of the contaminant into the immediate area than sequestering it. Finally, ask yourself why lead is use in this application. It is used particularly because it doesn't dissolve in rainwater, and the minute amount that does is in the form of PbCO3 or Pb(CO3)2 and will be carried away by runoff. The ones that would stay in the soil are the sulphide form (S2-), or the phosphate form (PO43-). In these forms lead is extremely insoluble, and thus have low bio-uptake potential. The fact remains too that any lead found in the soil near that school is likely to be from leaded gasoline use, as Franck said, or at the very least these would be difficult to control for, if the soil were being tested. On of the big problems with this sort of public advocacy, is that assay techniques have become so sophisticated that just about anything can be found in any sample if you look close enough, and when this is combined with the public's inability to weigh risk rationally, trouble and expense is the outcome with little real gain. @Sam Gerritz – The critical point here is that the decision was made without reference to fact. Also it is a major issue in the case of some things like lead paint and asbestos, that the process of removing it very very often releases more of the contaminant into the immediate area than sequestering it.

Finally, ask yourself why lead is use in this application. It is used particularly because it doesn’t dissolve in rainwater, and the minute amount that does is in the form of PbCO3 or Pb(CO3)2 and will be carried away by runoff. The ones that would stay in the soil are the sulphide form (S2-), or the phosphate form (PO43-). In these forms lead is extremely insoluble, and thus have low bio-uptake potential.

The fact remains too that any lead found in the soil near that school is likely to be from leaded gasoline use, as Franck said, or at the very least these would be difficult to control for, if the soil were being tested.

On of the big problems with this sort of public advocacy, is that assay techniques have become so sophisticated that just about anything can be found in any sample if you look close enough, and when this is combined with the public’s inability to weigh risk rationally, trouble and expense is the outcome with little real gain.

]]> By: Sam Gerritz http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-24626 Sam Gerritz Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:58:53 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-24626 I don't want to interrupt all the fun you're having with this topic, but since my name is mentioned in this blog post I'd like to provide a little background. 1. I hope nobody is contesting this: small children + high lead levels in the soil are a very bad combination. Adults can handle a much higher exposure to lead without adverse effects, so I don't believe there is anything wrong with additional information being required when lead-containing construction materials are being considered for a school project. In the case of the Cox school, a 20+ year experiment had already been conducted (lead-coated copper gutters had been in place since the building was constructed) and so the soil test data was highly relevant to the discussion. 2. To answer Chuckie's question (#10)- the soil test was sufficient proof for me, as that was my primary concern, but the data which Cliff Gurnham cited in the news article was not available at the time the decision was made to remove the lead-coated copper gutters. I don't agree with the process that culminated in that decision (I would have been happy to wait for the data), but are you suggesting that we shouldn't ask whether an alternative to a lead-based product could be used? 3. Comment #12 highlights an important point: asbestos and lead paint were widely used 50-80 years ago...how much money has been spent in removing materials which were once believed to be "safe"? I'm sure there were plenty of manufacturers who continued to argue that asbestos and lead paint were safe long after data emerged suggesting otherwise. When it comes to issues of public safety, open discussion and transparent decision-making should be encouraged, not ridiculed. Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your regular programming. I don’t want to interrupt all the fun you’re having with this topic, but since my name is mentioned in this blog post I’d like to provide a little background.
1. I hope nobody is contesting this: small children + high lead levels in the soil are a very bad combination. Adults can handle a much higher exposure to lead without adverse effects, so I don’t believe there is anything wrong with additional information being required when lead-containing construction materials are being considered for a school project. In the case of the Cox school, a 20+ year experiment had already been conducted (lead-coated copper gutters had been in place since the building was constructed) and so the soil test data was highly relevant to the discussion.
2. To answer Chuckie’s question (#10)- the soil test was sufficient proof for me, as that was my primary concern, but the data which Cliff Gurnham cited in the news article was not available at the time the decision was made to remove the lead-coated copper gutters. I don’t agree with the process that culminated in that decision (I would have been happy to wait for the data), but are you suggesting that we shouldn’t ask whether an alternative to a lead-based product could be used?
3. Comment #12 highlights an important point: asbestos and lead paint were widely used 50-80 years ago…how much money has been spent in removing materials which were once believed to be “safe”? I’m sure there were plenty of manufacturers who continued to argue that asbestos and lead paint were safe long after data emerged suggesting otherwise. When it comes to issues of public safety, open discussion and transparent decision-making should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your regular programming.

]]> By: Russ http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-21170 Russ Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:23:47 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-21170 [quote comment="21078"]During the current renovation on This Old House, Tom Silva used lead to water proof windows. Given the reputation of the show of being cutting edge and somewhat PC, if there was something better/newer/more efficient they would use it.[/quote] Under normal conditions, using metallic lead for seals outdoors like that is perfectly safe. It's also excellent material for that use. It's inexpensive, easy to work with and it has just enough plasticity to it that it will give a little if the house settles or there is pressure from ice or something. [quote comment="21124"]As a regulator who deals specifically with Lead I rarely worry about it. If it is flaking off (paint) then we ask that it be stablized. If it is being removed we ask they use precuations. Asbestos in schools is what I get concerned about - schools handle it very poorly and at least locally they really don't seem to get that it has health effects (particularly on "fast breathers" like kids). They waste tons of money on organic gardens and hippy dippy crap but not one cent to properly abate asbestos.[/quote] Not surprising. Asbestos tends to be pretty messy when it has to be removed. Those tiny little fibers can easily get into everything and get inhaled. The proper way to remove asbestos is usually to have the whole area sealed and to wash everything down and collect the water. Of course, asbestos is "natural" - as is lead, by the way. Not that this changes anything, although some seem to think so.

        nick362 said:

During the current renovation on This Old House, Tom Silva used lead to water proof windows.

Given the reputation of the show of being cutting edge and somewhat PC, if there was something better/newer/more efficient they would use it.

Under normal conditions, using metallic lead for seals outdoors like that is perfectly safe. It’s also excellent material for that use. It’s inexpensive, easy to work with and it has just enough plasticity to it that it will give a little if the house settles or there is pressure from ice or something.

        Chris said:

As a regulator who deals specifically with Lead I rarely worry about it. If it is flaking off (paint) then we ask that it be stablized. If it is being removed we ask they use precuations. Asbestos in schools is what I get concerned about – schools handle it very poorly and at least locally they really don’t seem to get that it has health effects (particularly on “fast breathers” like kids). They waste tons of money on organic gardens and hippy dippy crap but not one cent to properly abate asbestos.

Not surprising. Asbestos tends to be pretty messy when it has to be removed. Those tiny little fibers can easily get into everything and get inhaled. The proper way to remove asbestos is usually to have the whole area sealed and to wash everything down and collect the water.

Of course, asbestos is “natural” – as is lead, by the way. Not that this changes anything, although some seem to think so.

]]> By: drbuzz0 http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-21161 drbuzz0 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:50:34 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-21161 [quote comment="21160"]"From my perspective, the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to bring lead into a school setting. " By this standard, what materials can be used?[/quote] I don't know. I'm just wondering how many children will be hurt in the process of trying to push-start a school bus that doesn't have a battery.

        Chuckie said:

“From my perspective, the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to bring lead into a school setting. “

By this standard, what materials can be used?

I don’t know. I’m just wondering how many children will be hurt in the process of trying to push-start a school bus that doesn’t have a battery.

]]> By: Chuckie http://depletedcranium.com/lead-gutters-but-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-21160 Chuckie Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:53:17 +0000 http://depletedcranium.com/?p=4688#comment-21160 "From my perspective, the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to bring lead into a school setting. " By this standard, what materials can be used? “From my perspective, the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to bring lead into a school setting. “

By this standard, what materials can be used?

]]>