Which brought me to the grim fact that there are so many substances that do not decay in a reasonable time..that you are pretty much stuck with them in your body if they somehow get there. With glass, at least if you realize early enough, you can yank it out. And some people say that 10 or 20 years after getting glass stuck in them, that it came to the surface of their skin on a random day.
Which brings me to thinking about if we'll ever be able to truly know what substances are doing to our bodies in full fidelity. Like, some people believe that food colorings are unhealthy - will there eventually be a time where we have a machine, you stand in it and eat the fruit snacks and we get a full picture of where every molecule of titanium dioxide is headed? ..Imagine, we see a HUD of a human body, and a heatmap, overlaying that 99.95% goes to the kidneys but we see that 0.05% gets stuck in the prefrontal cortex of the brain in a peculiar area. We test more people and see that they also get the deposits in the same area...something we thought was totally harmless turns out to be depositing itself in some arcane area by some arcane mechanism... Yes, I eat fruit snacks and I don't think this is the case...it's just a silly hypothetical situation. And I am aware of fluorescent tagging technology which can do something similar but sometimes poorly, because ultimately it is modifying the original molecule. (Incompleteness sucks doesn't it?)
Maybe some day..
That said, "normal part of nature" doesn't mean non-toxic. There are plenty of toxic things found lying around in nature.
It doesn't oxidize.
I bet if you find any in the environment (excluding freshly broken glass on the street and that sort of thing) you'll find something where the sharpness of the edge has abraded away. If you're on a beach or near a creek, you'll possibly find something that looks dull and round and more like a pebble.
Pretty much anything old we find like those knives are pretty much guaranteed to have been essentially buried all at once, and then left more or less undisturbed from that moment on. Minimal physical movement, minimal abrasion, minimal dulling of edges.
EDIT: to all those downvoting me, a fucking veteran glassblower says that glass takes forever to erode.. https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-broken-glass-take-to-bre...
As far as areas of expertise, I am a veteran (20 years) glassblower, but I am not an expert on how glass decays at all. I’m skilled at making it into things.
I love/hate flying for all these reasons.
It seems that longer term, in many places of the world, particularly outside the US, the answer is diesel aero engines, which can run on jet fuel.
Basically, why use actual lead in gas when lead substitute exists and is recommended for classic cars as an additive to unleaded fuel?
One is that lead helps promoting burning of the gasoline versus explosion or knocking.
Two is that lead is a great lubricant for the valve surfaces, preventing them eroding, leaking or sticking as they open / close. Eroding causes the engine to lose compression and efficiency, and sticking (as I have experienced first-hand) can cause a major engine failure by breaking the mechanism that opens/closes the valve.
Engine 'knock' (multiple explosions on a single piston ignite cycle as different pockets of fuel mixture ignite) is also minimized by having 'lead' in the fuel.
* "fake" christmas decorations (trees, wreaths) often contain lead
* Garden hoses almost always contain lead
While it's reasonable to be extra careful with small children that might put decorations in their mouth, small amounts of lead in vinyl products (or more significant amounts in machined brass products) do not necessarily result in significant dosage in people who handle or use those products.
Gotta wonder what that did to the brain pan.
Especially if you're a hobbyist: Go for lead free solder. it's no worse to work with than leaded but a whole lot less toxic. (Still don't breathe the fumes though, solder flux is nasty stuff)
Looking at the state of e-waste "recycling" in 3rd world countries, I personally think it was darn good we got rid of lead solder.
And is there any merit in "chelation" therapies, as advocated on health websites, like this one, ?
That is, oral intake of lead with oral intake of garlic, means maybe you shit out more lead with the garlic chelation agent. But lots of garlic will do nothing for water you drink later in the day, or the air passing into your lungs.
There may be some additional anti-oxidant activity. Anti-oxidants are good for you across the board. Have at them.
As to a safe blood lead level: depending on your local public health department, 5 mcg/dL will or should prompt public health action. <5mcg will usually prompt a doctor to start trying to figure out where you're exposed, and cut that exposure out. >5mcg turns into a little bit of a grey area depending on where you are, and by 10mcg your kid is getting chelation therapy. These numbers are built around children, not adults, because they're far more susceptible to the adverse effects of lead exposure.
That said, we have not identified any safe lead level - every level that has been tested has been shown to be associated with some sort of negative cognitive developmental impact (Lanphear 2000). I feel comfortable saying the safe level is "0", but that's not medical consensus, that's just my opinion.
There are a number of relevant factors including length of exposures (acute or chronic poisoning) and form of metal (organic, inorganic, metallic - for mercury at least).
By far the best source I found on the topic is Andrew Cutler, a chemistry PhD from Princeton who was mercury poisoned himself and created an effective and safe protocol for removal. He has a strong background in kinetics, pharmacokinetics, and biochemistry in general, and recognized that the standard toxicological protocols for heavy metal treatment were very dangerous (e.g. infrequent high dose IV administrations of DMPS/DMSA) , especially for cases of chronic poisoning.
According to Cutler, protocols such as the one you linked are very dangerous as they don't administer the chelating agent according to its metabolic half-life in the body (the half-lives of the chelating agents in cilantro and chlorella are unknown). As a result blood levels of the chelating agent and the metals fluctuate greatly. This can mobilize previously sequestered metals, but not provide the body enough time to properly eliminate them, which results in "re-poisoning" events. And when a large amount fat-loving free metals are released by the chelating agents within a short period of time, they often enter the central nervous system, settle there and exacerbate neurological symptoms.
I have no background in chemistry, so that's my summary of what I've read. But I highly recommend his book  which focuses mostly on mercury, but he covers lead as well. There are a few interviews with him around the web as well . Also happy to provide more info and sources as I have two of his books and they both cite a wide array of sources.
Scopus, which seems to be run by Elsevier, lists some abstracts and letters here (I have no idea how extensive this is) 
I guess chelation/elimination does work if the WHO writes about it.
AFAIK lead is also stored in bones and probably within body tissues, so this might take a while.
We are still doing just that, even though we are using milder poisons now.
Second link in a search containing solely "carbon fibre asbestos". It's a fairly well known problem. The problems with carbon fibre (and asbestos, for that matter) is not that it's somehow poisonous, but that the particles are so fine and long and strong that they cause problems with your lungs. They can't be absorbed, they can't be expelled; their structure makes them an irritant that can't be removed by the body's natural processes.
Isn't that also true of Lead?
It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).
I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.
Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.
And no, I don't work for the chemical industry, or anything related to that really. But yes, I've heard of such cases where the replacement for some banned product turns out to be even worse. I do think one should be very careful about trusting environmental statements by the chemical industry, or any industry for that matter. Just like one shouldn't trust them blindly, I don't think a blanket dismissal of anything new they are doing is warranted either.
GA planes also generally last a lot longer than cars, you have Cessnas from the 70's still flying with their original engines from the 70's.
"But they still work!" is not a good excuse to pollute.
Only the smallest private planes run on piston engines, whose owners don’t really have money to “fix it”, especially because FAA regulations for certification of new planes and engine designs make everything cost about 10x what it should.
I general, from what I've gathered, we have been replacing substances that accumulates in nature with substances that breaks down over time. So for instance, we still do allow ozone but also watch the levels to ensure they aren't too high.
I know there are issues with a lot of medication as it goes out in the sewage and there's still a big question mark on the safety of some modern materials such as nano particles. However, the overall the feeling I get is that the awareness of the dangers with allowing use of poisonous substances is a lot higher today than before. I'm interested in hearing about the exceptions.
It's scary how little it scares everyone else.
There have also been increases in those who identify as LGBT. Such massive increases in younger generations can't be explained away by cultural changes IMO. I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time that exposure to hormonal disruptors has increased, changes in gender and drops in testosterone have been found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol [See Des Sons]
I remember reading about how the increase in mental illness could just be that we are better at diagnosing and recognizing them (and lazy doctors who would rather just prescribe something for your "depression").
A) I don't think we would see a massive number of older people coming out of the closet, because this culture change is generational. Most of your peers aren't going to change their minds just because a younger generation is more tolerant. It's the same reason my 100 year old (really!) grandmother may still use the occasional racial slur. I definitely think there's more peer friction for an older LBGT individual than a younger one.
B) I don't think these numbers are actually out of line with the impact of cultural change.
C) Base on your linked datas, religion may also be a factor. Given that religion is on the decline in the US, especially among millennials, I wouldn't rule that out as a factor either.
It's probably a combination of factors as usual, and maybe endocrine disruptors is one of them.
I... guess I don't really see this as nearly as scary as "impaired mental development in children" or "increased cancer rates for everyone" - I mean, sure, if you can't have children after medical intervention, that's a problem; but I'm not sure that requiring medical intervention to have a child is in and of itself a particularly bad thing. it's not something you want to do by accident, and raising a child is incredibly expensive; adding a bit to the up-front cost seems a lot less scary than adding to the costs down the line (I mean, through the development problems caused by lead.)
Nictonoides in general (pesticides) are poisons, which we don't ingest directly but still spew in the environment.
A poison we monitor and accumulates in the environment but don't regulate to the level it deserve given the damage it causes is of course CO2, as well as the other greenhouse gases (SO2, NOx etc... as produced by ships and planes).
We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution, especially from burning coal; we mostly shrug and move on.
VOC’s, microplastic, nanoparticles such as TiO2, a lot of the crap in cosmetics, and probably a lot more.
We accept them because the mainstream narrative does not make a big issue of it. On the other side, we make a big deal when there is a measles death, calling for death of anti-vaxxers, because the mainstream narrative suggests so...
In other words, the public, including the people here. is a bunch of morons who won't jump away from the path of a slow moving road roller, unless the mainstream narrative tells us to do so...
As for who decides the main stream narrative, I would say the ones with the most resources...
Measles...it's hard to make a case that the benefits of getting measles outweigh anything.
As I would understand it, maintaining a neutral to alkaline pH in addition to the chlorine/chloramine used for disinfection of potable water generally produces a fairly durable passivization layer on lead which prevents significant lead exposure in drinking water. Responsible water utilities deliberately prevent the distribution of acidic water AND do some sort of at-the-tap water testing program as well. Needless to say, in Flint, Michigan, they screwed up at these things.
(Edit, ok, there's a little more to it https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/resources/highs... )
0.042mg/ml * 0.030ml * 4 = 5.04µg of lead
So always eat before your espresso! Though a commercial machine running a regular takeaway workload is unlikely to have much lead in due to the volume of water going through it.
So considering 1) it's 2x, not 10x or 1,000x, 2) a double espresso is only ~60 ml, and if you ingest 3L of water per day it makes up only 2% of your daily liquid, and 3) for most people getting a coffee from a shop, the water will be sitting in the boiler for minutes, not fractions of days...
...it doesn't seem like something to worry about too much for most people?
The precautionary principle is not a vademecum — indeed, it can be taken far too far and become an excuse for either unthinking conservatism (banning anything new out of an overabundance of precaution).
My reaction to “let’s have politicians establish tax schemes to ‘solve’ global warming”. Apparently to the gloom and doomers there is no nuance in the topic at all, odd for the people who claim to be such ardent supporters of science.
His doctor advised him to eat beetroot every day. Over a period of several months the amount of lead that had accumulated in his body was reduce to negligible amounts and he never had the problem again. Mind you, he still eats beetroot today and he is in his mid-eighties. He was in his mid-thirties when he started.
I was wondering if others had been advised by their doctors on this subject.
As far as soldering safely, you should definitely keep in mind that your biggest health risk is inhaling burnt flux, and lead-free solder generates a lot more of that smoke. Lead-free solder is more dangerous to your health. There's some more information here (archive.org because I don't know where this is on the new Weller site):
Using lead for soldering is likely fine, but be extra judicious about washing your hands, avoid touching mucous membranes.
I don't know why people still use leaded solder in the first place? I only use lead free solder for my hobby projects, and it works fine.
I have a bench full of uwave equipment from the 80s on account of the price being 1/10 to 1/100 of newer equivalents -- how much of it would still be alive if they had used tin solder? Would my hobby still be economically viable? Quite possibly not.
Tin ages poorly?
There are many mitigation strategies, but lead was a miracle cure, and it will take substantial time and effort to approach its efficacy, especially on the multi-decade timescale. My guess is that companies won't bother. Reliability beyond planned lifetime impacts their bottom line negatively, if at all.
Eugh. Yeah, connections randomly bridging to their neighbors is a nightmare.
I think my favorite names are Barrel Shifter Porter (an oak-aged porter) and Wheatstone Bridge (a wheat beer, of course).
It's worth a visit to that page for anyone interested in clever product names and visuals.
More background on their "Who are we?" page:
They even use circuit boards for tasting flight holders.
Regardless, you should have good ventilation when soldering. A small fan to suck smoke away, maybe even a mask, and take care to clean your hands and the area like you would any other harmful material (e.g. oil).
 Or pvc insulated wire onto a piezo brass disc sounder.
An SF-based group Measure Water is fighting for a solution to the problem, starting with getting schools to correctly examine their water.
I'm friends with the founder and she'd welcome anyone interested in helping to reach out at email@example.com
How does one actually get lead poisoning except thru contamination of water etc.?
Maybe you can achieve your goals with other materials, like soil, rock, cinder block, etc.
The study is observational and looking for correlation, involves 12k people, and controls for all usual factors including wealth.
It seems legit to me, given that controls are in place and the mechanism has been well established earlier.
Meanwhile, the gross national income is only around $18 trillion/year.
> "FDA is continuing its efforts toward reducing or removing thimerosal from all existing vaccines." 
Note to self: don't touch dimethylmercury even with nitrile gloves, it goes right through within seconds. The last person to do so, KW, slowly turned into a vegetable and was ultimately euthanized [2, 3]
This isn't making me feel too great...smh
On the plus side, the cited paper  on probiotics is new information for me. I might try some more probiotics and see how they affect my mood.
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27756430/ (Microbiota and neurologic diseases: potential effects of probiotics.)
I don't think you are interpreting the scientific article you are referring to correctly.
Mercury on the other hand, is a heavy metal and isn't super reactive. It's not water soluble, it's fat soluble. Chellation therapy will not save a person if their mercury levels are too high from an accident with it. It will sit in the fat of their brain and they'll slowly die while becoming more and more brain damaged. No treatment.
But lets talk about mercury-based compounds like Thimerosal. The danger isn't Thimerosal as a substance, it is an effective and safe chemical. But we don't know all the intracacies of the human bodys' chemical pathways. All we know is that most large molecules/substances break down eventually - either via the bodys' enzymes or something else consumed and interacting - or just time. So though we can do tests on the stability of Thimerosal through en vivo studies, with fluorescent tagged molecules, or piss tests on rats, ultimately we don't know what reactants are in everyones' body entirely. And it is unwise to give people something of questionable stability that is composed of toxic parts, dangerous upon decay.
The article does refer to several studies showing health benefits for spirulina, although none of them discuss using it to remove heavy metals from the body (it’s not even clear to me how such a mechanism could possibly work).
Or it could be that I’ve mistaken Spirulina for Chlorella.
Because they bind with metals it’s important to get them from clean sources as I mentioned.
In fact, because Spirulina absorbs heavy metals, it’s important to get Spirulina from clean sources as you may be ingesting Spirulina that already has absorbed heavy metals within it. Be careful.
So complete nonsense then. Got it.
Not really sure what other source you’re looking for. A research paper? Even those can be nonsense.
An absense of research papers is far more frequently evidence of nonsense
There is only so much time and only so much money and as a consequence, priorities are made as to what it should be spent on.
Even replication of results is not deemed worthy enough to spend time and money on. We see this often enough where papers detailing the replication of an experiment are simply ignored in the journals for that field. This comes up in discussion in so many different fora across the internet.
If unlimited funds were available for research into all and every subject, there is still the lack of time and researchers available to do all of the research necessary.
So what happens is that whoever has the most influence and the available funds and time gets to dictate what gets done. This means that for other research, it depends on the efforts of those who have a burning interest and motivation to do the study.
I, myself, have a whole series of experiments that I want to undertake. it will have to be by my time and money as it is a subject that I especially want to investigate. But that is still dependent on all the other commitments that I have. I, at least, have a couple of young people who are willing to help with the research when I get it progressing.
The particular area has much hype but no widely available experimental results to back up any claims from either side of the discussion. I am designing the series of experiments to try, as best as I can, to get as detailed results as possible for future possible experiments and direction of research. In my own study, I have found only three other groups around the world that have even looked into the subject with any sort of experimental detail.
You're a smart person, easily capable of understanding how false and damaging this nonsense is.
For perspective, municipal water is fluoridated at 0.5-1.5 mg/L. Can you guess what would happen to you if your drinking water contained that much soluble lead? Here's a hint: it doesn't involve living very long.
Please stop spreading this bullshit.
"Exposure to mercury – even small amounts – may cause serious health problems, and is a threat to the development of the child in utero and early in life."