Cop brain is a real thing.
doesn’t lead toxicity cause aggressive behavior? Seems like a pretty bad mix. Almost like you could hypothesize a correlation between our current political climate and lead exposure.
Wouldn’t it be crazy if we could solve a big chunk of our political issues by just banning lead in stuff?
There are lead warnings on every box and every safety manual but you just can’t fix stupid.
Sounds like a self-correcting problem
So that’s why red state MAGAs seem like they’re brain damaged.
I’m not surprised. People don’t even wash their hands after using the rest room.
Since a few people in the thread seem to think lead ammunition is illegal in the US, it’s not. It’s only illegal for shooting waterfowl nationwide, and entirely banned in the state of California.
Shooting firearms is messy and dirty. You get all kinds of oils, fouling, lead, particulates on your upper body and hands. If there’s no room at the range, I go home, clean my guns up depending on how much shooting was done, then wipe up and shower. My hands are visibly soiled after shooting a few dozen rounds.
The fuck are you shooting, that you’re hands are soiled after a few dozen rounds?
I can shoot for hours and not have anything on my hands.
Sounds like you’re shooting muzzle loaded pistols or some really shit ammo.
You wanna know how I know you don’t actually shoot?
What? You’ll have gpr on you with a single round. You will absolutely have something on you after hours of shooting.
Lead and fouling come out of the chamber when a round is extracted, you’re breathing that in. Fouling has lead in it that gets over the internals of a firearm and the magazine. You’re touching that. Lead is essentially vaporized out of the muzzle of the weapon, you breathe that in. There’s lead on the casing, other particulars of rounds. When you clean that, unless you’re wearing gloves you’re exposing yourself to it. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Can’t speak for them, but my hands are usually pretty dirty after shooting a few mags due to reloading. Handling 7.62x39 surplus or 22lr is nasty work. Even cheaper 5.56 seems to be pretty gross. Was out just the other day and my hands were black from a box of Remington golden bullet.
Yes, well, gun owners are a special kind of stupid.
Only 65 people out of 1630 people who shot in the past year reported not using lead ammunition? As someone who grew up hunting waterfowl, where using lead is illegal in the entire US, my mind is blown.
Explains a lot
Hygiene? Sounds like woke sissy nonsense.
Don’t worry. They’ll take the woke sissy hygiene to the gun range and shoot it.
I live with an individual that doesn’t have the strongest immune system. While their immune system isn’t great, I’ve opted out of going to the range for the time being. I’m sure there’s a good way to make sure I don’t cover them with lead; but I can’t be bothered risking it for a few hours of outside time
I am almost 40, I’ve been around guns since I was maybe 7 and I have never been warned about this before. I also have a PhD and am happy to make you feel stupid if that’s your jam, but it seems like something we should be taught but aren’t?
Of course we clean ourselves and our guns but I would never have said “hey hold on, I need to use an extra product before I eat my turkey sandwich”. I don’t prefer to smell like gunpowder, but I don’t like smelling like a cow either and the cleanup was similar.
are you equating PhDs with overall intelligence?
that would be ironic
No, that would be something you would expect Alanis Morissette to put in her song “Ironic” but in reality she doesn’t know how to define ironic either.
Yes I am here to tell you that those things are correlated. I have been outside where it is peopley.
but I never would have said “hey hold on, I need to use an extra product before I eat my turkey sandwich”.
It’s amazing how many things we completely fail to question. Your parents said or didn’t say something, showed the action or inaction was completely normal, and then you autopiloted indefinitely until something is specifically called it out. I continue to find new things wrong with my dad’s statements. It’s… Infuriating when I figure it out. Usually happens when I go to say it out loud as fact to someone else. That triggers the internal fact check mechanism.
This has been going on for decades.
This is exactly how it happens.
You’ve never read the print on boxes of lead ammunition? There are warnings printed on the boxes about lead.
I was today years old.
I’ve been around guns since I was maybe 7
The real WTF.
Meh. I held my first firearm when I was 3, couldn’t even pull the trigger.
Just so I can pitch the reply correctly - is it the bad parenting, or the failed state you were born into, that you’re looking for pity for here?
Bad parenting is teaching your kids abstinence-only gun education. If you live in a country where half the people have guns, your kid should have a basic understanding of them. If you live in a household that has guns, your kid should have an avanced understanding of them.
Based on your handle(name), we probably lived in similar places. I only look for pity for helping others and shouldering their pain.
Bad parenting? Ugh not really, maybe the leave me alone treatment or thrown against the wall or being whipped fun times. Aside that, it’s like I had three cars in high school, an apartment, a credit card, and another apartment in another country, a 4k computer in the early 2000s.
Maybe I want a place to vent. Is that so wrong? You aggress me just because “firearms” and ignore that I’ve helped many people throughout my life.
What will probably piss you off is that I have 7 firearms on my bed right now, they need to be maintained and I’m lazy so I just sleep in another room.
As a counter argument, are you looking to vent your frustrations on someone else? When’s the last time you asked your friends how they’re doing, or what’s bothering them? One day it will be too late.
Edit:
down vote with no comment, classicdidn’t update sighI’m not that guy, but…
You aggress me just because “firearms” and ignore that I’ve helped many people throughout my life.
Dude, they are talking about your parents, not you.
Bad parenting? Ugh not really, maybe the leave me alone treatment or thrown against the wall or being whipped fun times. Aside that, it’s like I had three cars in high school, an apartment, a credit card, and another apartment in another country, a 4k computer in the early 2000s.
You’ve just listed a bunch of things that I’d associate with bad parenting. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and spoiling with expensive items.
I don’t disagree. But I’ve learned how to overcome. I still did what I wanted anyway. I asked for a $600 beater so I could learn how to fix cars. I got a Mercedes instead. The first car I bought was a $600 non working jeep with 300k miles.
It’s probably why I had so many people come to me for help–I think I have a few screws loose; where I came from the kids had knives on the playground. I have two cuts on my face.
It was a strange thing to have people in their 50’s come out, being gay, to me; I don’t have a problem with that. Or even tell me about what atrocities they experienced in their childhood. It’s the only thing I can brag about, that people, even to this day, tell me their darkest secrets that they’ve held on to throughout their lives.
Sincerely - get help.
Meowka, thanks for the concern.
If I were to guess why it’s not a thing that’s readily taught I would assume it’s because of the rather shockingly large lead lobby that exists in the USA pushing against education and regulation against lead. There’s a meaningful establishment bent on making sure we don’t ask about it or learn about it.
I am not sure it’s quite so sinister.
I was today years old when I read the box of ammunition to see that it says “hey wash your hands” though I would assume we are talking about something more than soap and water.
How many cleaners that your parents taught you to use have you stopped and read the ACTUAL directions for? Like of course I know how to use Windex! Oh I shouldn’t use it on electronics I guess even though parents always wiped down the TV with it.
Honestly, it would be easier to just ban lead based ammo then trying to enforce this
…and am happy to make you feel stupid if that’s your jam…
You obviously didn’t get a PhD in not being a douche I guess.
a funny thing happens once your education and intellectual levels reach a certain point. you just get sick of dealing with everyone’s shit.
Imagine being stuck in a room full of rude 5th graders that keep telling you that you’re wrong about the things you studied for half your life. now imagine you’ve been stuck in that room with a rotating selection of rude 5th graders for decades.
would you be nice to them?
People who say unprompted that they have a PhD as proof of their intelligence probably don’t, and most likely don’t spend much time dealing with PhDs either.
why shouldn’t they promote their state of education to relay their level of comprehension and intellect? they worked hard for it. it’s not like they hand them out to everybody.
the use didn’t even use it as a power move, simply said it as a way to reject idiots from challenging their statements.
that’s the real shame here, but I get it. that’s why when idiots often open their mouths I have zero inclination to correct them.
you can fix ugly, you can fix ignorance, but you can’t fix stupid.
why shouldn’t they promote their state of education to relay their level of comprehension and intellect?
People with PhDs generally have a deep understanding of a narrow subject. And outside of that narrow scope, some of them do things like try to fill a bucket with more water by extending it at the top with cardboard. And that type are the most likely to compensate for their other inadequacies by relying on their academic achievement.
In my experience the people with PhDs whose intellects I have the most respect for are the ones I’m least likely to hear about their doctorate from. It’s not a marker for comprehension and intellect, it’s a marker for obsessive perseverance and interest in an academic field, plus an ability to write technical language in that field.
You’re much nicer, and a lot less asshole-ish, than I am at walking through this topic. May I learn from you the next time I feel the need to call it out. Anyway here’s a cool illustration of how getting a PhD works that succinctly frames this concept in my opinion:
Dude you don’t have to white knight for the douchey PhD guy. Saying shit like that, even if you are really super duper smart, is incredibly arrogant. People that say shit like, “I’m super smart and you’re super dumb and I have a piece of paper to prove how super smart I am.” Are gigantic douche bags. It ranks up there with, “I have a huge IQ.” In levels of douche-dom. In fact, the more I think about it the more I think this is some shit that Trump would say. Just outrageously, fart smellingly, douchey.
So no I’m not gonna imagine the scenario where you somehow think I’m a 5th grader and you and PhD guy are the only super smart people on the entire internet. Not only is it a douchey thing to say, but also would make me a douche, and I really don’t wanna be a douche.
Dude you don’t have to white knight for the douchey PhD guy.
not white knighting. it’s just personal experience.
Saying shit like that, even if you are really super duper smart, is incredibly arrogant.
you clearly have no idea how draining it can be to deal with idiots. the mental fatigue alone is depressing.
besides they didn’t say you were stupid, they said they are free to make you feel stupid. you clearly are dealing with some feelings of inadequacy and felt threatened by that statement.
I have multiple pieces of paper that say I’m smart too. Some of those pieces of paper are even college ruled! I also have been on the internet since you had to make funny phone sounds to log on. I don’t think I’ve ever been like (in my best nasally Ben Shapiro voice), “Everyone is stupid and a 5th grader. Also I’m smart so I don’t want to deal with stupid people cause you’re all stupid.” I don’t think it’s helpful, it’s thought terminating, and is often said by people that are super wrong and they say it so they won’t be challenged.
I’m just a guy here challenging those douches and you gotta come in here and try to white knight for them. I seriously don’t get it unless…
besides they didn’t say you were stupid, they said they are free to make you feel stupid. you clearly are dealing with some feelings of inadequacy and felt threatened by that statement.
Totally got me pegged on that huh? Not projecting in the slightest are we? Maybe I just think douchebags should be called out so they stop being douchey? But maybe you’re right and it was a personal challenge to PhD guy and you had to come along and ruin it. I guess we’ll never know now will we?
Maybe I just think douchebags should be called out so they stop being douchey?
the irony is, I’m doing the same thing.
I’m older but I’ve been shooting since I was around the same age. This whole thing about lead poisoning is just dumb, most ammunition is wax covered if it’s bare lead (22lr) or it’s copper jacketed. The amount of lead you’re handling is miniscule and everyone I shoot with and have ever shot with, we wash our hands before we eat. It’s not rocket science, most people who aren’t gross wash their hands before they consume food even if they’re just at a desk job.
This study is junk science anyways. They literally just conducted a survey, which is just dumb for this type of study. How about go measure actually how much lead is deposited on clothing or gear, it’s probably not even registrable.
If they wanted real data, they should go to the military and get data. Most people who shoot, do it once or twice a month at best (shits not cheap for most people) and most of the time they’re doing it for an hour or two at most.
People living in older cities are going to be getting more exposure from leaded soil than someone going to a range once a month.
Nothing burger meant to paint gun owners as idiots.
Yes, before eat food, if available wash hands. If I had my hands inside a deer or something of course I’d wait until I could clean up. Taking a few shots at a squirrel or something doesn’t seem the same kind of dirty.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379726003168?dgcid=author
Okay here’s the study. In the conclusion it says:
Extant literature has demonstrated that even low levels of lead contribute to significant impairments across the life course.1 Associations between firearm use and blood lead concentrations have been well documented among adults.4 For children, evidence is accumulating that firearm-related lead exposure may be a serious public health problem, as even low-level exposures result in higher levels of externalizing and depressive symptoms and an increased risk of criminality and violent injury.3,32,
Here’s a couple of those studies cited:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347624000787
These data provide state-level evidence that firearms may be an important source of child lead exposure. More research is needed to substantiate this relationship and identify modifiable pathways of exposure at the individual level.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121009361
Children in the highest quartile communities were 2.16 times more likely to have elevated BLLs when compared to their peers in the lower quartiles. A one standard deviation change in firearm licensure percentage was found to reflect a 0.96% increase in elevated pediatric blood lead levels. Regression analyses demonstrated that the inclusion of firearm licensure significantly improved the prediction of pediatric BLL.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512300511X
Firearms licensure is significantly associated with pediatric lead levels.
Gun-adjacent occupations are significantly associated with pediatric lead levels.
Firearm licensure is extremely relevant when considering elevated child blood lead levels.
So like maybe there is something and we should keep looking? These sorts of survey studies are also helpful to identify populations that may be affected in longitudinal studies. Perhaps you should just wash your hads and practice a little more safety/isolation with your shooting garb. I dunno it seems like a pretty easy and straightforward way to mitigate a potential risk of lead exposure, that at least several research scientist have identified as a risk, to you and your family.
Every one of those has a “may” in there. Sure do the research, but right now these studies have show 0 evidence that it’s actually a significant problem. They literally read like “people who shoot guns are idiots”. Just look at how people are responding in this thread. I’d like to see the study actually go and test clothing and how much lead is aerosolized with each common type of primer/caliber and from someone shooting more than 30mins.
“Most reported shooting monthly or less (94%) but for ≥30 minutes (91%); 32% primarily shot indoors.”
Lead in soil is a much bigger issue in cities from years and years of leaded fuels/leaded paints.
What? Your reading comprehension is really, like extremely, bad. You might want to get that checked out. That or you’re super desperate to confirm your biases. You should consider reading them again and trying to remove this weird obsession with thinking multiple scientist, across several universities, are conspiring to make gun owners look dumb by trying to make sure they aren’t exposed to lead. Either way, given your response here I think I’m done with this conversation.
Literally first link is the link that is under discussion here. It has no data about lead levels, and is what I pointed out.
Second link, your own quoted bit of it says “may be”
Third link,
Models were adjusted for percent of a population employed in construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining, income distribution, and potential lead paint exposure, which were found to be the primary predictors of elevated pediatric blood lead levels.
And
Firearm use and ownership remains one of the least researched areas in the public health sphere. While the risks of childhood lead exposure are widely understood, including the mechanisms of firearm-related lead exposure and tracking, to date no research has extensively examined it in children and on the community level. Our findings indicate a dire need for continued research on the risks associated with firearm use, ownership, and lead exposure.
Which follows into the 4th study, that is just a repeat of the 3rd link…
Starts off with:
Lead exposure is a significant public health concern and children are at the greatest risk given their exposure to take-home lead. Firearm-related take-home lead exposure may be one of the greatest influences on elevated pediatric blood lead levels.
Again may be…why? Because it’s very difficult to correlate the two, because…as the study states:
Pediatric blood lead levels were positively correlated with licensure, poverty, and certain occupations and negatively correlated with lead in water and police or firefighter employment.
Most people who live or work in clean environments and have money usually are not firearm owners. Aka a large portion of firearm owners are not rich. So they have occupations that are more likely to be around lead exposure, and they’re more likely to live in older parts of a city or area that has more lead exposure via the soil like I pointed out.
I suggest you read your own links before you call out my reading comprehension. None of these links actively provide evidence that firearms are a major source of lead exposure…as I stated above, they should be looking at the military more than someone shooting for a whooping 30mins a month.
More research is required to substantiate this relationship on the individual-level and into prevention/mitigation.
I agree study link number 4…
You are being incredibly selective in your reading and it’s showing in your highlights. You deliberately didn’t highlight the word “licensure” for instance in one of your quotes. You are literally following the climate denier playbook here and selectively choosing words in the non-conclusion parts of studies and glossing over the data parts. I don’t know what to tell you other than have a nice day, cause I, nor the absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary of your belief, is going to convince you otherwise.
Just note to anyone else that stumbles upon this thread, there are literally hundreds of studies that have shown that firearm use and lead levels have a direct correlation. Here’s an example of a review of some of those studies done by the NIH in regards to specifically firing ranges:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/
Results
Thirty-six articles were reviewed that included BLLs from shooters at firing ranges. In 31 studies BLLs > 10 μg/dL were reported in some shooters, 18 studies reported BLLs > 20 μg/dL, 17 studies > 30 μg/d, and 15 studies BLLs > 40 μg/dL. The literature indicates that BLLs in shooters are associated with Pb aerosol discharge from guns and air Pb at firing ranges, number of bullets discharged, and the caliber of weapon fired.
Furthermore the conclusion is not a “may be” no matter how much anyone wishes it to be so:
Shooting at firing ranges results in the discharge of Pb dust, elevated BLLs, and exposures that are associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Women and children are among recreational shooters at special risk and they do not receive the same health protections as occupational users of firing ranges. Nearly all BLL measurements compiled in the reviewed studies exceed the current reference level of 5 μg/dL recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH). Thus firing ranges, regardless of type and user classification, currently constitute a significant and unmanaged public health problem. Prevention includes clothing changed after shooting, behavioural modifications such as banning of smoking and eating at firing ranges, improved ventilation systems and oversight of indoor ranges, and development of airflow systems at outdoor ranges. Eliminating lead dust risk at firing ranges requires primary prevention and using lead-free primers and lead-free bullets.
Getting more exposure from one place doesn’t make getting less exposure from another not an issue worth investigating. Both things can be problems at the same time, especially when dealing with a substance for which the healthiest amount of exposure is zero. Lead anywhere is worth investigation and study.
I’m not about to give up shooting over it, but if I can easily make it safer for little effort then I see no reason not to. And I don’t read anywhere in any of this that gun owners are being painted as idiots, it just seems like you’re upset that people are taking a thing seriously that you don’t personally take seriously.
And I agree. I would love to see data on lead on clothing at ranges and lead exposure for military recruits. That would be extremely valuable!
Hey buddy! I have that link and many more further down. Here’s a review by the NIH though that might help truncate some of the legwork:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/
Feel free to bring in other sources though. I couldn’t find any studies that show the negative but that’s a little more tricky and not something most people are trying to study. Also there are like hundreds of other studies out there than seem to show a pretty strong correlation that are a quick search away!
Yikes, those are some pretty high blood lead levels. And from what I understand that only shows recent exposure, not how much has already been internalized into your bones.
Getting more exposure from one place doesn’t make getting less exposure from another not an issue worth investigating. Both things can be problems at the same time, especially when dealing with a substance for which the healthiest amount of exposure is zero. Lead anywhere is worth investigation and study.
And I haven’t said anywhere to not study this further, but to do a study like this is pointless, as it’s terribly done.
I’m not about to give up shooting over it, but if I can easily make it safer for little effort then I see no reason not to.
Which should be normal, as I said elsewhere, you should be washing your hands anyways after shooting. It’s just good hygiene in general.
And I don’t read anywhere in any of this that gun owners are being painted as idiots, it just seems like you’re upset that people are taking a thing seriously that you don’t personally take seriously.
You should read the rest of this thread then. It’s a bunch of people suggesting it. That what these shitty studies do, re-enforce anti-2a groups biases that gun owners are idiots…this just adds to it.
And I agree. I would love to see data on lead on clothing at ranges and lead exposure for military recruits. That would be extremely valuable!
That’s where the data needs to come from. It’d be perfect for a study like this. Everyone is on basically the same economic level, they usually shoot around the same amounts, they live in the same areas as well.
So you’re removing a ton of stuff that this study and the others failed to account for.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of the study, I’m afraid. I think pointing out this kind of data is exactly the type of thing that will encourage other studies to dig deeper on a topic. It seems to make it easier for other groups to perform studies after a possible link has already been established since it saves them legwork.
I doubt any NRA endorsed ranges or the military would allow independent studies of this nature to be done. But it sure would be nice.
As far as anti-gun sentiment in the comments here: that’s just Lemmy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ohhhhh
It all makes sense. The irrational anger, lack of morality, and loss of common sense.
A loss would imply they had any to begin with
Is it possible the political divide in this country is people with lead poisoning vs. those without it?
Bruh they put lead in gasoline until the 80s.
MAGA is 10% nazis, 10% cult members, 10% painfully-ignorant cunts, 69% lead addled boomers/genx
and 1% rich fucks manipulating the rest of them.
airplane fuel is still leaded.
You are correct, but since some may read that and assume that all aviation fuel is leaded, I wanted to add more info.
Most people don’t know that “airplane fuel” and “jet fuel” are different. Jet fuel is not leaded. The fuel used by small, piston-driven prop engines is. Because small piston aircraft still use leaded fuel, aviation is still the largest source of airborne lead emissions. The FAA is working to phase it out by 2030.
You know what’s funny? One of the “quirky” things about the Fallout Universe is how everything is radioactive because all their tech is based on fission/fusion right? It’s meant to be funny like haha yeah our pollution is bad but atleast we’re not poisoning ourselves with everything we do. Yet if you sub out “radioactive” for “heavy metal contamination” and “microplastics” etc that’s basically 100% accurate to real life america.
Iirc locations downwind or under approach/depart flight lanes of small airports deal with an exposure risk fairly above baseline. I feel like I remember reading then that it ties into modern redlining where there are more minority populations in those areas due to cost of housing and the generational impacts of lead exposure.
huh. maybe the chemtrail people were onto something.
I’ve known a few that were certainly on something…
Just flew with 100LL, and I also clean up with anti-lead soap. I’m the only pilot I know who does this, but I can’t wait to fly something electric ugh.
The politics and logistics issues holding back lead free avgas are extremely frustrating. I really thought we would have seen that transition by now.
Who knows, maybe it will take electric aircraft to finally put an end to the issue.
Maybe you can pull it off WW2 style by adding a couple % of aniline to unleaded gasoline
Isn’t it just for some prop planes? Also there’s an approved unleaded version but for slme reason it’s being rolled out slowly
Jets run on kerosene but higher quality, so yes, the leaded fuel is small prop planes
So is most racing fuel.
Most people don’t handle airplane fuel
The danger from leaded fuels don’t come from handling, but from the exhaust. The lead becomes breathable and enters the environment, exposing those who lived in urban areas and near roads to more lead than others.
The other poster isn’t wrong about airplane fuel being leaded, but that can be misleading because most people don’t know that “airplane fuel” and “jet fuel” are different. Jet fuel is not leaded, but the fuel used by small, piston-driven prop engines is.
Yeah but the jet stream takes care of any concerning concentrations of exhaust.
Even under 10,000 ft the atmospheric dispersion is orders of magnitude above surface.
The turbulence at the surface on a bad day can ‘lock out’ the upper atmosphere sometimes, which is extra dangerous for surface car exhaust - but is actually beneficial the higher your altitude vs ground.
So in all ways the ways airplane fuel would expose someone to lead, isnt experienced by the general populace. (minus directly handling the fuel, may have concentrated lead get on someone’s hand/food, but thats another situation)
Most people don’t handle airplane fuel
I can’t handle it. I get drunk immediately.
Does the lead in the exhaust come down into the air we breathe? Lead is heavy. Would probably be more in cities with airports and under flight paths. Diluted of course, but repeated every day… Perhaps a tin hat or mask would help.
Yes, but jet fuel isn’t leaded. Leaded avgas is by far the minority, unless you live right next a busy small airport.
Atmospheric dispersion is usually actually concerning good not bad, so it should dilute across the globe fairly quickly.
Air pollution usually becomes an issue when something like nuclear waste reaches the atmosphere, cause we ALL get to breathe in that nuclear waste.
But honestly some (probably large) percentage of meteors are lead deposited right to the atmosphere, cause its so atomically stable nearly everything decays to it.
So no matter what there’s some lead in the soup, and I can’t see jet fuel being a large contributer (to an already small amount)
lol no. Lead in the atmosphere is a problem, because if it’s in the atmosphere, you are breathing it. Remember that next time you see a gas plant spewing out exhaust.
Nuclear power plants will not exhaust anything except water vapor unless things go terribly wrong. Things going terribly wrong basically cannot release radiation with modern designs unless you were to bomb the core directly, with large bombs to defeat the containment building and massive amounts of stuff surrounding them…
Fossil fuels are infinitely worse for everyone than nuclear, with or without lead.
Well jet exhaust would be a very large contributor if it were leaded, but luckily it isn’t. It’s just piston powered prop planes that use leaded “avgas”, anything with a turbine uses an unleaded jet fuel.
As it is, it’s pretty bad, but it could be a lot worse. Airborne lead is really quite bad for many aspects of biology. If small planes stopped burning leaded fuel today, I’m quite sure we would be able to track a measurable difference in health and educational outcomes within a decade.
Thats a good point, not even turboprops are leaded if I remember right.
Obviously it’d require a lot of study to definitively say the impact of the lead, but I’m convinced the impact wouldn’t be able to compare to natural levels in that atmospheric environment. Like we love our planes, but its still energetically really difficult for us to get them up there - but space rocks can have a hard time NOT burning up in our atmosphere. And lead is a larger than uniform part of our universe because its atomic stability, so odds are (IMO) atmospheres relatively lead-y, but have been for centuries.
That and the difficulty creating hotspots in such a turbulent environment makes it required to increase the entire atmosphere’s lead content to increase any one area to dangerous levels.
Yep, they literally used leaded gasoline to wash off their hands in the 70s. Nevermind the exhausts blanketing everything with it.
1996 in the US.
Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale of the small amount of leaded fuel that was still available in some parts of the country for use in on-road vehicles.
Where were these places?
IIRC farm co-ops, rural gas stations, bulk purchases for fleets, etc…
I can remember my grandpa, a career trucker and grease monkey, grumbling about having to use lead substitute in his 60s Ford pickup when I was very young.
We had one gas station in my town in Oklahoma that sold it right up to the deadline. I used it because both my vehicles were built for it.
Cars made before the 70s need the extra lubrication in the valves or the engines wear out much quicker. Engines made for unleaded fuel usually have valve sleeves to prevent excessive wear.
I hate that Gen-X is represented here.
The Boomers grew up with EVERYTHING having lead in it, including the air thanks to leaded gasoline. Prolonged lead poisoning is almost surely a factor there.
Can’t blame boomers for the number of Gen-Z males who are absolute chuds.
The voting break in males over 65 is more liberal than those under 25.
Eh, Gen-z who are chuds do of course hold responsibility for their own actions, but they were started down the path by really hard to overcome disadvantages previous generations had where family was present to socialize them, teach them how to treat others, previous generations had third spaces to socialize with peers to learn how not to be asshats, to learn what behaviors wouldn’t be tolerated, and the silent generation, boomers, and now gen-x (my gen) ARE guilty of one by one letting or actively helping all the structures that made socialization and generationally passed down behavioral guidance possible go away or be stripped by stopping the flow of corporate gains to the lower and middle classes, forcing families to all work, and sometimes all work multiple jobs, they voted against social programs, against traditional funding that built transportation systems, parks, and other third spaces by reducing taxation on the wealthy in the name of lowering taxes and the Ayn Rand myth of extreme self reliance.
When you stop investing in society, you stop getting the benefits of a society, and the first to go is the social contract, where people treat each other with some level of respect due to acknowledgement of said social contract, for the most part.
You just described each generations qualms with what the generations before them left them.
This might be true if the investment in society, infrastructure and lower classes always had been the same or same direction. After wwii it changed drastically and in favor of the working class and those in need, and society benefited greatly from it, there’s datapoints to show this to be true. Then there was a backlash from the wealthy to all the civil rights movements, labor movements and those investments were pulled back strategically. This is new, because it isn’t a continual trend over time, but that pull back has continued from the 1970s to today’s date.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, in either comment.
Just know that every generation has had the capacity to point at the things that were done because the data exists and the lived experience exists.
Just wait till we discover the novel and fun ways our generations fuck over the earth.
Well at least these generations will have the excuse of real scarcity and hoarding by the ultra wealthy that are armed with ai murderbots. That’s fun.
Can’t blame boomers for the number of Gen-Z males who are absolute chuds.
But we can blame lead poisoning from poorly-soldered vape batteries
You can blame them for being in positions of power that can be taken advantage of due to the brain damage.
Also radioactive fallout from nuclear testing (over 1000 nuclear devices in the US) during their early development
I’m not sure that’s as wide of an issue compared to lead being in the gas tank. Then again I don’t know if there were ever studies on fallout from such tests on USA soil.
I’d like to see this graphed against political leaning and opinions on things like gay rights or abortion.
This just proves that broader economic trends exist, but especially cause how much it detaches at the end, yet increases in step this is obviously not causation, and is really only loose correlation
The divergence makes sense.
Children age out of the sample cohort, but still have high lead levels and still contribute to the crime cohort.
I’d expect to see the lead level rate be proportional to the birth rate and the crime rate proportional to the death rate. Having the chart extend another 15 years to today might show that.
No idea on lead level, but violent crime has mostly stayed fairly level now, property crime is way down. Something to consider is that rapes are up quite a bit, starting around the time #MeToo went viral. Which IMO makes sense, as more women found the courage to speak out.
Thats a good point, I always get messed up on small aspects of statistics like that
That’s incorrect. It’s correlation, not causation.
If lead were such a direct cause of violence, they should start diverging at the introduction of lead, not long after a notable decline in lead levels. (ok ok not diverge at first, but still have a predictable, visible connection throughout)
Children grow up constantly, and only one of the lines is not age-restricted. If it were to ever diverge while still being a major cause, it’d begin to diverge
at the introduction of the stimulus…or rather, start to diverge when the supposed initiating cause was reduced.As you say, lead is a lifetime problem. If it were to be a tent pole contributor to violence, violence wouldn’t have reduced in lockstep basically ever.
Lead is a massive problem and is a toxin, but it surely did not itself contribute to increased violence. Increased stupidity? Absolutely.
Lead is a neurotoxin. Its link to violence is not in question by any serious statistical analysis.
Leave apologia at the door please.
Perhaps the preschoolers who were exposed to lead, who then went on to become violent 20-somethings, continued to be more violent in their 30s.
I have been pointing this out for like 20 years. Even with good sanitation and PPE, lead residue from shooting is surprisingly hard tocompletely eliminate. I was as shooting maybe a couple of times per week, primarily with a bolt action rifle and shotgun, wearing gloves, wiping things down, and I could still find detectable lead residue on my range bag, and in my car (!).
Someone who is putting hundreds of rounds per week of dog shit ammo through their AR is 1000% exposing themselves and their family to a slowly increasing background supply of lead.
Someone on Lemmy wrote, a little over a year ago I think, that lead ossifies in the bones and then gets released into the blood as bones soften with age. This then affects the brain and might explain why older people have seemingly sudden personality changes. I think about this often.
There’s some studies that look into this and its effects on mental health of all stripes. I’m certain in the coming decades there’ll be more as the boomers start suffering and dying.
It is one of the processes of lead poisoning yes. Lead is mistaken for Calcium and stored in your bones.
I wouldn’t rule it out. They wanted a new Rome, and they’re getting one - complete with Diarrhea Forever™
The “Super gun owners” account for only like 3% of Americans. And a lot of those still don’t shoot enough to meaningfully manifest the symptoms of lead poisoning on its own.
It’s probably just medical advances letting bitter racist old fucks live longer.
Old fucks who grew up with so much lead in the atmosphere from burning gasoline that the lead from a few recreational bullets is just noise.
And the paint, don’t forget the leaded paint. And the ceramic tile. And cosmetics. And costume jewelry. And pipes/plumbing. And pottery. And older vinyl, like blinds. And almost all older strained glass uses lead to hold the panels together. And even older plastics often contained lead to soften the material, and we all know how badly old plastic often deteriorates.
There’s a shit ton of lead in products made before the turn of the century.
9 million people is still a lot of people, much less the kids playing with the ‘bb pellets’ in their closet and other exposures due to those 9 mil.
And all that lead in gasoline they had kicking around everywhere growing up.
Derek Muller has a lot of interesting, sad, and scary things to say about that: https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA
Well there’s on going studies that lead poisoning/exposure leads to mental degredation in various ways, including parkinson’s/alheimer’s and similar neurological diseases.
Lead exposure won’t make good people bad, but it will make bad people worse.
Leaded gas was prominent in the US until it was phased out ~1980-90s. I’ve always wonder if this had a large effect on those growing up in earlier times, i.e. those in their 60-70s now, or the baby boomer generation.
Nah, I’m far enough left that I believe in getting guns back.
Were your parents using guns on the regular?That is the important question here, because lead has very long lasting consequences.
(Btw, just having guns does fuck all against militarized police units)
It’s from them licking paint.
The US has a lot of gun owners, but it also has a lot of people who don’t own guns but are MAGAs anyway.
They might have grown up in a household with an active gun owner, which, when combined with bad hygiene practices after shooting, might cause lead to cause developmental effects.
