Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
"I'd hope you're trolling, but maybe you genuinely believe what you post? ... (re marijuana)
No, I'm not anti-pot; nationwide legalization is probably the best option at this point, considering all factors.
I'm just pointing out that our prejudices often allow us to see a great amount of harm (with harms being exaggerated significantly) with chemicals, and see virtually no harm with something like marijuana--"it's a wonderful medicine"--where we should have greater concerns, via its safety.
One example on this is the favored statement by pot enthusiasts that marijuana never killed anyone, no lethal dose.
This is one of the more misleading arguments I've seen on any topic. A substance/chemical doesn't have a fatal toxicity level to do significant harm to humans, cognitively (or otherwise).
(If there is indeed poison in school soils, OK, that needs to be addressed. I'm commenting here on our broad recurring discussion of chemical dangers.)
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by glinda
Oh I see.. length of life is the criteria. Pretty simple yeah? For one who bitches about folks being dumbed down by a bit of pakalolo one would think it would be cognitive skills, or even the propensity of some to use da kine, or any other number of tell tell signs of lessoned mental and emotional abilities (the word is lessened - maybe you had a little too much exposure to lead yourself - or was it too much pakalolo?) ....
Shortened lifespan, lesser cognitive abilities, use any measure you like - my perspective on this is that the relevant questions are: 1) how broadly and to what degree has exposure to the measured lead/arsenic levels at these schools increased the blood lead/arsenic level in the children exposed and how does that increase (if any) compare to their lead/arsenic levels induced from other exposures in their every day environment outside the schools? and 2) by how much have these lead/arsenic level increases (from the school exposure) impaired their intellectual and emotional development compared to those caused by all other factors to which these children are exposed? If you are truly concerned about compromised cognitive development, then you identify the most significant source of the problem first and treat that first - not spending time and resources on random and possibly irrelevant sources. (Kind of how we're (not) dealing with climate change - banning soda straws when the real problem is that our global population is probably at least ten times what the planet can sustainable support.)
There's lots of pathways for lead exposure: was your home built prior to about 1980? then it likely has lead based solder in the copper plumbing. Of course we all know about the lead based paint and lead headed nails in roofs that fed catchment systems - as well as the lead based paint that was used to paint the interior of the catchment tanks. How much of the lead produced as a result of tetra-ethyl lead is still hanging around the streets and playgrounds? For that matter, how much lead paint is still on the walls of the pre-80's homes that these children live in? or, even more likely, present in the soils around their homes from paint chips flaked off the weathering walls. Based on the article below, it sounds like that last is the most likely source of the lead present in the schools' soils.
This is reminiscent of California Prop 65 warnings - pretty soon everything has a warning that it contains potentially cancer causing agents. And the warnings become meaningless. The published list of schools where elevated lead and arsenic levels were found is meaningless - without a lot more data. Everybody gets wound up about a perceived risk that they have no way, and inadequate expertise, to assess - and the newspaper sells eyeballs and lives to publish another day.
This is a fairly well balance article on the findings - although no information on the actual levels of lead found - however they do quote DOH toxicologists that seem to indicate that the level of risk is not especially high.
https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2019/03/...i-schools/
Another, earlier article on lead levels in children - but again, elevated levels without the necessary information to know what the exposure pathway was.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34591...waii-kids/
ETA: that second article does indicate that lead levels were actually fairly low for Hawaii children as compared to many mainland areas...
These Guys were just @ the library ... https://www.facebook.com/pages/Komohana-...0845355879
They were saying you could send a sample of your soil in ( to Oahu ) and get it tested FOR FREE.
It would come back with a list of things you can add to it if you wanted to grow " X "
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
maybe you had a little too much exposure
I don't know about you but my fav has always been DDT. Me and the gang, you had to have a stingray to be in our gang, no 10 speeds allowed, were way into following the trucks that would come by spraying the stuff to get rid of the mosquitoes.
And of course all that arsenic infected Canec. There must of been a point where everyone's ceilings were covered in the stuff. But still, if you ask me, it's DDT that's the best, that outshines all the rest.
heheh .. Glinda .. almost an entire summer on the 70s, tutu sprayed us with raid thinking it was like Off.
Im here to say .. "See ? no side ddeffects "
eta ... good times on Sting Rays. peace
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
geochem - that second article does indicate that lead levels were actually fairly low for Hawaii children as compared to many mainland areas...
Umm, no it doesn't - it says: "Compared to other states, Hawaii has a relatively low number of lead poisoning cases. But officials acknowledge that it's unclear whether lead testing of children is as widespread as it should be."
So it's relatively low number of individuals, but we're likely not counting everyone we should... (no mention of the lead levels themselves) The 3% of kids with elevated lead levels appears comparable with many other states.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm
Your plan is that nothing should be done until every possible source of lead has been identified and quantified for each child and then compared to every other likely impact to their health, all in order not to waste money? It is the Hawaii way - more results means more funding for more studies! (but no responsibility or money for addressing the problem - unless we can get the Feds to pony up)
Or you could address the sources, like a child's public school, as they are identified (IF there are actually any toxins of course - MarkD isn't sure until a fiction-writer weighs in on the research apparently). Thankfully the DoH is taking steps to mitigate the issue, to the best of their ability, rather than shifting blame, responsibility, or the actionable information required like most of the PW daf responses.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
Your plan is that nothing should be done until every possible...
It's like not grounding airplanes that fall out of the sky until we can run further tests on why they are falling out of the sky.
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
"heheh .. Glinda .. almost an entire summer on the 70s, tutu sprayed us with raid thinking it was like Off.
Im here to say .. "See ? no side ddeffects "
eta ... good times on Sting Rays. peace"
Others may have a different opinion.
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
geochem - that second article does indicate that lead levels were actually fairly low for Hawaii children as compared to many mainland areas...
Your plan is that nothing should be done until every possible source of lead has been identified and quantified for each child and then compared to every other likely impact to their health, all in order not to waste money? It is the Hawaii way - more results means more funding for more studies! (but no responsibility or money for addressing the problem - unless we can get the Feds to pony up)
umm, straw-man argument? I didn't propose a plan - if I had, it would have been to do more lead testing in children to determine whether the lead levels had any correlation to the schools that they attended AND to make an effort to identify the major sources of lead before committing $10? $20M, $??M (you don't think these contractors are going to answer their phones for less than a couple mil per site do you?) to lead remediation at these schools without any clear evidence that that effort would actually provide a benefit to the children that are suffering the effects of lead exposure. I agree, it's only taxpayer dollars, and there's always more where those came from, but ignorant fool that I may be, I wouldn't object to a little bit of cost-benefit analysis.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
It's not a strawman - just a summary of your questions ending with "If you are truly concerned about compromised cognitive development, then you identify the most significant source of the problem first and treat that first - not spending time and resources on random and possibly irrelevant sources."
Combined with your implication of alcohol and marijuana use as more significant health impacts (including for kids in elementary school), your apparent suggestion (but not a plan) is to study and compare all the major possible health impacts for all kids before spending time and resources on addressing them?
It's hard to imagine saying one supports academic achievement while decrying remediation as their tax dollars fund public schools that routinely expose their students to elevated levels of lead, arsenic, & organochlorine pesticides? Maybe easier just to call it an extended hands-on, in-the-field, direct science learning opportunity?
|
