James Beck wrote:
In article m,
says...
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
At 30th tonnes, the potential environmental impact of the lead in
solder, even if you *did* dump it all in the ground, is minuscule.
And, where do these pin-heads think the lead came from, in the first
place?
It came from deep within the ground, in the form of lead ore, which I
think is much less of a health hazard than metallic lead decomposing in
a landfill and seeping into the water supply.
Mettalic lead has been shown to have very little impact on the
environment. Especially after it has built up an oxide layer.
In Europe, there are places where the Romans smelted lead 2000 years
ago, and 8" or so below the topsoil, the dirt is still so toxic that
health officials (in Britain at least) don't allow people to dig there,
even wearing protective gear.
Ah, but we aren't talking about running a smelting operation, are we?
Not if you can get all your lead from recycled materials,
and won't have to dig up any more ore and process it.
Otherwise, we have to look at the entire process.
That's just good engineering.
BTW, I'm not a pinhead, just someone who cares about my health, that of
others and a quality environment for us to all live in.
I don't know.
Comparing burying metallic lead VS a smelting operation, that borders on
pinheadiness.
Maybe we go on different definitions. To me, "pinhead" refers
more to people who have very pointed, narrow ways of thinking,
and foolishly fail to choose wisely in regards to the big picture.
When I left my last job, I had a full physical including a
lead test, and even though I had been "exposed" to lead solder almost
daily for 13 years, my blood lead levels were almost not measurable and
that puts me below the national average for people that don't work with
solder at all. Why would that be if lead/tin solder were so dangerous?
Easy one! Blood tests often fail to show up heavy metal toxicity.
You shouldn't expect them to, because the problem with heavy
metals is that they build up in body tissues, not the blood.
That's exactly the problem! They hang around in the body,
building up in and causing problems with vital organs (e.g.,
liver, colon, brain, bones) and *don't* easily dissolve out
in the blood and get flushed out.
The blood test may be good for cases of extreme (acute)
toxicity. I suppose that's why the doctors have them.
They like to get credit for saving lives. But there
is also chronic low- to moderate-level heavy metal
poisoning. It is bad too.
Don't expect an allopathic doctor to help you discern
heavy metal toxicity. They are too busy putting them *in*
your body while avoiding lawsuits to be of much assistance.
If you want a good test for heavy metals, you need to use other
methods. The one I'm most aware of is using a small sample
of hair. Removing bits of liver, bone or brain aren't really
practical, so this is the only method I know that's practical
and that naturopathic practitioners seem to prefer.
I've actually never heard of anyone having that test done
and finding out they had an issue with lead. Usually, its
cadmium or mercury. In my area, arsenic and copper are a
problem. That is a result from a local copper mine that was
very active about 100 years ago. The processing of the ore
put a lot of arsenic and copper in the environment, and it's
been leaching into the local water supply. This is in the
middle of a huge national forest, where you'd think the
water would be not as bad. Maybe that has something to
do with my concern for the effects of mining and processing.
The people who ran the mine probably had no idea at all
this would ever happen. Instead of being more concerned,
they just shrugged it off and did what made them the quickest
money. I think a more careful and conservative approach is
prudent. Sometimes, "better safe than sorry" applies.
Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php