"Keith" wrote in message
No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.

Nor has it been proven 100% safe.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message

No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.


Nor has it been proven 100% safe.


Also little kids are more suscpetible to lead poisoning since they have
lower threshold.

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:42:49 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:


Keith wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:26:59 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:



Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Keith" wrote in message



Correlation causation. There are *thousands* of differences
between the Chinese and Americans. To blame mercury from vaccines
without cause is silly. There are far more plausable reasons for the rise
in autism, including self-selection of mates with autistic traits (geeks
on geeks)and our economy making this possible.


As I stated, there is not scientific proof and studies have not been done.
It may or may not be, but you don't offer a solution either. As the
thiomerisol is eliminated, it may show causation. We'll see.



Perhaps the real guestion is why anyone would
choose to put a mercury compound in any injectable
substance?


Because it works and has no demonstrable side effects? Geez!


Geez yourself, it is not clear that there are no
adverse effects. In fact, there seems to be
considerable concern that there may be side
effects, why else has it been removed, other than
it was a stupid act in the first place.


No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.

Mercury has demonstrable effects, even in minute quantities, but also
effect from low doses that manifest only after a long period and those
effects are most likely to occur in children. So what kind of idiot
would use it; mercury plus children is stupid, far worse than lead plus
children.


Another luddite speaks. I suppose you've had all tha amalgum fillings
removed from your teeth too.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. By mercury I meant
mercury compounds since we had been referring to a
mercury compound. Does that help, or do you say
no mercury compound has any severe effect on
children or adults?

Tony Hwang wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message

No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.



Nor has it been proven 100% safe.

Also little kids are more suscpetible to lead poisoning since they have
lower threshold.

Sorry but more susceptible and lower threshold
mean the same thing. Kids are more susceptible
because their systems are developing and lead
interferes with the development.

In article ,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message

No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.



Nor has it been proven 100% safe.


Well this is a bit fuzzy in the science part. Water chemistry is and can
be complex. Water as it turns out, is a great solvent, and dissolves a
little bit of darn near anything.

The truth is, well yes some lead could still come out into solution.
But in reality (and probability) if left undisturbed, 50 year old solder
even it still has lead in situ, has likely leached out all mobile lead
that could come out into solution. You'd probably have to deliberately
and aggressively chemically attack the solder to get lead into solution.

NEW LEAD solder (is not marketed today) would leach some out. Old
solder, left alone and undisturbed, will not likely leach additional
lead.

Also (depends on your geographic location, source of the water etc) but
many/most water supplies have large amounts of limestone (calcium
carbonate ie hard water) in solution. This often forms over time, a
protective coating patina of calcium carbonate (lime coating) over all
the insides of the pipes and joints. In this case it is an additional
protective coating sealing lead contaminates.

Odds are 50 year old solder is likely safe (low risk) if left
undisturbed.


======
Lead trivia (some historical)

Lead is a poison that does accumulate in the body and does cause damage,
and yes young children are more susceptible to this.

Some clays do leach lead into acidic solutions. That is why certain
clays are used for the final firing glaze, they don't leach lead. There
was a documented case 1980s or so of a physician eventually diagnosed
with lead poisoning. He loved to drink cola soft drinks daily, from clay
cups made by his son, and unknown at the time were improperly glazed
with the wrong clays, ie lead poisoning as determined by later analysis.

The rich Romans 2000+ years ago could afford lead drinking cups. The
advantage over cheap copper cups (used by lower classes as affordable to
them) was the favored drink of the day, wines, chemically caused copper
salts in the copper cups. Lead did not do this and did not "spoil" the
taste of the wine as copper cups did. What they did not know, was lead
did leach into the acidic wine. What was worse they liked to heat the
wine which enhanced lead solubility. All this might explain why the
aristocracy of Rome eventually faced downfall, dementia among the
privileged class due to lead poisoning! The Romans also used lead pipes
and lead containing clays for pipes for plumbing. Who knows?

The Royal Navy physician (prior to 1800s or so) who did the definitive
work on Scurvy (vitamin C deficiency ) came up with the solution to
provide fruit and fruit juices to the Royal Navy (hence the term limey)
for long sea voyages. But he stored the juices long term in lead lined
wooden casks! Acidic solutions (fruit juices) leach lead. His remarkable
scientific work (for that day and age) to solve scurvy essentially
exposed all navy personnel to lead poisoning. This may explain bizarre
navy incidents like Mutiny on the Bounty! Eccentric behavior? Lead
poisoning? Who knows?



Some (many?) USA modern cites water systems still have lead water main
pipes in their older underground distribution pipes. They last a very
long time (100 years) and don't corrode. And from exhaustive testing of
these water systems, no unsafe lead levels were ever found (most not
even detectible lead).
--
lid

I still use real 50/50 solder on sweat copper. That lead free stuff sucks.

--
Steve Barker



wrote in message
oups.com...
In removing a gate value for the hose in my garage this morning I had
to heat one of the copper joints to remove it and I noticed how easily
the solder melted and flowed. So I wonder if there is some amount of
lead in it.

My house was built in 1953 and my guess is that this pipe joint is
original, so...

1) Did plumbing solder in 1953 contain lead?
2) Can I test some of the solder blobs easily?
3) Should I consider replacing all of the pipes in my house? (Note: I
have a small ranch house with easy access to all of the plumbing; this
would not be a difficult job for me.)

Mike

In article 8gz0g.13645$az4.1347@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...
Keith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:42:49 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:


Keith wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:26:59 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:



Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Keith" wrote in message



Correlation causation. There are *thousands* of differences
between the Chinese and Americans. To blame mercury from vaccines
without cause is silly. There are far more plausable reasons for the rise
in autism, including self-selection of mates with autistic traits (geeks
on geeks)and our economy making this possible.


As I stated, there is not scientific proof and studies have not been done.
It may or may not be, but you don't offer a solution either. As the
thiomerisol is eliminated, it may show causation. We'll see.



Perhaps the real guestion is why anyone would
choose to put a mercury compound in any injectable
substance?


Because it works and has no demonstrable side effects? Geez!


Geez yourself, it is not clear that there are no
adverse effects. In fact, there seems to be
considerable concern that there may be side
effects, why else has it been removed, other than
it was a stupid act in the first place.


No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.

Mercury has demonstrable effects, even in minute quantities, but also
effect from low doses that manifest only after a long period and those
effects are most likely to occur in children. So what kind of idiot
would use it; mercury plus children is stupid, far worse than lead plus
children.


Another luddite speaks. I suppose you've had all tha amalgum fillings
removed from your teeth too.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. By mercury I meant
mercury compounds since we had been referring to a
mercury compound. Does that help, or do you say
no mercury compound has any severe effect on
children or adults?

No, I'm saying that the mercury (compound and quantity) used to
preserve vaccinations has not been shown to cause any adverse side
effects. The Autism "links" aren't (correlation causation).
Until recently (and it's not a given now) there wasn't a better
preservative for vaccines. The anti-mercury crowd tends to greatly
overlap the anti-vaccination crowd, anti-fluoride, anti-*, sky-is-
falling crowd, i.e. luddites.

Mercury, in general, has been overrated as a health danger (what
hasn't?).

--
Keith

According to George E. Cawthon :
Chris Lewis wrote:

The very first smallpox vaccine killed 1 out of 6. Those were better
odds than not being vaccinated in those days. [This predated the
famous cowpox vaccine]

Not sure what you mean by the first small pox
vaccine and predating the famous cowpox vaccine.
It still isn't clear, unless they cleared it up
very recently, exactly which organism was
contained in some of the vaccines. I don't know
what time frame you mean or where, but 1 in 6
deaths from smallpox doesn't sound right.

Well, it _was_ quite a long time ago - it is, after all,
why it was one of the plagues.

Some very bright person noticed that if you took a sample of
the pus from the boils of someone infected with smallpox (yes,
really), and then scratched someone's skin with it, _most_ of them
survived the result and didn't catch small pox again.

As in "most" - 5 out of 6.

The success/failure rate was pretty well understood at the time -
despite it being quite a while ago, because smallpox was running
rather rampant at the time, and the effects are knowable pretty
quickly.

Obviously, a 1 in 6 failure rate isn't very good.

Sometime later, another person - Edward Jenner was his name - discovered
a similar thing about cowpox - it transfers to humans, is quite mild, and
often infers an immunity to smallpox. That was about 200 years ago.

Another vaccine that has had bad press is the diptheria (whooping cough)
vaccine. Which was reported to have a bad outcome in 1 out of 10,000
vaccinations. Yet... as I recall, the odds of catching diptheria
without being vaccinated are something like 1 in 6, and "bad outcomes"
from catching it is also something like 1 in 4 or 6. Or, in other words,
bad outcomes one in 24 to 36 for not being vaccinated.

1 in 6 getting diptheria is also very high.

Seemed surprising to me too. But "1 in 6" was a quote from a medical
report or some such many years ago as the probability an unvaccinated
child had of catching the disease by age 12, and that diptheria cases
in children under 12 are much more serious than in adults.

[And in fact, I apparently _did_ catch it before I was 12 ;-)]

Certainly, we need to be aware of the failure rates and strive to
drive them downwards. But expecting zero is unrealistic, and we
should not overexaggerate the dangers based on off-handed remarks
about "lots".

Whoa, what comments are you reading. I said "lots
of people objected." Some how you translated
that into something about the disease occurence or
the efficacy of the vaccine?

I know damn well that lots of people objected to
just about any thing new.

That was rather my point. So we agree ;-)
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Edwin Pawlowski :

"Keith" wrote in message
No, there are *NO* demonstrable side errects. There are inuendo and
sensational scare tactics aimed at the usual luddites. No science at
all.

Nor has it been proven 100% safe.

Can you come up with _anything_ that has been proven 100% safe?

Hint: not even water is.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
Can you come up with _anything_ that has been proven 100% safe?

Hint: not even water is.

Of course not, but where do you start to take precautions? 99%? 70%? You
have to weigh the risks and rewards. As kids, we used to play with mercury
and make shiny pennies. That does not mean I'd inject it into a baby.