Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

duxup

> it seems unlikely that it is safe to be living there at all

Is it?

Just living there you’re not ingesting the soil.

View on HN

> you’re not ingesting the soil.

You don't have kids, do you?

I suppose you're getting downvotes because of the snark, but you're right.

Young kids will put anything in their mouths. Eating dirt is not an uncommon behavior.

And part of the reason kids are particularly susceptible to eating lead paint chips, is that lead acetate is sweet enough to be used as a sweetener in the olden days and called "sugar of lead".

It's not snark, it's a logical deduction. It's not that my kid "eats" dirt but his dirt-covered hands are in his mouth if they're otherwise unoccupied.

I highly doubt they're eating sufficient quantities to make any impact. They'd have to eat about 1/4 pound in the highest contaminated area to even hit the action level, assuming they fully absorb all the lead which isn't how it works.

Over several years of playing in the muck every day before maturing past the tendency to eat dirt / cram dirty hands in mouth, 1/4 pound is just not that much. There is no "safe" level of lead exposure.

"There is no "safe" level of lead exposure."

And...? Do you think there's no exposure anywhere? This line, at least the way it's being used in arguments here, might as well be religion - used as a one line ideology that doesn't add anything to the discussion and ignores the realities.

How is 1/4 pound of dirt not that much? And remember, they would have to eat multiple times that much to actually absorb 100% of lead in that amount. If you're really that concerned, then you shouldn't be letting them eat any dirt due to other health concerns, like toxoplasmosis.

Spread over a childhood of say, 8 years, 1/4lb is only 28mg per day. That's a couple grains of rice. So, yeah, it's not much dirt.

I'm clearly not that concerned, as I don't keep my child in a bubble, but environmental lead is detrimental to society at large and something that we should make every reasonable effort to reduce.

8 years is a bit long, right? Newborns aren't playing in the dirt. By at least age 6 I would hope that most kids have basic hygiene to not be eating dirt. At such a low dose over such a long time, it's unlikely to accumulate. Plus, 28mg of dirt is still like eating a teaspoon of it.

"make every reasonable effort to reduce."

I agree. It's the reasonable part that comes up for debate. To me, it seems reasonable to live in an area that has elevated lead in the soil while not growing crops or raising chickens. It's more reasonable to replace the "lead free" plumbing components with truly lead free components, carefully select toys (eg no Chinese), and stay away from certain foods (carrots are a big one if I remember correctly).

Even 4 years at an average of 10 grams of dirt per day is a lot of lead, almost certainly enough to lead to developmental problems.

I have kids.

In all likelihood it is reaching the soil through the air as particulates.

Leaded petrol was banned decades ago

There is still aviation fuel using lead.

True, but unless you live really close to a busy airport, I doubt it's an issue. I live fairly close to a rural grass strip that sees moderate use. I have about 40ppm which is 10x less than the allowed limit for crops.

It sounds like accumulation from lead based paint and leaded car gas is the issue in the article. Which makes sense since you generally can't fly low over cities anyways (disperses) and small planes are not huge emitters (low in numbers).

Melbourne's general aviation airport (i.e. light planes like Cessnas) is Moorabbin, in the south east. The map shows the City of Kingston which contains it with a dark green dot, meaning safe. Planes often do a circuit south and then turn and follow the coast (over my house...) and all those places are shown as safe.

The neighbouring City of Casey to the east is shown as unsafe, but this contains a "noxious industries area". Planes usually take off and land on a roughly north–south alignment because of the prevailing winds.

Only "avgas" which is basically the same stuff we used to put in cars and is running the same sort of engines, a piston engine, driving a propeller roughly the same way your car engine turns the wheels. Most little things, from smaller airports.

JetA, which is basically kerosene (still terrible, don't drink it - but at least it doesn't have lead in it) is used by all the jet engines. That includes lots of things a casual observer wouldn't think of that way. A King Air, or a C-130, they've got propellers, but that's a turboprop engine, the propeller is spinning because there's a turbine behind it, and instead of kicking hot fast air out the back (like an A320) it's using that energy for turning the propeller really fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

It was banned worldwide by the UN only last year. (And not, I think, for all aviation and perhaps other industry fuels, as sibling commenter says.)

Also, 'leaded petrol still in London air 22 years after ban': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57564953

Reply on news.ycombinator.com