1. People drink water containing let's say 1 part per trillion lead. We test it, we can't measure that, we say it's fine. The people drinking it are in fact fine.
2. People drink water containing let's say 1 part per trillion lead. We test it, we can't measure that, we say it's fine. The people drinking it incur brain damage, but because we can't measure the thing causing it, we don't correlate it with anything.
How do we distinguish these cases?
It's also found in all historical bones, and strongly (positively) correlates with social status, as well as with prosperity population wise. Very high levels have been found in Neanderthal teeth. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau9483
That interpretation of the historical data goes counter to the authors view that the lead levels may be anecdotal due to location of a lead mine, and lead levels were not found in an individual from a different site.
"Periods of lead exposure during the childhoods of these two French Neanderthals are remarkable, as biogenic lead bands were not apparent in the ~100-ka-old Belgian individual discussed above, and decades of research have shown that there is no safe level for lead in humans and other animals."
Why would you assume that the metal that binds it with the greatest affinity isn't supposed to be there? It isn't uncommon that another atom can activate a protein, albeit poorly.
I did my own research, it is certainly essential. It's why moss has dissapeared, for example.
calmodulin is generally though to be regulated by changes in calcium levels.
Presumably in error.
biogenic lead bands were not apparent in the ~100-ka-old Belgian individual discussed above
No such data is shown, they measured a 5.4ka individual, in addition to the neanderthals.
decades of research have shown that there is no safe level for lead in humans and other animals
They got their indices the wrong way round. I don't deny there is a difference, I claim that the healthy state is with lead present.
Yes, that especially.