Hi All,
A past client wants me to remove her garage and build her a new one because she is concerned that the paint is lead and is worried about the effects.
It was a long conversation with her today so I will try to distill my question to the bare facts.
She told me that she just got the results back from a lead test from her Naturopathic Doctor and her lead level in her system is above the recommended level. She is convinced that because she has an older house (most likely with lead paint) and because she started sanding the garage (without a mask) in preparation for painting that she has contaminated herself. She just got the tests back a couple of days ago. Anyway, she calls me today and wants me to come remove the garage, pour a concrete slab over the contaminated soil and build a new garage in order to remove the source of lead.
Now…. I am not a lead abatement expert, but…. I spent a good half-hour just calming her down and telling her that she doesn’t need to jump in to a garage replacement just yet 🙂
Several things she said didn’t add up to me. First, she has only owned the house for two years and the sanding she did didn’t amount to more than a few days. My understanding is that lead poisoning in adults is a cumulative process and takes a pretty constant exposure over an extended period of time. Second, her Naturopath gave her a urine based lead test. I thought a lead poisoning test is a blood test. Third, as long as the lead paint is not disturbed, it poses very little risk in its current state. It has to be disturbed and ingested or inhaled.
Anyway, I told her that if she is really concerned, I would suggest having a reputable testing company come out and test both the house and garage to first find out what the lead levels are like in her home. Second, I think she should get a second opinion on the lead level in her system by getting a regular blood test from a regular doctor. Then, when she has a little for information, she can make a better decision.
Again, I am no lead expert, but the feeling of the situation I got from her was of someone not really understanding the risk and being freaked out just by the thought of lead. Again, I did not try to pass myself off as any kind of lead expert, but my common sense says this situation is a little exagerated
I’m hoping that some of you will chime in with what you know (or don’t know). Have any of you had clients freak out over lead? I’m looking forward to some “lead enlightening”
Thanks,
Brad.
Replies
It's possible to be harmed by sanding http://www.epa.gov/iaq/homes/hip-lead.html
So, wet sanding is recommended.
I agree that it's unlikely that a little bit of sanding would be really harmful. Infants are so much more vulnerable than adults because they can't process it as well.
Sounds like a client one might want to watch out for! ;o
I think her Naturopath needs to make a boat payment (as Click and Clack would say). I agree with you that she should have a test done by a medical doctor. If she has high levels of lead, I think a hospital can do chelation therapy to remove it.
I also think, that like asbestos, lead is okay if left alone and encapsulated (by new paint or whatever) and it is mainly a danger when it is peeling and kids may eat the paint because it tastes sweet. Unless this woman plans on chewing on her garage, I don't see why she wanted it removed. At any rate, sanding would be a bad way to do it because it makes fine particles to ingest/inhale. Too late now. Anyway, she should get another test and ask doctor (medical doctor) the danger and see if it can be filtered from her system if necessary.
BTW, she doesn't have lead water pipes in her house does she?
1. The fact that she's seeing a Naturopath strongly implies that reason/science will mean nothing to her. Trying to dissuade her that she doesn't have a paint problem may be a losing battle. (I note your conversation was 'long'.)
2. Lead poisoning can be diagnosed with a urine test (typically 24 hour) but would much more commonly be blood. The more interesting question is WHY would he test for this in the first place???? Clue: wallet.
3. You are absolutely right: She needs to see a real doctor.
Thon
(As an internist I've spent WAY too much of my life trying to dispel junk science for patients.)
Ditto. Ditto.
get the lead out, and run away from this client :)
I can't think of a better way to disturb and distribute that lead so people can be exposed to it than to tear down the garage. She'd be far better off to leave it alone. I agree with the others: this is a bad sign in a client. I'd be running away with both feet.
I disagree. I think he oughta soak her for all he can get, as a way of helping clean the human gene pool of people too stupid to come in out of the rain....
(Just joking, of course. But not by much....)
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
I agree with your posts most of the time. Are we not on this forum to help the people that don't know? Your joke to me is a little iffey. Ignorance is not stupidity. I think that the reason that most of us are on this forum is to help?
I'm here to leran how to make more money.
so I'd just have agreed totally and figured out a start check amount.
why fight with someone that wants something built?
just had a customer ask about granite .... clearly PLam is a fine counter top. The most practical in my personal opinion. Should I say Hell No ... I ain't letting U waste your own money?
the lady might be a nutcase ... the doc might be a quack ...
How's her credit?
enough to build a new garage?
what's wrong with pleasing the customer ....
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
I'm here to leran how to make more money.
so I'd just have agreed totally and figured out a start check amount.
the lady might be a nutcase ... the doc might be a quack ...
How's her credit?
Those are, without a doubt, the funniest four lines I've ever read here. Almost busted a gut dude. You are completely out of your mind, but I can totally relate.
I agree with one of the other posts, if this person is a true nutcase I would be leery dealing with her, otherwise if you have a client that understands premium parts mean premium money; go for it. May the Buck[S] be with you.
Shack--
There are people who don't know, and then there are people who don't want to find out because they think they already know.
Now obviously, we are reading this lady's character at second hand; we only have a third party's description of her behaviour, which could be accurate, exaggerated, or pure bullwhacky.
But it's all we have to go on. So, stipulating for argument's sake only that our available information is accurate:
I read this type of character as someone who gets all their hard science information from popular sources (i.e.: Kathy Lee & Regis, or Oprah). This person hasn't got a clue about the reality of her situation and won't take the trouble to inform herself because she thinks she already knows what she needs to. She is colossally uninterested in putting in the skull sweat it takes to understand the issues affecting her, and is putting her faith in a variety of soft, pseudo-scientific 'reports' she's seen on the tube, read about in the National Enquirer, or heard about from her cousin Mazie (the one with the blue hair and the perm).
That said, I will state that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have the aptitude or education to be able to interpret original research data in a meaningful way...but it is reasonable to expect them to at least read a competent interpretation of that data written with the average citizen in mind. Say, an EPA fact sheet, for instance. The gov't ain't good for much, IMHO, but that sort of thing they are pretty good at. And someone who ignores that resource isn't living up to their end of the societal bargain.
Like I said, I was only joking about soaking her to help clean up the gene pool. Wiping out her bank account won't prevent her from reproducing anyway....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
hey, thanks for the "educatin'" from all of you. As many of you pointed out, and I agree, this is a client probably best to stay away from. I'm up to my eyeballs busy at the moment (and for the forseeable future) so I don't really want to take on a bunch of headaches. As Dinosaur said, I think this lady has a little trouble interpreting facts and is easily swayed by pseudo science. I would predict a lot of fretting and questions from her and as she is someone who is more apt to follow her feelings or her astrologist I don't have confidence that she would necessarily listen when the facts are presented. That kind of situation just makes life so much harder for me. I spoke with her again today and she did agree to call out a testing company as a first step. However, she did not take me up on my advice of getting a second opinion of her lead levels from a medical doctor. She is hooked on the naturopath and I think some people just need to have an "issue" to keep themselves going. As for the advice from Jeff Buck, I was laughing. But on the serious side, I want to help my clients make a good decision. If after a client has all the facts and they still want something, then I agree, I'll do it for them and bill them. But I have on occassion talked a client into something less when I know it is right for them. I want to make money, no doubt, but not at any cost. I'm looking to be a competent carpenter and business man with a good reputation not a used car salesman. Sorry in advance if I offend any car salesmen. Anyway, back to the story.... I suggested today that if she is still concerned about the garage and the yard after the lead test, then she should reside the existing garage and maybe splurge on a little landscaping. Put down some pavers or a patio and cover up (encapsulate) anything that might be on the ground. I will refer her to someone else for this just to avoid headaches (mine). thanks,Brad
with all this talk about concrete and ceramic you may want to inform her that ceramic goods give off radiation, enough to set off the snesors at customs clearinghouses, causing an inspection of goods in the container... what would her GURU say about the introduction of radiation to her lead problem... it may upset her CHI or FUNG SHUE ( sp)
james
Right-On
Hey Dinosaur,
Brad said the lady was tested by her Naturopathic Doctor. Where did Oprah and Homer Simpson come into this from?
The EPA just spent several years and bizillions of dollars scraping off the top several inches of soil from a big part of my town to get rid of guess what? Yep - LEAD.
If she has an elevated lead level, she has a big reason to be concerned - so why do you want to be insulting?
kestrel
Because I'm in a bad mood and I felt like it. View Image
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Its not your job to be a medical doctor or a toxic waste expert.If she wants the job done you are well within ethical practise to say "I disagree that that is the best way to handle it, however, I can do it your way. It will cost $xxxx."If $xxxx is what it costs for her to get peace of mind then that is money well spent.If my house wasn't a 100 years old... there would go a really fine hobby.
Why is it your job to tell me what's not my job? Are you signing my paycheck?
I opined that, based on the information posted about this nameless woman, I thought she was a flake.
I stand by that opinion, and will continue to do so unless new information about her is posted that would merit a re-evaluation. I explained my reasons once, and I'm not gonna provoke a flame war by doing it again.
You have the right to disagree. But not the right to tell me what I am allowed to think.
End of discussion.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Dino: the OP's alarm bells are ringing, as are yours and mine and those of a few others here. Why are we afraid of this woman? Could it be EXPERIENCE with similar people? Run away! Run away!
STILL don't see the harm in helping this lady out? How about a scenario: say the OP does this lady's bidding and tears down the garage. She then gets another test from her quack pseudo-doctor and guess what- her lead levels are HIGHER! What do you think she's going to do to the OP? Happily hand him the cheque? Pat him on the back for trying his best? Regardless how carefully he does this, some lead that was happily encapsulated in old alkyd paint, never to cause an exposure unless disturbed, will go airborne and blow into this lady's house. She breathes, right? So we've got a causal relationship to exposure. Does it matter that he did his best? That she paid him to do this?
Is the risk of the lawsuit worth this lady's money? Doubtful. Run away! Run away!
If she's concerned about lead exposure, she should sell her house and move into modern construction. But then she'll probably be scared of formaldehyde, or some other bogeyman.
Kestrel: In relation to toxicants, some people take an actual case of harm from a significant exposure and blow it out of proportion, extrapolating it to levels of idiocy. It's infuriating to anyone who is actually trying to DO SOMETHING about minimizing harm to people from such exposures. Lead IS toxic, certainly, and sanding lead-based paint (or anything, actually) without respiratory protection and proper dust clean-up afterward is foolhardy and nobody is suggesting that anyone do so. But tearing down a garage because it has a few layers of lead-based paint on it isn't just crazy, it's equivalent to treating dandruff by decapitation! (apologies to Frank Zappa) The "do nothing" option is far less hazardous to her health than what she's asking the OP to do. And unless there are children in her house, there are no doubt innumerable risks of harm to her that are far more serious than the presence of some lead-based paint in her window and door trim!
Would I be a rocket scientist today if I wasn't exposed to lead 40 years ago ?
When I built soap box derby cars as a kid, we would melt lead to make ballast for the cars. After making and installing the ballast, we did considerable shaping sanding and drilling on the lead parts. I would not think of exposing my kid to that practice today. That was not the only process that would be considered unsafe today when we made those cars. The lacquer fumes that I inhaled painting the cars back then would bring out the feds today. My body can't tolerate the same fumes today, I will get a giant migraine headache.
What we did not know then what may or may not have harmed us.
Edited 8/26/2005 10:48 am ET by arrowpov
Did you create airborne dust when you sanded that ballast lead? Working with the solid metal is probably less dangerous than working with some of its compounds, because the compounds form tiny airborne dust particles.
Old time plumbers used to work with oakum and molten lead on cast iron DWV, without a generally noticeable effect. Hat makers used to get mercury poisioning, which lead to the expression "mad as a hatter". But nobody ever used to say "dumb as a plumber." ;-)
-- J.S.
We used to belt sand the lead material untill it was flush with the wood parts. The lead dust was probably pretty heavy and did not stay airborne. I also learned not to touch the shiny surface of the lead parts just after they are stripped from the molds. I can still hear my finger sizzle.
Hi moltenmetal,
I have no way of having an opinion about the lady in this thread. Maybe she is a flake, maybe not. It stuck me as strange that she wanted the garage demolished, but not her house where one would expect her to be receive the greater and more frequent exposure. Yet from the scant information posted many here are certain her problem is strictly in her head.
Even if she is blowing her risk or illness out of proportion, it isn't a reason to treat lead poisoning as a trivial problem. It is deadly, and going to extremes to get rid of contamination isn't unusual. I already mention the new sod we have in town thanks to the taxpayers.
One of our local companies, a fairly large multinational corporation, has the policy that no holes can be put into a painted surface without prior analysis of the content of the paint for lead. A nail can't be driven into a wall to hang a picture without a paint analysis. Overreacting and wasting money - maybe, but why should anyone else care?
Also very derogatory remarks were made against naturopaths? Are they quacks? I've never been to one, but if I had I don't think I could make a generalization about all of them. Some states license them to practice medicine. I am wondering what the posts here slamming her doctor are based on.
If it were just lead paint on walls or woodwork, I wouldn't tear down the garage either. Abatement to my satisfaction would be much simpler. But I'd also hesitate to tell anyone else how to handle their situation. Since this is in "General Discussion", my comment was just intended to urge one of our better contributors to base his comments more on the known facts in this case and less on emotion.
<Also very derogatory remarks were made against naturopaths? Are they quacks? I am wondering what the posts here slamming her doctor are based on. >I imagine they are being made because their entire 'profession' IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE!< Some states license them to practice medicine. >I don't know whether this is true or not. My guess would be that they ARE liscenced--but that's quite different than being liscenced to practice 'medicine'.Thon
From:
tab1 <!----><!---->
9:53 am
To:
kestrel <Also very derogatory remarks were made against naturopaths? Are they quacks? I am wondering what the posts here slamming her doctor are based on. >
I imagine they are being made because their entire 'profession' IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE!
Actually, I don't think that's a particularly precise way of stating the problem. The word 'Science' is subject to definition, too. In that there are people who maintain that nuclear physics and parapsychology are both branches of science, it appears the range of that definition is pretty large. Robert A. Heinlein (my favourite iconoclast) once wrote that if a proposition can't be stated in mathematical terms, it falls under the heading of the 'fuzzy subjects'. This may be one of the more succinct descriptions I've read.
But what is generally meant by 'naturopathy' today seems to me to be 'science' of an older sort. By that I mean to point out that 'science' in each new generation comprises an ever expanding level of complexity. About two hundred years ago, the leading edge of medical science was the use of leeches to bleed patients of 'bad humours' in the blood that were thought to be the cause of their ills. This sounds goofy to us today--although there has been a recent minor resurgence of the practice based on more quantitative anaylsis of the reasons for the positive results--but at the time it was as respected as chemo-therapy is today.
Even earlier, dating from the pre-Christian era and continuing all through the middle ages and up to today, the 'science' of herbology was granted great respect and was practised by some of the most educated people of their times. Many today sneer at this...but fail to realize that the essential difference between herbal remedies and pharmacology is approximately equivalent to the difference between framing a house with solid lumber and framing it with LVL's and OSB sheathing. Solid lumber is a 'natural' product...but the 'engineered' building materials are made from the same natural product with man-made additives whose purpose is supposedly to 'improve' the natural product.
For instance, digitalis is a prescription drug widely used for certain types of heart problems. But it is manufactured from a plant (digitalis purpurea, from the family scrophulariaceæ, commonly called Foxglove) which grows wild and is also cultivated in many flower gardens due to its lovely blossoms. (This plant is highly toxic, BTW. People with small children should never grow it where the children could get to it.)
The leaves of second-year Foxglove plants, which contain glycosides, are harvested commercially to make the digitalis medication. The plant has been known and used for over 200 years in treating heart failure. It was used in the late 18th century by William Withering as a treatment for dropsy, and it is also known as a powerful diuretic.
So where does the 'science' begin and the 'fuzzy thinking' end? Good question....
< Some states license them to practice medicine. >
I don't know whether this is true or not. My guess would be that they ARE liscenced--but that's quite different than being liscenced to practice 'medicine'.
You are correct; in some jurisdictions the practice of naturopathy is licensed and controlled, but a naturopath is not authorized to practise medecine or prescribe pharmaceuticals. They may charge for their consulting services in recommending a regime of 'natural' remedies...but they may 'prescribe' only those products which are freely available to the public 'over the counter' without a prescription signed by an MD or DDS. The nature and scope of a naturopathic practitioner license varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
I'm not sure that provincial or state licensing of such practise is necessarily a 'good thing', in that it seeks to control yet one more aspect of private life under the guise of protecting the public...but it is true that many herbal or 'natural' remedies can, if abused by people with less than adequate knowledge, cause illness or even death (if you have a weak ticker, don't go eating the Foxgloves in your garden--you'll be dead before you hit the floor, as the saying goes....)
A great part of the problem we have perceiving alternate health practitioners dispassionately is that the harda$$ elements of the medical establishment don't want anybody else infriging on what they consider their turf...and have managed over the years to enforce this by promoting an image of doctors as half a degree away from God, and by slamming anyone else who dares to suggest there's another way to get healthy. The animosity between licensed medical practitioners and practitioners such as chiropractors, herbalists, 'naturopaths' etc., is long-standing and virulant. (Just as is the animosity between some licensed professionals in the construction trades and the type of unlicensed tradesman sometimes referred to as a 'Johnny-Pickup-Truck.')
It really boils down to a question of money and turf, of course...but the public reasons given are always 'protection of the public'.
At some point, though, I think we need to ask ourselves where legitimate protection ends and overprotection begins....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Yes, I'm aware there are different definitions of 'science'. Would it be clearer if I said naturopathy is NOT based on facts, coupled with repeatable experiments/studies? <g>I agree 'science' changes with time as we learn more. I'm not sure naturopathy does.<Many today sneer at this...but fail to realize that the essential difference between herbal remedies and pharmacology is approximately equivalent to the difference between framing a house with solid lumber and framing it with LVL's and OSB sheathing. >Ummm, not really. We KNOW framing a house either way will work. We DO NOT KNOW that 90+% of all the herbal remedies work. The studies have NEVER been done.Yes, there are lots of 'natural' products, like dig, that are used in mainstream medicine. But, they are highly regulated in their manufacture and dosage (herbal remedies are not), almost all have been extensively tested in countless studies, and they aren't really 'herbal remedies' any longer. BTW, dig is NOT a diuretic, per se.<A great part of the problem we have perceiving alternate health practitioners dispassionately is that the harda$$ elements of the medical establishment don't want anybody else infriging on what they consider their turf...>As someone who's been in the medical establishment for a long, long time I have to say this is just baloney. There are plenty of turf wars INSIDE the establishment but little or none the way you see it. Physicians would LOVE safer, cheaper, better, drugs for their patients. IF herbs were that ticket, we'd buy it. (Note the amount of St. John's wort used by M.D.s, when for a while, it seemed it might actually work.) There IS a lot of animosity towards 'alternate' health professions, as you say. BUT, it's because for the most part, they are BILKING --either knowingly, or unknowingly--people we're trying to help. If you give a patient almond extract for his cancer, not only will it do absolutely nothing to his cancer, it may well keep him from pursuing options that might. There is no question that what we know about 'real' medicine is far less than what we don't know. And I do think there is much to be learned about acupuncture, chiropractics, etc. But at this point, their claims about what their practices and products do, are simply conjecture, not fact, and that's not a good way to deal with much of anything--especially your health.Thon
<...the essential difference between herbal remedies and pharmacology is approximately equivalent to the difference between framing a house with solid lumber and framing it with LVL's and OSB sheathing. >
Ummm, not really. We KNOW framing a house either way will work.
I beg to disagree, actually. We do not 'know' that framing a house either way will 'work'. We do know that:
A house framed with wood can last over a hundred years; and
A house framed with 'engineered' lumber can last up to twenty years...that being approximately the maximum length of time products such as LVLs etc. have been in existance.
Projections done by the engineered wood products industry that predict lengthier structural integrity for their products are merely that: projections, which are based on mathematical modeling the validity of which is subject to criticism based on what numerical and factual assumptions were integral to the formulæ. We don't know, we are simply making what might, in the most generous description possible, be called an educated guess.
We DO NOT KNOW that 90+% of all the herbal remedies work. The studies have NEVER been done.
This strikes me as an exaggeration of the reality. The use of herbs as curatives or palliatives has such a long historical basis (literally thousands of years) and such an overwhelming large statistical population (tens of millions of subjects) that integrating all the data--were it possible to collect it--would be the work of a thousand men for a thousand years. Add to this the fact old records (where they exist) are often vague, difficult to interpret, and not subject to cross verification, and the task becomes effectively insurmountable.
The result is that most knowledge of the efficacy of an herbal remedy is empirical and anecdotal. However it can be legitimately argued that the immensely greater historical experience with these remedies gives a certain amount of statistical validity to these 'non-studies' they would not otherwise merit.
In other words, since large numbers of people have been known to use a certain herb for a certain ailment for a very long period of time, it is statistically highly unlikely (approching 99%) that a given herb is completely worthless in its traditional application.
Or, to put it even more simply, the sh!t might work, but you won't really know until you try it. (Which could also be stated about lots of regulated pharmaceuticals, such as anti-spasmodics, anti-flatulents, and anti-pustulents.)
In the 1950s (I believe) the US government funded a study ($150,000) to examine the question of whether or not chicken soup was actually an effective curative for the common cold. This is not a joke, amusing as it sounds. The study came to the end of it's funding with three conclusions:
Yes, chicken soup does work as a remedy for the common cold.
We don't yet know why it works.
It will cost another $400,000 to find out why.
The US government declined to come up with the $400,000, so we still don't know why. But do some anecdotal research of your own and see how many people you know have had a positive experience eating chicken soup when they had a cold. My guess is you'll find the number of positive responses pretty high. You can start your statistical compilation by listing me as a positive response....
As someone who's been in the medical establishment for a long, long time I have to say this is just baloney. There are plenty of turf wars INSIDE the establishment but little or none the way you see it. Physicians would LOVE safer, cheaper, better, drugs for their patients. IF herbs were that ticket, we'd buy it. (Note the amount of St. John's wort used by M.D.s, when for a while, it seemed it might actually work.) There IS a lot of animosity towards 'alternate' health professions, as you say. BUT, it's because for the most part, they are BILKING --either knowingly, or unknowingly--people we're trying to help. If you give a patient almond extract for his cancer, not only will it do absolutely nothing to his cancer, it may well keep him from pursuing options that might.
I'm in on the fringes of the 'medical establishment' myself, as professional rescue technician trained in PHTLS. This puts me in touch both professionally and socially with practitioners at all levels, and I can only say there is a wide variety of opinions among my medical friends and colleagues as to whether or not the proposition I stated is 'just baloney.'
Some of my friends are simply rabid about anything that smacks of herbalism, naturopathy, chiropractic, etc. In effect, if it doesn't have M.D. after its name, it ain't worth hooey.
Others have a more open mind and are willing to accept an empiracally based 'science,' subject to the same reservations any reasonable man would have. These, not surprisingly, tend to be the younger practitioners, who've been exposed to the prevailing attitudes of the pharmaceutical industry for a shorter period of time.
My observations are that the latter type of doctor is much less likely to be the type of practitioner who will seek--or succeed in obtaining--a seat on the provincial medical board. So I maintain my position, but wish to emphasize that I'm talking about the medical establishment, not about individual practitioners.
In sum, I don't think it's a useful attitude to dismiss all that falls under the current rubric of naturopathy without some deeper investigation into the individual case at hand. A wise person recognizes how little he knows before he finds out....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
"In other words, since large numbers of people have been known to use a certain herb for a certain ailment for a very long period of time, it is statistically highly unlikely (approching 99%) that a given herb is completely worthless in its traditional application." -lots of people thought that snake oil was "good for what ails ya'" That argument is unscientific itself, milions of people also believed the world was flat eventhought the Greeks proved it wasn't B.C. Bear in mind it took a Polak (me being one) named Copernicous to prove to the Europeans of this fact!
Science is based on repeatable results from observation. Yes many herbal remedies may have a beneficial effect. But the comparison of engineered lumber versus sawn exposes this argument for what it is. Herbal remedies are analogous to building with saplings and tree limbs. It may work but the material has quite a few undesirable attributes. Sawing lumber removes undesirables and creates desirable characteristics, no bark, bugs or squirrels and tends to be straighter. Engineered lumber takes it a step further, attempting to eliminate or mitigate the effects of knots, wane and warpage.
Medicine follows a similar model. Aspirin is a compound in plants (i don't know which plant but I believe aspirin is an acid) where medical science has found that the raw plant can be refined, purified and then accurately measured and disbursed. A doctor tells you to take aspirin because he can predict it's effects with some accuracy and either avoid or compensate for side effects. Natural remedies may very well include beneficial compounds, but in unmeasurable amounts coupled with possibly undesirable compounds.
What is lacking to my thinking is a resistance by the pharamacological industry to investigate and experiment with why natural remedies are believed to work and possibly reveal why some do. There is also something to be said about the placebo effect and the power of the mind. Prayer has also been investigated but it seems that if the ill person simply "believes" he is being prayed for the results are similar to the placebo. Course I may have just opened a can of worms here and tried calling it spaghetti.
I've been gone for a few days, so this thread is new to me. i've read most of it and been both educated and entertained so far.Here's a little to add to the discuission that I don't think has been covered yet;There are multiple sources of lead exposure in modern life, in spite of all the consumer education going on. Ceramics and such like coffee cups from China and several other countries routinely have dangerous levels of lead. Every year, there is a list of toys that get recalled too late which conmtain lead that can expose children.The lady whose concerns started this thread might use makeup every morning. A very high percentage of those vanity products ( OK, some are to protect those of us who would otherwise have to suffer the view of some unadorned faces from the truth) have lead in their base ingredients. I wonder if her body lead levels are due as muich to lead in her solder and lead on her face? I wonder if she drinks her coffee from a certified lead-free coffee cup.It has been mentioned that some people because of body chemistry and diet are more susceptable to damage from the lead they intake. Regardless of the scientific nature or not of the practice of naturpathy, her practicioner shouold be guiding her on that item.But one question I have about that professional's findings is at what level he standardizes "recommended" lead levels to be at. I can't think of a reason to recommend any lead in one's body, so I supose that the OP may have chosen the wrong terminology there, but I also imagine that a naturopath might be guided by lower maximum levels than a medical doctor might.I also know from tests on my own body, that there is a way of testing blood for both short term and long term serum levels that is indicative of bone concentrations of lead in one's body. Not so with urine testing. I would venture to guess that a high urine level of lead shortly after ingesting lead from sanding is a good thing, inasmuch as it indicates that her body is working just right and getting rid of the stuff quite nicely.But overall, I think I would avoid a customer like this if she showed other signs or irrational thought. That could just maaybe proceed from too much lead in her makeup. Take that both ways.;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah, well, I like spaghetti, as it happens, LOL....
There is no doubt in my mind that the placebo effect and the issue of psychosomatic symptoms are very important elements in this question. Both for 'herbal' remedies and the commercial pharmacopœia. There have been reports in 'respected medical journals' (like The Lancet) stating that up to 80% of certain ailements have no discernable physiological cause in certain populations of patients. That thought ought to make anybody stop and think hard about the way we've been trained to regard health and wellness....
I hope the general point I'm really trying to make is clear (in spite of some of the dense textwork, heh, heh, heh). Which is that I feel it's unfortunate that herbalism, naturopathy, or whatever you want to call it, is being marginalized by people who haven't done their homework.
It sounds very well and good for the pharaceutical industry to pooh-pooh so-called naturopathic remedies because they aren't qualified under the same strict guidelines as their own products. But that same industry is unwilling to disprove the claims made based on the accumulated anecdotal evidence of centuries and millenia. It seems to me that since they've set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of what kinda pill is good for ya, they have a responsibility to back up any claim they make about the inefficacy of somebody else's pill or potion or poultice....
It's also unfortunate that many people put blind faith in naturopathy without doing their homework. This aspect of the situation enable frauds and 'snake-oil salesmen' to get away with their cash, and doesn't do the reputation of the alternative medecine fraternity any good whatsoever.
So the message I want to pass on to the world in general is this: do the homework before forming an opinion. There are good arguments on both sides of this question. Learn what they are before spouting off....
Just as an aside, using 'snake oil' as an example of how gullible people used to be in the bad old days is a bit superficial. The very fact the phrase 'snake-oil salesman' has passed into the common vernacular as a synonym for a fraud should indicate that it didn't take long for the populace to recognize snake oil itself as a worthless product. Other than for oiling holsters, saddles, and so forth. (And a lot of what was sold under the label 'snake oil' wasn't derived from snakes, either, of course....) The reign of snake oil as a popular remedy was very very short lived. As someone once observed, "You can fool some of the people some of the time...."
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
quite the discussion - from tearing down a garage to crazy customers/clients to docs/medicine to.....
showing my ignorance - what's PHTLS ?btw - RI was suing the paint manufacturers for producing lead paint and selling it after the toxic effects were "known" - only thing I noticed was the lawyers getting paid and nothing being done to reduce the actual lead paint problem and the cost to the property owners to "fix" it
PHTLS is Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support. It is quite a bit further down the medical road than simple first aid, but does not by itself go all the way to Ambulance Technician. They need to be qualified in PHTLS but also deal with more advance techniques we could not use in the environment in which our victims are found.
For instance, I might theoretically be able to intubate somebody with a compromised airway before evacuating them in a rescue sled...but starting an IV to deal with shock at -30 would be a waste of time in that it would (a) freeze almost immediately, and (b) require someone to ride the sled with the victim holding the bag up...which in itself would slow down the evacuation immensely.
The rule for us is Stabilize and Evacuate. Anything else is going to put the patient at more risk by delaying his hand-over to higher care levels.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
the label 'snake oil' wasn't derived from snakes, either, of course
I want to remembe that the triva answer is that "snake oil" was largely castor oil cut with alcohol flavored with aromatic bitters. If a person were lucky, the mix would be ethanol not methanol, and the difference was not glossed over with a dab of laudnum.
Made it a cure for many ills, and cause aof a few more . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
<It sounds very well and good for the pharaceutical industry to pooh-pooh so-called naturopathic remedies because they aren't qualified under the same strict guidelines as their own products. But that same industry is unwilling to disprove the claims made based on the accumulated anecdotal evidence of centuries and millenia. It seems to me that since they've set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of what kinda pill is good for ya, they have a responsibility to back up any claim they make about the inefficacy of somebody else's pill or potion or poultice....>It matters not whether the pharmaceutical industry pooh-poohs the herbal remedies. What counts is whether physicians believe the claims. To ask anyone BUT the herbal manufacturers to prove THEIR OWN claims would be like asking building inspectors to prove that drinking straws don't make excellent structural building material. <g>Thon
it ain't worth hooey.
Others have a more open mind and are willing to accept an empiracally based 'science,'
Yep. It can help if the medicos have some 'field' experience. If you're out in the woods & brambles "where a rabit woundn't go," the pressure point on the inside of the wrist will help reduce nausea when one does not have compazine. It can have fewer effects than compazine, too.
Does not make it better, nor worse. Should just be another hammer, like having a smooth face hammer to go with the waffle-face framer.
Hard to teach such things in the focused, academically rigorous, right answer is the test answer world of doctoring. Can be easy to teach too, no rhyme nor reason to it, just as with people.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
<We do not 'know' that framing a house either way will 'work'. >I'll stand by my analogy. You build the house, it stands, people live in it. It WORKS as intended.<The result is that most knowledge of the efficacy of an herbal remedy is empirical and anecdotal. However it can be legitimately argued that the immensely greater historical experience with these remedies gives a certain amount of statistical validity to these 'non-studies' they would not otherwise merit.>No, it doesn't. As the computer industry so eloquently puts it: Garbage in, garbage out.
And FWIW, a secondary definition of empiric is quack or charlatan. ;-)<In other words, since large numbers of people have been known to use a certain herb for a certain ailment for a very long period of time, it is statistically highly unlikely (approching 99%) that a given herb is completely worthless in its traditional application.>Again, this is false logic, and NOT statistics.<put it even more simply, the sh!t might work, but you won't really know until you try it. (Which could also be stated about lots of regulated pharmaceuticals, such as anti-spasmodics, anti-flatulents, and anti-pustulents.)>The point you may be missing, is that just 'trying' it WILL NOT prove, or disprove, that it works. To do that, you need a rigidly controlled, statistically valid study. I couldn't begin to tell you the number of times I've heard people say they had a 'cold', got antibiotics from their doc, and therefor got over their cold. We 'know' that about 90% of 'colds' are viral. We know antibiotics have no effect on viruses. It's clear to the medical community that these antibiotics have nothing to do with the resolution of the cold--but that's not what the patient thinks. The patient BELIEVES, incorrectly, that it worked. (I'm excluding those rare times when the patient truly does have a bacterial infection that the antibiotic helps.) I agree with you that there are MANY pharmaceuticals, such as those you mentioned, that have never been proven to work--and they probably never will be, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post. <So I maintain my position, but wish to emphasize that I'm talking about the medical establishment, not about individual practitioners.>We're using the same term in different ways. When I say medical establishment I'm referring to the entire medical community, i.e. all the physicians. You apparently are referring more to just the 'upper management', which doesn't really speak for those of us in the trenches.<In sum, I don't think it's a useful attitude to dismiss all that falls under the current rubric of naturopathy without some deeper investigation into the individual case at hand. >THERE'S the rub. You CAN'T investigate. The data isn't there!< A wise person recognizes how little he knows before he finds out....>AGREED! And that's what the medical establishment wants--to know more. And that's why medical science has advanced. I don't see that happening with most 'alternative' medicine.
<Also very derogatory remarks were made against naturopaths? Are they quacks? I am wondering what the posts here slamming her doctor are based on. >
I imagine they are being made because their entire 'profession' IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE!
OK Thon, If they don't base their practice on science, what is it based on? Are you contending that it's based on superstition, mythology, religion or what?
< Some states license them to practice medicine. >
I don't know whether this is true or not. My guess would be that they ARE liscenced--but that's quite different than being liscenced to practice 'medicine'. I didn't find a page quickly that listed the state allowing Naturopaths, but here's one from the Florida Legislature discussing possible licensing in Florida:
"According to a state report, 12 other states license naturopathic physicians, though the levels of care they can provide differ. Under the bill, the profession would be renamed from naturopathy to doctor of naturopathic medicine. A state board would oversee the profession, including new qualifications that naturopathic doctors graduate from a four-year postgraduate program. They would be allowed some prescription writing and surgery privileges, but how much is unclear."
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/14/State/Naturopath_licensing_.shtml That sure sounds like the practice of medicine to me.
<Are you contending that it's based on superstition, mythology, religion or what?>I didn't say what it was based on. (Does it matter?) What's important is that it is not based on science, and by that, I mean repeatable, large, independent studies that yield facts, on which you base your treatment. Some studies done now for 'real' medicines have THOUSANDS of patients. That costs a tremendous amount of money--with no guarantee of the results you 'want'. These studies are not being done on 'natural' herbs/products because (a) no one will pay for them (b) the desired results are not assured (c) studies aren't 'required' to dispense them and (d) why mess up a good thing? <g> Conventional medicine has changed a LOT in the past 30 years, as new studies have shown better ways to use old drugs, or better drugs to replace them. I would GUESS that naturopathy hasn't changed much, other than marketing, perhaps. <That sure sounds like the practice of medicine to me.>No, that sounds like a bill discussing possible liscencing. Remember 2 things: From government 101--most bills do NOT become law. And, no matter what your party affiliation, it should be clear there are plenty of whackos in government, some of them introducing whacky bills.Thon
What's important is that it is not based on science, and by that, I mean repeatable, large, independent studies that yield facts, on which you base your treatment. Some studies done now for 'real' medicines have THOUSANDS of patients. I presume you mean studies such as those done on Vioxx? I'm afraid the truth has leaked out. Much of what passes as medicine is geared only to extract as much money as possible, whether it helps the patients or hurts them. Naturally the self appointed medical experts resent alternative practitioners. All that money lost.
Is an aspirin 'real' medicine?
No, that sounds like a bill discussing possible liscencing. Remember 2 things: From government 101--most bills do NOT become law. And, no matter what your party affiliation, it should be clear there are plenty of whackos in government, some of them introducing whacky bills.
Do you know all of those individuals and attest that they are genuine whackos?What exactly was whacky about that bill?
Hi Kestrel and others,This is a very intriguing discussion! Sorry to get you off of the naturopathic-bashing thread that this has become but I just couldn't help posting to address some issues that people overlook when they discuss contaminants and "recommended" levels or "Criteria" or "standards' for exposure. A little while back I took a primer course on doing Tier 1 risk assessments in beautiful BC (canuckistan). I am a soil and groundwater consulting dude in the environmental industry and generally steer clear of risk assessment and anything dealing with bugs and bunnies. However, risk management is fast becoming the remediation method du jour for many sites and I figured I should have at least a passing familiarity with the science behind it. I gotta tell you, I was shocked when I learned about the models they used to judge exposure. They presented equation after equation filled with variables for uptake and habitat and diet and every little thing you could possible expect to effect how a contaminant might get into a receptor. They had equations with exponentials with 4 decimal places in them! But, I was flummoxed about how they could find values for many of the variables. How did they know that the amount of meal worms eaten by some bird somewhere,given a certain habitat, at a certain stage of life, raised to the power of something with four decimal places, actually represented the exposure of that little bird to that contaminant. I asked this question. The instructor waffled for awhile. Turns out they do what amounts to guessing. Interesting. "So what" you may say. Well, as you may know, they do an awful lot of testing on animals to stand in for us humans when they are trying to figure out what is a safe exposure limit. Now, apart from the problem I have with accepting that a Norwegian rat or a monkey has physiological systems that are supposed to be analogous to mine, the main problem I have is that they really don't have a high level of comfort that the equations actually model the uptake of the contaminant accurately for the animal. They guess about many of the variables used in the equations, they calibrate their models by testing on animals with what may or may not be analogous physiological systems to ours and then they adjust or scale the values they get using some other assumptions about how our physiological system compares to the test animal. Folks, they are doing an awful lot of guessing to come up with the "acceptable exposure limits" or "standards" or "Criteria!"Another thing that I really found disconcerting was the small number of studies that have been done to determine acceptable exposure limits. For some contaminants, the whole pooperoo is based on 1 study! Scary. This must explain why standards or criteria sometimes change by a factor of ten or more. Yesterday the standard for chemical x is 3000 ppm. Today, it is 300 ppm...sorry! They do one more study and the whole scientific structure upon which they are basing their exposure limits gets rocked. In fact, many of the most robust exposure limits come from accidental exposures to humans in industrial accidents or because of historically acceptable practices in various industries that resulted in a segment of the population being exposure to some chemical or other. Geez, these people were being exposed to 5000 ppm of chemical x every work day for 20 years and it seems that they didn't have any increased mortality compared to a comparable subset of the population. There we go: lets set the exposure limit at 2500 ppm, just to be safe! You may think: something must be done! Well, you know, our petrochemical industry is busy like beavers, creating wonderful new chemicals everyday. I remember hearing in one class or other that 1000 new chemicals are invented every day. Think that they are all tested for toxicity? Not bloody likely! It takes forever to do the epidemiological studies necessary to figure out (guess...!) what exposure limits should be. The chemical industry does their own kind of risk management analysis: How much will it cost us if we kill a few people with this stuff versus how much will it cost us to delay introduction and test it. The cheaper alternative is likely the way, same as the car companies do when they decide whether or not to re-engineer a potentially dangerous gas tank for example (remember the old mustangs and pintos!) or do a recall on a defect. As a result, there is lots of "fun" stuff out there that has physiological impacts that are unknown.So, where am I going with all this? For a carcinogenic substance, we evaluate how much exposure to a particular chemical will increase the likelihood that more people will get cancer. The normal level of acceptable risk is 1 in 100,000. If exposure to this chemical causes less than 1 additional person in 100,000 people to get cancer, were good. If not, then lower the exposure limits. But, you know what, we don't live in a bubble were we might only get exposed to chemical x. We are exposed to so many chemicals every day it is staggering! I used the example of a carcinogenic chemical but the same could be said for non-carcinogenic chemicals. Many many things can impair bodily function. Is lead gonna impact this lady's lifespan or health or viability in a way that can be differentiated from everything else that impacts her lifespan or health or viability? Maybe. But really, she (and we) should walk out into our garages and take a look at what is killing us. Those big a** vehicles are filling the air with chemicals! And maybe we should look down at our bellies protruding over our belts. We are eating ourselves to death! Then we should walk down to take a look at our medicine chests and the cleaning closet and the shelves in the garage and take stock of the common everyday stuff that we wash our hair with and brush our teeth with and clean our floors with and eliminate static cling with...a veritable toxic stew!!! We should then visit a feed lot and check out the syringes full of antibiotics and growth hormones they are pumping into that steak we had for dinner. Yumm! And while I am on this diatribe about what may be effecting our health, maybe we should do less of this typing and more locomoting on our own power: we need less physical relaxation and more physical activity!Now, am I implying that lead is not a nasty little metal: no siree! If she has kids that are munching on paint flecks or running their hands over window sills and eating with their hands then prudence would suggest that she patch up that paint so it doesn't flake and get a responsible contractor to get rid of the windows and replace them if they do indeed test positive for lead. But really, when you consider all of the nasty stuff that we are exposed to and you consider how shaky the science is upon which we base the estimate of what is safe and what isn't, even that suggestion smacks of the paranoia that runs rampant through our society. I mean, she is talking about demo-ing a garage for some lead paint based on a urine test that indicates elevated lead levels after a couple of days of sanding. Does she know what her lead levels were before sanding? No. Is a urine test the defacto standard for evaluating lead levels? No (we used blood lead levels when evaluating lead exposure from lead-based paint at federal facilities in a project I worked on...I think it is the gold standard for lead testing...we would not have done it if not I guess). Just rev up the paranoia, it looks good on ya with those blinders! Impairment of cognitive function is the major effect of lead exposure, I think. But, does it impair cognitive function more than watching TV and playing computer games all day, every day? More than a lack of interaction with parents and siblings in more meaningful ways than arguing about what to buy at the mall? More than second hand smoke? More than obesity? More than being a latchkey kid? More than nutritional deficiencies? Now, a whole different but related subject would be a discussion of our genetic predisposition to being affected by these chemicals and lifestyle choices. I don't even have close to the background necessary to discuss this adequately but, as an example of the wild card genetics plays when considering risks related to exposure, I am sure we all know a 95 year old 2 pack a day smoker! On a population basis the genetics can be accounted for statistically I guess but, in the case of this particular lady, who knows! What might be toxic for others may just get her engine running!In summary: we have a whole bunch of chemicals that we are exposed to everyday; we really don' t have a good idea of what the safe exposure limit is for these chemicals; we are also exposed to new and varied chemicals that we know virtually nothing about; we live lifestyles that probably damage our health and effect our viability to a very large but unknown degree; and we have only a very tenuous understanding of how our genetics react to these chemical exposures and lifestyle choices. Looking at the whole picture, we get an idea of how difficult it is to assess risk and identify sources of risk. However, what we do get is an appreciation for is how complicated the assessment is. And what we must conclude from this assessment is that looking at one chemical in isolation does not generally adequately capture the necessary variables that effect how long and how well we live. Too bad, eh? Too bad that the removal of lead from our environment could not be a universal panacea for what ails us, eh?That's it. I'll go back to lurking. I said my piece.
Good post. A couple of hours ago I started to write something very much along the lines of what you've got going here. (then I got sidetracked and didn't finish. when I came back, voila! your post)As you said, lead is not good for us. But where does it rank compared to all of the other "baddies" that we are exposed to every day -- cigarette smoke, exhaust, solvents / glues in many of the products we use daily, additives, preservatives, hormones, etc. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention, but we also just have to recognize that there is some risk involved in just getting up in the morning. In fact there is some risk involved in not getting up in the morning. I just find it funny sometimes what people choose to freak out about. I started this thread trying to get a clearer idea of just how much exposure to lead is too much. It seems that we all agree that no lead would be best. But that is probably not the reality, for many reasons. So the question becomes, where is the line? The line is apparently pretty fuzzy. What does this mean for me? It means that I will probably continue to work on old houses the way I used to -- contain the area, clean-up daily, wash my clothes and carry on. A couple of years back, I asked my doctor about risk and exposure to lead. He was totally unconcerned for all practical purposes. Apparently cases of lead poisoning, even among children, are almost statistically insignificant, at least around here (Seattle). Again, I don't mean to ignore a very real hazard, I'm just trying to keep it in perspective.
Great dissertation and information!I was with you up until you mentioned my belly, LOL
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Can't remember you posting previously. Welcome posting is fun and easy. No need to be shy. I think there are a lot of widely held misconceptions about what science is, how it works and how it relates to society and the surrounding world. I think people think science is about finding the Truth, with a capital 'T'. Perhaps in math Truth is possible. One question and one, and only one, correct answer. Largely it doesn't work that way. Science it more about provisional truth. Given that A,B,C are true then there is a 90% chance that X,Y and Z are true. Problem is A,B,C are seldom absolutely, unequivocally, true in character. Goes back to the old computer bromide: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Not to say that the results are garbage, worthless. It just means that the results are provisionally true not absolutely true. In other words: To the extent any particular set complies with the average, the old story of a family having 2.3 children, the results are applicable. An example are the statistics which show that children exposed long term to X parts per million of lead have IQs which are Y number of points lower. Just as we understand the 'Lake Woebegone effect, where all the children are above average, to be a false, if not unentertaining, concept we know that there are essentially no 'average' children. Minor variations in nutrition, behavior and metabolism tend to keep any from acting exactly as the models show. Which means causality is difficult of impossible to show directly. But uncertainty is not boundless. As far as we know no human has lived past 150 years. And a negative age, prior to conception seems meaningless. Approximations, especially well thought out and documented ones, are about as close to Truth as humanity has ever come.You seem concerned about inaccuracies in animal models but would you want to volunteer a couple of you children for toxicity testing? They will get sick and be dissected but it is a noble cause. Wouldn't want to set those lead standards so low as to interfere with anyones ability to make money. Unlikely your going to go along with volunteering your kids. But in fact setting environmental standards, or a lack of standards or enforcement, is essentially a giant experiment. Unfortunately few meaning full records are kept. Wouldn't want to get out hands dirty. Recently a study was proposed that some number of homes, which would be sprayed with pesticides anyway, be studied. The occupants would be studied for pesticide absorption, effects and outcomes. A great hue and cry was heard about experimentation on humans. Funding was removed and the study cancelled.So now these very same homes will get sprayed with pesticides, as most homes are, and the occupants will be exposed to these pesticides to some degree, as almost every American is. Difference is that no records will be kept. Damage will be done but we will never know how much.Two groups fought this study: The people presumably concerned with protecting people from the hazards of testing and the chemical industry. The motives of the first group are easy to understand even if they are misplaced. The motives of the second group are less clear unless you understand that the chemical companies have made a cottage industry of producing bogus science. Science intended, by design, not to reveal new information but rather to cast doubt upon well established science and models. To cast doubt upon science itself and to blur the lines. Motivated in a desire to avoid responsibility and regulation. Some of this methodology has its origins in the creationist movements. Which have substituted their ability to come up with plausible alternatives aimed at untrained individuals for actual science. Neither jurors nor most church goers have enough of a science background to understand the information, the interpretation of the information or how details in a studies design affect the outcome or the applicability of the results. As mentioned one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the popular conception of facts versus provisional data, truth versus Truth and anecdotal versus scientific and the place or validity of statistical evidence. It is far too easy for people to point to debates within a field of science and claim that because two experts don't agree with a finer point that neither knows anything. Which is about like saying that because two mechanics disagree about he ideal gap for a sparkplug in a particular engine that neither of them knows anything about cars. That the two mechanics agree on 90% of everything else get lost, like the baby with the bathwater. The idea people need to remember on such issues is that there are wide areas of agreement. Most everyone agrees that lead is toxic. At some level of absorption the symptoms become undeniable. People get sick and die. Knowing this the question becomes about how much lead can you tolerated without ill effect on one side and how much lead do we really need to use on the other. Given the ready availability of alternatives it becomes how much lead use can be justified. Imagine your pregnant wife needed a minor surgical procedure. The doctor tells you that he could use novocaine to deaden the area or he could give your wife a lead bullet to bite on for less money. Which do you go for? Why? If you didn't have the money for the novocaine you might suggest a substitute for the lead bullet. Why? What would you say if the surgeon said that he could use a smaller bullet but couldn't use any substitute for the lead? For your pregnant wife what would be an acceptable exposure? Sometimes, when alternatives are readily available, the big versus small bullet, large versus small lead exposure, is a false choice. As an aside would you do me the favor of inserting a few breaks in your post. Just hit enter once or twice every ten or so lines. Large blocks of text are hard to follow and start to look like grey walls.
You have done a excellent job pointing out the varied exposure to a multitude and wild mix of potentially harmful chemicals and products. The vast majority of this is totally out of the control of most of us. None the less, I don't think we should fault someone for trying to control the harmful things that they can control.
I'm not saying all old garages should be demolished, but if there is substantial exposure then surely we shouldn't object to the lady removing it.
Impairment of cognitive function is the major effect of lead exposure, I think. But, does it impair cognitive function more than watching TV and playing computer games all day, every day? More than a lack of interaction with parents and siblings in more meaningful ways than arguing about what to buy at the mall? More than second hand smoke? More than obesity? More than being a latchkey kid? More than nutritional deficiencies? Impairment of cognitive function is one of the first problems particularly for children. I would say yes heavy metals damage is far worse than computer games and TV. Most of the items you mention are reversible if the individual or his/her parents wish to. Brain damage isn't reversable. The extent of that damage is highly variable depending on exposure. High exposure brings a painful death.
Is a urine test the defacto standard for evaluating lead levels? No (we used blood lead levels when evaluating lead exposure from lead-based paint at federal facilities in a project I worked on...I think it is the gold standard for lead testing...we would not have done it if not I guess). Just rev up the paranoia, it looks good on ya with those blinders! I've heard of urine lead testing and think that the reasoning was that the urine test is on urine collected after a chelating agent is given causing stored lead to be removed from bone and organs and thus reflecting more acurately the total body load, while a blood test measures only the lead in the blood which is more a reflection of current exposure. Blood tests are easy to do. No chelating agent to administer or waiting for it to act.
The chelating agent, calcium EDTA is the same product that we used to chelate lead out of lead poisoned eagles. We did the monitoring with blood lead level tests. I'm no expert on this though.
The chelating agent, calcium EDTA is the same product that we used to chelate lead out of lead poisoned eagles. We did the monitoring with blood lead level tests. I'm no expert on this though.
Of course. Did you ever try to get a urine sample from an eagle? :-)
<I presume you mean studies such as those done on Vioxx? I'm afraid the truth has leaked out. Much of what passes as medicine is geared only to extract as much money as possible>We need to seperate out corporations with products to sell, from physicians treating patients. Two very different things. I prescribed quite a bit of Vioxx, based on the information available to me at the time. SOME patients thought it was a miracle drug. Prescribing it didn't make me any more, or less, money. That's not true of many alternative medicine practitioners who make a great deal of money on the products they 'prescribe'. <Much of what passes as medicine is geared only to extract as much money as possible, whether it helps the patients or hurts them. >If you've got ANY documentation for that 'much' I'd love to see it. There are plenty of money grubbing jerks in medicine--just like any other profession I can think of. We're still near the top of the list in public trust--and deservedly so, I believe. Thon
The thing about Vioxx points out the effect media influence has on perception versus reality.
When Vioxx was pulled off the shelves by the manufacturer, every doc I know--and every doc they know collectively--started stockpiling every Vioxx pill they could get their hands on.
The thing about Vioxx is that for short-term anti-inflamatory therapy (epicondilitis, bursitis, etc.), it is actually just as good as the claims about it say...but it becomes dangerous when used long term for chronic inflammatory diseases such a rheumatoid arthritis.
But the media never reported this. The manufacturer saw a serious risk of legal liability due to public perception (after all, juries are made up of members of the public) and yanked one of the few really good drugs of recent times.
Now, they're talking about bringing it back with extra-special warnings or something like that attached. We'll have to wait and see....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
part too of the Vioxx/Celebrex thing is that the problem is not so much CAUSING heart trouble, but in MASKING it so that treatment is not sought where symptoms are unrecognized.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
But the media never reported this.
Which is way too true. The increased heart problem risk is always quoted as being "twice the risk." The gotcha there is that the technical writing style for medical reports uses a style the reads in the fashion but is understood in its statistical background. So, if we say that the statistical risk of heart disease is 18%, and long term use of Vioxx doubles that risk, then the proportion rises to 36%. Ok, no doubt, that's a substantial increase in risk, and requiring of knowledgable action.
But, what gets reported in the media is that there's a 50% risk of heart disease with any use of Vioxx. Same thing happened with the brouhaha over HRT scrips. The 8 point something percent increase was rounded up to 10%, and not stated as a 10% increas in over all cancer risk, either. Instead the increase from 11% to 12% read as a 1 in 10 risk. Not the same thing at all.
Oh well.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
<Much of what passes as medicine is geared only to extract as much money as possible, whether it helps the patients or hurts them. > If you've got ANY documentation for that 'much' I'd love to see it. There are plenty of money grubbing jerks in medicine--just like any other profession I can think of. We're still near the top of the list in public trust--and deservedly so, I believe.
Documentation? But --- you just acknowledged it.
I don't know what documentation your looking for, but unnecessary surgeries are often reported.
Here's a personal example. Of the individuals I know who have had painful herniated discs, discectomy and spinal fusion was presented as the only treatment option in every case. That is a very expensive operation for a condition that isn't uncommon and for which pain can often be relieved with much cheaper chiropractic adjustments. Surgery also includes more risks and often leads to further spinal deterioration and further surgeries. So why do these doctors only offer surgery?
"One of our local companies, a fairly large multinational corporation, has the policy that no holes can be put into a painted surface without prior analysis of the content of the paint for lead. A nail can't be driven into a wall to hang a picture without a paint analysis. Overreacting and wasting money - maybe, but why should anyone else care?"Because it wastes YOUR MONEY.Think about it.
>>"One of our local companies, a fairly large multinational corporation,
. . .
but why should anyone else care?"
>>Because it wastes YOUR MONEY.
>>Think about it.
OK, I will.
Ahhh. Its a corporation. T'ain't anyone's money other than the corp's and its shareholders'.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Because it wastes YOUR MONEY.Think about it. Actually it probably saves money as people are discouraged from putting holes it the walls. Save dollars on repairs. Seriously, it amounts to peanuts, and at least they are thinking. Now if they could just stop blowing up refineries, we would save real money.
Because I'm in a bad mood and I felt like it.
OK, I'm cool with that. Makes more sense than most in this thread.
The thread has veered into an interesting and informative discussion of the facts of lead poisoning, which is even cooler.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Right, I just posted in that line. This did become interesting.
I wish I had the talent to write as well as you do,clear,concise and to the point. [I'm either ignorant or stupid] haven't figured it out yet. Back to the original post, I have a philosophical problem with taking advantage of someone that doesn't know what is happening, this is probably genetic. BTW I love your posts, most of the time right on the money! MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.
I wish I had the talent to write as well as you do,clear,concise and to the point. [I'm either ignorant or stupid]
Nuts to that; you are neither from what I can tell. Writing is just like any other skill, the more you do the better you become at it.
I can perform pretty much any job in the trades, from form work to concrete pours to trim work to door, window, and furniture building. And everything in between. But some I am better at than others. And soe I can't make a profit doing, so I sub it out...which means I gain less hands on experience in that particular job.
When I do mechanicals, for instance, I don't quiver and shake; but if I've got a doubt about an electrical issue, I'll defer to either my electrician or somebody here on BT like 4Lorn who has probably already forgotten more than I've yet learned. This doesn't make me ignorant or stupid; it makes me a student....
(Of course, 4Lorn can write as well or better than I can; he's a multi-talented dude....)
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
"I'd be running away with both feet." My favorite way to run, too.
Yep- if you're not dragging one foot or the other, you tend to run faster!
All: great discussion!
Kestrel: I do not dispute that lead is toxic. I do not dispute that lead can have physiological effects even at low levels. Again, in reference to the original post, what I dispute with you is whether or not the casual exposure a mature person living in a house with a garage with some lead paint warrants the destruction and removal of the garage. You see this as possibly a sign of prudent caution on the part of this particular client, whereas I see it as a strong sign of irrationality, or at least of an inability to analyze and compare risks and determine appropriate responses. Personally, this has registered with me as a signal of a potentially troublesome client. Irrational people are, by definition, impossible to reason with, which doesn't bode well if you intend on doing business with them! Hence my suggestion to run away!
Irrational people make poor clients, unless of course you're selling them something which feeds on their irrationality. Many homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, herbalists and practitioners of aboriginal "medicines" of various sorts actually fall into this category. I'm certain that each therapy has a few disorders which it treats better than so-called "western medicine" can manage, but I've also had family members who left treatable illnesses untreated because of the interference of quack pseudo-doctors. Anything which is of benefit in these "medicines" can be tested scientifically for its efficacy and incorporated into "western" medicine, such that the quackery and superstition can be removed from this process and the patients can be protected.
Rather than having money spent on destroying garages containing lead paint, testing walls for lead before driving nails in to them etc., I'd rather we focused on what preventable things were killing people and then allocated resources to deal with these in some relation to the number of lives we could save. Spending millions to dig up and haul soils contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) makes absolutely no sense while we permit cigarettes to be sold legally. The toxicants in both cases are identical, but the exposures are dramatically more limited in one case relative to the other. There are thousands of similar examples where irrationality and an inability to analyze problems properly to solve them have plagued us and rendered it impossible for actual solutions to be implemented.
This is an amazing thread. It started with a story about a Darwin-award candidate and has progressed into one of the most informative and least vitriolic--yet still lively!--discussions we've had here in a long time. Awesome. Kudos to all.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Kestrel: I do not dispute that lead is toxic. I do not dispute that lead can have physiological effects even at low levels. Again, in reference to the original post, what I dispute with you is whether or not the casual exposure a mature person living in a house with a garage with some lead paint warrants the destruction and removal of the garage. You see this as possibly a sign of prudent caution on the part of this particular client, whereas I see it as a strong sign of irrationality, or at least of an inability to analyze and compare risks and determine appropriate responses.
The only thing I know about the individual involved is what Brad posted.
He said: "Again, I am no lead expert, but the feeling of the situation I got from her was of someone not really understanding the risk and being freaked out just by the thought of lead."
Later he posted:"As many of you pointed out, and I agree, this is a client probably best to stay away from. I'm up to my eyeballs busy at the moment (and for the forseeable future) so I don't really want to take on a bunch of headaches. As Dinosaur said, I think this lady has a little trouble interpreting facts and is easily swayed by pseudo science. I would predict a lot of fretting and questions from her and as she is someone who is more apt to follow her feelings or her astrologist I don't have confidence that she would necessarily listen when the facts are presented. That kind of situation just makes life so much harder for me. I spoke with her again today and she did agree to call out a testing company as a first step. However, she did not take me up on my advice of getting a second opinion of her lead levels from a medical doctor. She is hooked on the naturopath and I think some people just need to have an "issue" to keep themselves going."
I just think that there should be a little more specific information about this person before she is diagnosed as a nut case. Likewise I have no way of knowing whether or not it would be prudent to remove this garage. That would depend on the facts, not our guessing, about an existing hazard. There are however an awful lot of perfectly good buildings destroyed every day to make room for something else. So why would destroying this one be any greater a sin?
I've also had family members who left treatable illnesses untreated because of the interference of quack pseudo-doctors. Anything which is of benefit in these "medicines" can be tested scientifically for its efficacy and incorporated into "western" medicine, such that the quackery and superstition can be removed from this process and the patients can be protected. I'm sorry about your family members, but I think we are a long way from the best interest of the patient always being the determining factor in treatment. All medical doctors do not always agree nor do they all get the diagnosis right. There is a lot of risk in all medicine.
Rather than having money spent on destroying garages containing lead paint, testing walls for lead before driving nails in to them etc., I'd rather we focused on what preventable things were killing people and then allocated resources to deal with these in some relation to the number of lives we could save. This is still a free society, and most of us can spend our money (after taxes) anyway we want. I don't think you want someone else allocating all of your resources the way they want, do you?
Spending millions to dig up and haul soils contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) makes absolutely no sense while we permit cigarettes to be sold legally. I don't know about your example, but I do know that in the case I cited, the situation was studied to death for years, with comparison with control groups. Children living in the area had seriously elevated levels of lead and cadmium. Since the soil was the source of their contamination, it was replaced with new topsoil. The replacement was done many years after the problem became known so it was not something rushed in to.
There is a big difference between involuntary exposure and cigarette smoking. Just because an adult smokes, I don't think we should be willing to cause encephalopathy, lowered IQ, stunted growth, anemia, hypertension and myriad other problems in children. Cigarettes and the tobacco companies is a whole other can of worms.
here is a little update on the original situation, just for those who may be curious.I spoke again this weekend with the homeowner. She had a lead testing company come out on Friday but the results will not be back until next week. Apparently the tech who came out to do the testing also recommeded a blood test as a second opinion. She seems more inclined now. Also, as the cost of a new garage began to sink in, she has begun to shy away from that option and look at others. On the nutcase front, after reading Kestrel's post, I realize that I came across maybe a little strong. I did not meant to imply that this lady is a raving lunatic so maybe "nut case" is a bit harsh. She is definitely not wandering the streets mumbling to herself. ;) What I wanted to convey is that she doesn't seem to necessarily make her decisions based on fact. She has strong tendancy to make them based on feeing and emotion and she freely admits this herself. Many people are like that and often making decisions based on emotion is the right thing to do. I just think this case needs some more facts (objective testing) before a decision is made.Otherwise, I am also impressed by this thread and the amount of info I got from it. Keep it coming.Brad
Brad,
Testing for lead in a person is a blood test. This lady apparently has a fear (not completely unfounded) of the traditional medical system, but she needs to know that she cannot have a truly accurate test of lead in her system without facing a needle.
I think your advice to her was good - hopefully when she calms down a little she will process and understand it. If you talk to her again, you might impress upon her that the house is likely to have the same problems as the garage, and simply opening and closing windows and doors could be exposing her. A better solution than tearing down the house and garage can be found, but before doing either of those she should follow your advice and have both structures tested for lead. Tearing down the garage is going to make a whole lot more dust than the sanding did.
If she has web access, then she can look at some lead abatement information on the epa web site.
Explain to her that tearing things down and rebuilding is expensive, and likely to release lead. Perhaps the cost effective way for her to get away from lead is to sell the old house and buy a post-1978 (or was it 1987?) house that's already lead free.
People who are somewhat unhooked from reality are a pain to work for. I'd pass on this job.
-- J.S.
The environmental safety folks I talk to say the most common source of lead poisoning in older homes is from the lead dust which results from friction around the old wood sash, and that if you keep the windows well dusted there is rarely any health hazard.
I have never seen any studies on the length and severity of exposure required to lead to elevated levels; I suspect they've been done, but I bet they're hidden in the medical literature and indecipherable.
And encapsulation is usually the recommended remediation approach.
As some have noted, there is some potential risk in advising anyone re such environmental hazards or offering remediation.
FWIW, the best remediation company I know of will not actually formulate remediation plans and solutions - they require that the plan be developed by an industrial hygienist or other specialist which they then implement.
Yep, most likely the naturopath needs to make an MBP.
The home is contaminated and killing her. You should build a shell building around it with complete air filtration. Demo the house piece by piece with a prybar and water mister, double bag each piece and dispose properly by shipping the debris to Yucca mountain. Then build the new home with concrete that is coated with epoxy. Make sure that the HVAC system has an NBC rated activated carbon filter (that's Nuclear-Biological-Chemical, not the TV station). Tint the windows to 75% opacity. Make sure that her witchdoctor blesses and purifies each building component. Then demo the shell and pave the property. Direct her to the nearest Church of Scientology and bill her T&M.
Target Housing ( homes constructed prior to 1978) must be assumed to contain lead based paint, unless proven otherwise. (i.e. a renovation conducted post 1978,a comprehensive lead paint inspection, a lead determination on proposed work area components,etc...) This is explained by the EPA's informational pamphlet that we as contractors are mandated to provide for tenants/owners prior to starting renovation activities.
If the homeowner sanded lead based paint for a few days without respiratory or personal protective equipment, she most certainly would have inhaled and ingested lead. The mechanical removal of paint without local exaust ventilation will pulverise the lead particulate so that it is easier for the body to inhale or ingest. A blood test is the best indicator of the body burden.
exposure can also be acute, not always chronic (cumulative)three days can be considered acute exposure.I once used a disc grinder to remove paint from a barn and my lead in blood increased to 39ug/dl. (micrograms per deciliter)(in two days)
I think the best piece of advice so far is to get a reputable (licensed) testing company to determine the quantity of lead in the paint. This would be a good starting point.Make sure the inspector uses an XRF gun. Preferably a newer gun.HUD considers an XRF reading of 1.0mg/cm2 or higher unsafe.
If the paint contains lead, and the homeowner has valid concerns, you are providing her a service by addressing her lead paint concerns. Does she have children under the age of six? Removing a garage because it contains lead paint sounds excessive. There are ways to lessen the hazard without removal of the structure.stabilization, covering, removal of siding only, a combination of methods.
With lead as a concern, containment and cleanup are added to the scope. This obvioulsy increases the job timeline, however, with the OSHA regs in mind, training,compliance,engineering controls, work practice controls,exposure monitoring, written programs, compliance plan,etc... need to be complied with. This is a niche market that can be lucrative if your reputation precedes you.
Just to be pedantic <G> :<A blood test is the best indicator of the body burden.>Not really. It's cheaper and easier, but because about 90% of the total body lead burden is in the bones, bone biopsy or xray tests are the 'best' indicators.<The acceptable levels of lead exposure are blindingly low. I suspect that there is no really acceptable level. Lead is toxic. Always and every time.>I don't know about blindingly low. My texts say current average whole body content is about 200 TIMES what is was in the pre-industrial era. Most of society accepts that as a consequence of modern living. Maybe it's ok, maybe we'll figure out--20-30 years from now--that it really wasn't. Lead IS toxic, but as in your rust example, and alcohol ingestion, it MAY be that tiny amounts have no PRACTICAL significance.Thon
(After 20 years, still waiting to see my first patient with lead poisoning.)
Garage aside, you might want to ask your (potiential) client if she's got copper plumbing. If so, and the house is 1978 or older vintage, the odds are excellent she's got lead based solder joints.
A check of the lead levels in her drinking water supply might prove to be interesting.
Regards,
The acceptable levels of lead exposure are blindingly low. I suspect that there is no really acceptable level. Lead is toxic. Always and every time.
That said I also suspect that most people are exposed to small but measurable amounts of lead with little negative effect. To vulnerable people the very young, prenatal and old the amounts that do little harm are likely a lot lower. The developmental effects of small doses a growing brain are both, as I read it, permanent and subtle. This is like the question of 'how much rust is acceptable on your tools?. Are you willing to spend a lot of time and money preventing a tiny amount of rust. So small an amount it doesn't effect the function of the tools? So small you have to spend hours to find it?
I don't understand why your fighting the situation. I would simply ask her what she wants and then work hard to get her what she wants. If she wants, for whatever reason, her existing garage to be toted off and a new one built, and she has the money to finance the job and a willingness sign a contractor committing herself to the job, I would move in that direction.
If she wants the entire site tented while you work in a bunny suit to dismantle the existing garage and scrape down and dispose of the topsoil I would work it for her. If she wants the EPA brought in and the site registered as a Superfund site I would do that too. And bill it all accordingly.
The acceptable levels of lead exposure are blindingly low. I suspect that there is no really acceptable level
I remember the various magazines railing on the topic just before the bans on lead in paint & gasoline went into effect. I'd be willing to guess that the levels first set would trigger a HazMat event today (not that I suspect that regulatory agencies always decrease acceptable levels just before budgets are voted upon, or anything like that, of course <bitter, cynical, satire; honest>)
I want to remember that the warning symptoms for adults are a blue or purple band just aboe the nail bed on finger & toes, and just at the tooth-gum line. But, I'm remembering a long way back in field first aid--most of my recent medical training on human lead poisoning has had to do with repair of tissue and controlling blood loss.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
On one level standards are way too tight. Simply put the simplest observable level of contamination would be people falling over dead. At this level of control lead is safe. Not a whole lot of people keeling over dead.On the other end development over the last fifty years have allowed scientists to detect lead at parts per Billion levels. And the experimental side have followed along showing that very low concentrations of lead can be shown to have detrimental effects on susceptible individuals. The important point being the term 'Susceptible individuals'. Normal, healthy adults can clear some amount of ingested lead with little consequence. As I understand it from reading on the subjects the age, developmental stage, other stresses and toxic burdens all play a part in determining the effects of any amount of exposure. Nutritional support also plays a part. A fetus, or young child is particularly sensitive to lead because their neurological systems are growing. Something that lead interferes with. Some studies seem to show, as I understand it, that people with high intakes of calcium and magnesium enjoy benefits against lead intake. They both clear any lead intake more rapidly from their bodies and any lead within their bodies has less toxic effect both long term and short.The converse being also true. People who are chronically short of calcium and magnesium take longer to clear any lead intake and the lead, while it remains in their bodies, has a greater toxic effect.I really think that a two-part approach is the best way. We, as a nation need to limit exposure. Particularly to the most vulnerable. Pregnant mothers and the fetus and young children. At the same time it, IMHO, would be beneficial to promote better nutrition. Particularly intake of calcium and magnesium. Fortification of breads and cereals seems a reasonable approach.Working together the two parts would allow some minimal lead exposure, as seems necessary for modern life. Limiting exposure is the ideal. Where practicable substitutes for lead should be employed. The banning of lead outright is not necessary. As long as there are some effective means available to keep exposures below the ability of the people to clear and detoxify this level. The fortification of the diet with calcium and magnesium, and possibly zinc, provides some protection against the small amount of lead that remains in the environment.In terms of this particular case, the lady asking that her garage be dismantled and a new one built, I think that Builders have to remember we are a service profession. I have no desire for, nor any capability in, determining the psychological wellbeing of the people I work for. If I excluded all the people I thought were nuts the jobs would be fewer and farther between. I'm not sure I would qualify to do a job for myself.As I see it mine is a simpler job. They want something. I provide it. Their ability to commit to a course of action and pay being more of a concern than their mental status.
> Some studies seem to show, as I understand it, that people with high intakes of calcium and magnesium enjoy benefits against lead intake.
That makes sense. There are places in molecules where metals go, and lead won't be able to take those places if other metals get there first.
> The banning of lead outright is not necessary.
And yet it's happening as we speak. Sony has already agreed to remove all lead from their products.
-- J.S.
Re:"Sony has already agreed to remove all lead from their products."I would think, in part because Sony, a company that isn't likely to do anything that would cost it too much, isn't being forced at the end of gun to do it, that this would fall into the category of removing as much lead from the environment as practicable. A good thing.IMHO there are precious few applications that presently use lead that could not remain practical if another material or formulation were substituted.A good case is the controversy relating to the use of lead in birdshot. I know a guy who was part of the original studies of lead ingestion in waterfowl. He has photos of deathly sick birds poisoned by lead and had the data to show that it was not a isolated case. In some cases the corpses of the waterfowls for entire local populations would be considered toxic waste because of the lead. Sometimes the murcury and pesticides also.Hunters like lead shot. It is easy on gun barrels even in poorly designed shells and it carries farther. To hear the hunters side you would think without lead they couldn't hunt at all. And yet in those areas where lead shot has been outlawed the hunters have no problem shooting their limit if the birds are present at all. And with a proper shot cup the steel shot doesn't damage the guns. More recently alternative shot materials have been made available. Tungsten and bismuth I think. And the hunters still get their limit of geese and ducks. And gradually the lead levels in the birds is going down.Much the same way when lead was removed from gasoline. A whole lot of hue and cry came out about how it would ruin all the engines and the end of the world would come. Valves and valve seats got hardened. Gas was reformulated and the world continued to placidly spin on its axis.
I recently read that Nascar still uses leaded gasoline because their engines run better on it. The G made an exception for them when it banned leaded gasoline. No wonder all those people in the infield are so crazy.
Hmmm. I always thought they ran on alcohol and nitro.I guess the lead in the fuel might account for the general estimated IQ of those who frequent such activities. So maybe it isn't their fault. A new diagnosis: 'lead induced NASCARism'I never understood the attraction of watching other people going around a circle. No matter how they do it. I fall asleep trying to watch it. Boring, boring, boring. Not that I think it should be outlawed. Just wish people would outgrow it.
Not that I think it should be outlawed. Just wish people would outgrow it.
Good that you feel that way. I find dressage & show jumping equally tedious, but, I'm not keen to see those activities outlawed.
Been some editorial jawing about outlawing th barbaric practice of football, too. This is hilarious to hear in Texas. Has a probability abotu the same as banning basketball in Indiana.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
No wonder all those people in the infield are so crazy.
That might have a lot more to do with a three-day diet of nothing but beer, food cooked in lighter fluid, and low-level heat exhaustion, with a bit of sleep deprivation tossed in for good measure. In a high-noise environment (louder when the cars go around, too <G>).
Some effects from being around all the RV exhausts, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yea, your probably right. I went to one race. With all the male, overweight, beer drinking, chiilly cheese dog eating fans there, their arteries are probably going to solidify long before the lead gets them.
And those mullet hair cuts. That can't be healthy.
>>Critics assail NASCAR for fuel choice
By Joan Lowy
Scripps Howard News Service — March 7, 2005NASCAR is under fire from environmentalists for using leaded gasoline more than six years after the Environmental Protection Agency asked the stock car racing industry to switch to unleaded."By permitting the continued use of lead, your organization may be putting millions of spectators and nearby residents at unnecessary risk of suffering serious health effects," the environmental group Clean Air Watch said in a recent letter to NASCAR Chairman Brian France. http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2005/0307/2007359.html
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
permitting the continued use of lead, your organization may be putting millions of spectators and nearby residents at unnecessary risk of suffering serious health effects
From highly tuned engines getting maximum power--not winter-beater heaps scraping by from one season to the next . . . hmm.
Three days of RV exhaust, cheap lite beer, sunburn & heat exhaustion, while noshing on fatty foods, sounds like a higher risk than a bit of leaded 110 octane . . .
But that may just be me.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
And with a proper shot cup the steel shot doesn't damage the guns.
No, the trick with steel shot is being able to damage the birds. The F&G/P&W folks I know say they've gotten used to finding more wounded and damaged birds since the outlawing of lead on migratory species, and without a noticible decrease in lead content measured (which is still suggesting that the sampling procedure needs to be re-examined*).
The "gotcha" on alternate shot, like tungsten & bismuth is the cost. Bismuth is about 3x the price. It does have that solid, satisfying, kick of lead shot, though. (Never liked the way steel shot, or hit.)
One good thing about steel shot, as twice the size, it's a lot harder to miss one before roasting the bird. Right uncomfortable to find one in a bite of bird, though.
*There was a study of skeet/trap fields, where there could be expected to find rather uniforms amounts of lead from shot, and in predictable zones, too. Only problem was that the tests failed to find the same lead concentrations as those found in the "endangered" watersheds.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Just use spent uranium, tungsten (oops, you mentioned tungsten, and I thought I was being oh so clever!), mercury, or my fave, gold, as shot in your shotgun. They all have a nice, satisfying kick, don't damge your teeth too much when you bite into them! Not sure about the toxiicity of spent uranium. ;-) [I'm just joshin' ya!]
Lead never hurt me none, except the drool stains the front of my shirt.
Edited 8/27/2005 8:10 pm ET by Danno
Lead never hurt me none
LoL!
Hadn't hurt me much either; unlike an uncle who bit into some goose and dislodged a crown on Thanksgiving, and had to suffer w/o dentistry unitl Monday afterwards . . .
Memories of roast quail and 'finger bowls' for birdshot . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
My dad said Grandpa used to bite into shot and hurt his teeth too--must be a generational thing. I mentioned to Grandpa once that I was worried about eating an apple and finding a worm in it and he said, "When I eat an apple, the worms watch out for me!"
I used to work in a refinery and once washed the dye (reg. was dyed bronze and prem. was dyed rose) off my hands with the stream soming out of the lead house before I realized how stupid that was! But, hey, I show up good on x-rays!
What's worse than finding a worm in an apple?I've had plenty of shot between my teeth tooBut that's not the answer...The thing worse than finding a worm in an apple -
is finding half a worm in your apple
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
used to bite into shot and hurt his teeth too
The trick is to remember there might be shot, and not chomp quite so hard <g>. And no mixing the green beans with slivered almonds in, too . . .
must be a generational thing
Don't know, we might find folks here online who still have to watch for shot in supper . . .
Slightly "generational" for me, in that I have an entire family tree branch that sits down to Thanksgiving dinner and the only thing store-bought on the table is the cranberry sauce. Venison roast, a whole goose, a wild turkey and/or a pheasant--depending on how the seasons locked up with Thanksgiving. The whole creaking table thing with ain't-nobody-getting-up-till-they've-had-seconds . . .
I remember some 'city folk' coming through the kitchen and being slightly horrified at the not-from-the-grocery-store look of things early on. That's twenty years back, now; probably easier nowadays. I know too many people I can turn near-vegan by just telling them where their food really comes from . . .
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
> would think, in part because Sony, a company that isn't likely to do anything that would cost it too much, ....
Actually, it's worse than that. What has the engineers ticked off is that the new lead free solder Sony's using melts at higher temps than the old stuff, making it impossible to repair some fairly expensive boards. Sony makes more money this way.
BTW, have a look at the Ground Wire Gauge thread over in the Energy folder. We need our resident authority to settle the issue there.
-- J.S.
>>I want to remember that the warning symptoms for adults are a blue or purple band just aboe the nail bed on finger & toes, and just at the tooth-gum line. But, I'm remembering a long way back in field first aid--most of my recent medical training on human lead poisoning has had to do with repair of tissue and controlling blood loss.I don't know about lead, but I know that the physical color symptoms for CO poisoning are very misleading.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Take her pencils away.
(I know, I know, they are graphite)
The Breaktimer formerly known as "Steve-O"
"Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary, use words." - St. Francis of Assisi
What about just replacing the siding on the garage, without getting into the stripping of the paint?
Also, regarding the comparison of lead and asbestos - I think it is a mistake to make that comparison. Asbestos is a carginogen, which means that just ONE fiber can cause cancer, if it is the magic ONE. Lead is toxic, so higher quantities cause greater damage.
mistake to make that comparison. Asbestos is a carginogen, which means that just ONE fiber can cause cancer, if it is the magic ONE. Lead is toxic, so higher quantities cause greater damage.
Actually, no, asbestos is a toxin, as are most minerals. It's a suspected carcinogen, in that there are a number of cases where exposure of high levels of certain kinds of asbestos correlate to persons later developing cancer.
Just like lead, there are minumum and maximum levels of exposure for asbestos. 4LONR outlined some of the axes you have to know. A healthy, adult, person, with the right nutrition, has a different minimum dose over time ratio than some one who is nat all of those things. The time exposure is also critical, too.
Lead foil has been in use for centuries to wrap corked wine bottles. Yet, winery workers have not shown a marked increase in death from lead toxicity. But, California outlawed lead foil to protect the winery workers--that's why the bottles all now have that annoying glued on plastic disk instead. So, that has to be healthier, soem adhesive on the porous cork and refined petrochemical plastic disks . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Re: "Yet, winery workers have not shown a marked increase in death from lead toxicity. But, California outlawed lead foil to protect the winery workers--"...I would think "death from lead toxicity" would be a pretty low standard to meet. Seeing as that the damage to neurological functions and tissue toxicity is present long before, in both level and duration, the worker is ready for planting.Another advantage to outlawing lead foil is removing it from the waste stream. The stuff we are randomly stockpiling underground or incinerating has a nasty habit of coming back to us in the water we drink and contaminated ground.By discontinuing lead foil on wine bottles it also means less lead needs mining, refining, shipping and manipulating. Every step along the way being a potential source of contamination and toxicity. As I understand it many early wine bottles were sealed with wax. A much more environmentally benign method. Particularly seeing as the early waxes were harvested from bee hives and plants. No petroleum or synthetic materials needed. Not that I think the small bit of foil around a wine bottle are a huge threat to humanity. What I advocate is that we need to start looking critically at everything we use with less of an eye toward convenience and short term profits and more of an eye toward long term sustainability and the total life-cycle costs, from harvest to disposal and to the society as a whole, of the product.Of course this interferes with the capitalistic model where profits are privatized and the costs and liabilities are socialized.
Not that I think the small bit of foil around a wine bottle are a huge threat to humanity
Probably right up there with all of the lead flashing in use.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
>What I advocate is that we need to start looking critically at everything we use with less of an eye toward convenience and short term profits and more of an eye toward long term sustainability and the total life-cycle costs, from harvest to disposal and to the society as a whole, of the product.
Of course this interferes with the capitalistic model where profits are privatized and the costs and liabilities are socialized.
Amen, brother. The last part really focuses the problem.
eric
I'm pretty sure asbestos has been shown to cause cancer based on laboratory studies, which is the general benchmark. If there isn't substaintial documentation that it does cause cancer, I doubt that the settlement with the shipyard workers would have happened. I agree that the lead hazard is a bit over done because people do not work out where the real hazards are.
I doubt that the settlement with the shipyard workers would have happened
Ah, but that was over asbestosis, a condition nearly identical to "black lung." Where mineral deposits lodge in the aveoli, the tiny, fine chambers of the lungs where transpiration takes place. The lung tissue encapsulates the irritant, but loses that area as an effective bit of lung tissue. Asbestosis occurs where the long, Type B, fibers are present--which used to be mines and shipyards.
I want to remember seeing a blurb not terribly long ago where the "asbestos lawyers" were after Jones-Manville for "second hand" asbestos-caused cancer in spouses, and that J-M, in lawsuit fatigue might settle rather than litigate. Oh well, no simple answers.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"I'm pretty sure asbestos has been shown to cause cancer based on laboratory studies, which is the general benchmark."
I'd like to see that one.
Just checked the EPA site ... not much has changed since I last looked into this.
so far as I've been able to find out .... asbestos is mearly an irritant. Once in the body ... most studies focus on the lungs ... the body tried to fight it and ends up losing the battle. But ... so far as I can figure ... asbestos "causes" ... nothing.
it's not like the general accepted concepting that there's "cancer inside" asbestos ... and once inside the body it's released ...
simply a foreign object the body can't break down.
and .... again scanning thru the EPA and GOV sites ... I still haven't found one confirmed case where asbestos was the one and only "cause" of cancer.
Take a close read ... you'll see lotsa info that states cigarette smoking was present in most of the cancer cases.
Had a professor in college get me interrested in this ...
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
take a google spin for "mesothelioma"
This lady should also check for levels of di-hydrogen monoxide (DHMO) as I'm sure she is repeatedly exposed to this chemical in her home. Many times a day, I would bet. AND I bet her Dr. uses it daily as part of a disinfection routine in a germ-infested office.
Check out the website http://www.dhmo.org/ to see the dangers of DHMO.
I can honestly say that all the information there is factual.
Let me know what you think.
Pete Duffy, Handyman