I particularly like the comments to that article stating that only "liberals" believe the water supply is heaving with lead. The ridiculous political bun-fight infects everything, it seems. It's a mental disease.
When the topic of lead comes up on HN you often get comments arguing that it isn't really as toxic as claimed.
That's shocking and tragically sad.
There's a very disturbing correlative graph between the banning of anti-knock lead additives from gasoline and the drop in violent crime rates in the United States. Correlation does not imply causation, but in this case it points feverishly at causation while wiggling its eyebrows and nodding its head suggestively.
But being able to argue it isn't toxic enough to necessitate a change in behavior is what makes a politician's career. Everything is toxic in the right quantity. ;)
Thanks for providing an example of the political toxicity the OP was talking about.
Also I make no apologies for calling out organisations that literally lobbied to kill people.
I try not to swear in these things, but fuck me. What a ridiculous statement. What a total piece of mental masturbation.
Pointing out insanity is not insanity.
Can you point me to anything from Cato Institute that questions in any way the toxicity of lead? Your phrase "toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument" and you associate this with libertarianism. Please support or retract this claim.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amo...
> However, research findings that remain controversial except in federal agencies suggest that very low lead levels can decrease children’s IQs. The FDA therefore estimates that 10 percent of all children aged 3 to 6 have “elevated” lead levels (even though exposure has dropped to a 50-year low).
> In other words, anything above zero exposure is assumed to cause measurable lifetime damage, despite the lack of evidence.
And, admit it -- you didn't look that hard. In fact, your research was so weak, that you failed to point out additional Cato-published opinions re:lead -- literally in the top google search results for the appropriate terms. Failing to do research when being critical is not anyone else's problem but your own.
If you want to apply your skepticism correctly, the point is to test your own beliefs, not ask everyone else to test theirs. Not just reading from the sources that make you comfortable or attacking easy marks, but reading sources you disagree with, with a generous attitude and thinking about the hard questions related to those.
A lot of the time, you'll find you are correct! And then when someone says something you know is incorrect, you'll actually have something to say, rather than asking them to say it for you. Otherwise, one should not be happy with following a fixed ideology, and you should be happy when people point out flaws -- as no one is happy with a clock that is correct only half the time.
In this case it's a poor area, and IIRC children of welfare recipients are required to have certain tests every year or two. So at some point all they had to do was look at existing data to see the lead levels in the kids went up dramatically after the change. Easiest study ever.
Flint is the 10th most liberal city in America by election results, according to https://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/metro/081205libs.pdf.
Lots of union members self-identify as conservative, and have policy preferences consistent with that on most issues other than labor issues; in many cases they are Democrats, but not progressives.
* And unfortunately NAFTA ( signed by Clinton )
Thank god Obama saved the automobile industry in 2009