Comments on: The Ethyl-Poisoned Earth http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth A collection of Damn Interesting things Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:03:29 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Mirage_GSM http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-24204 Mirage_GSM Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:20:18 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-24204 [quote]A study ... reported a "very strong association" between the exposure of young children to lead, and crime rates twenty years later when they became young adults. ... The sharp decline in US crime rates which began in the early 1990s dovetails perfectly with the reduction of leaded gasoline in the early 1970s; and other countries which followed suit saw similar declines, also delayed by twenty years. [/quote] Hey, the thirties also saw the beginning of WWII and the subsequent Cold War lasted until the beginning of the nineties. Clearly the lead has to be responsible! (Incidentally: http://xkcd.com/552/ ) Regarding the later flame war, I found Sid's postings to be objective and to the point if a bit nit-picky, while Anthropositor seemed to develop a fair bit of paranoia early on and later resorted to mud-flinging instead of argument. [quote]A study … reported a “very strong association” between the exposure of young children to lead, and crime rates twenty years later when they became young adults. … The sharp decline in US crime rates which began in the early 1990s dovetails perfectly with the reduction of leaded gasoline in the early 1970s; and other countries which followed suit saw similar declines, also delayed by twenty years. [/quote]
Hey, the thirties also saw the beginning of WWII and the subsequent Cold War lasted until the beginning of the nineties. Clearly the lead has to be responsible!
(Incidentally: http://xkcd.com/552/ )
Regarding the later flame war, I found Sid’s postings to be objective and to the point if a bit nit-picky, while Anthropositor seemed to develop a fair bit of paranoia early on and later resorted to mud-flinging instead of argument.

]]> By: ronaldcollins http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-22161 ronaldcollins Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:47:43 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-22161 hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look. hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it’s a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

]]> By: johnandrews52 http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-22147 johnandrews52 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:26:52 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-22147 Can we run our car with water and gas? Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam? Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

]]> By: sid http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21105 sid Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:38 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21105 [quote]Anthropositor said: "Post #111 had as its' stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. [/quote] I never said the story had "nothing about paint chips." What I have said, at varying points of this discussion, is: "It had nothing to do with the issue of kids eating lead-based paint." "And while it may very well be true that lead paint is the real threat, and, more specifically, lead paint that has not made it to the soil to be "sludged," nothing in the article even remotely implied the goal of the "study" was to solve the problem of kids eating lead paint chips." "Neither the "study" nor the article had anything to do with protections from ingesting lead-based paint chips." [quote]My statement in #111 is pretty clear: "The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me." [/quote] Again, let's stick with #107. However, your statement about deleting the rest of the AP article is, again, in error. Yes, you deleted most of it. But in #111, you included one sentence that made a reference to lead-based paint chips, which I presume you hoped would support your position, then deleted the sentence that immediately followed, which brought the crux of the article back into focus. Again, the article was about a "study" seeking "solutions" to kids ingesting lead-contaminated soil. It was not about "solutions" to kids ingesting lead-based paint chips, which was the focus of your attempt at satire. [quote]So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another."[/quote] You seem to have a fascination with sex. Good for you, but it probably doesn't help your cause much when you try to interject it into these kinds of dialogues. You may want to consider another tactic at trying to insult your way to victory. [quote]Anthropositor said: “Post #111 had as its’ stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. [/quote]

I never said the story had “nothing about paint chips.” What I have said, at varying points of this discussion, is:

“It had nothing to do with the issue of kids eating lead-based paint.”

“And while it may very well be true that lead paint is the real threat, and, more specifically, lead paint that has not made it to the soil to be “sludged,” nothing in the article even remotely implied the goal of the “study” was to solve the problem of kids eating lead paint chips.”

“Neither the “study” nor the article had anything to do with protections from ingesting lead-based paint chips.”

[quote]My statement in #111 is pretty clear:

“The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me.” [/quote]

Again, let’s stick with #107. However, your statement about deleting the rest of the AP article is, again, in error. Yes, you deleted most of it. But in #111, you included one sentence that made a reference to lead-based paint chips, which I presume you hoped would support your position, then deleted the sentence that immediately followed, which brought the crux of the article back into focus. Again, the article was about a “study” seeking “solutions” to kids ingesting lead-contaminated soil. It was not about “solutions” to kids ingesting lead-based paint chips, which was the focus of your attempt at satire.

[quote]So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another.”[/quote]

You seem to have a fascination with sex. Good for you, but it probably doesn’t help your cause much when you try to interject it into these kinds of dialogues. You may want to consider another tactic at trying to insult your way to victory.

]]> By: Anthropositor http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21104 Anthropositor Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:34:32 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21104 Post #111 had as its' stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. My statement in #111 is pretty clear: "The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me." So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another. Post #111 had as its’ stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. My statement in #111 is pretty clear:

“The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me.”

So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another.

]]> By: sh0cktopus http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21069 sh0cktopus Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:56:54 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21069 Well sid, I find myself agreeing with you once again. I find Anthropositor guilty of refusing to acknowledge that his statement was misleading, unless it was meant to be not taken seriously. The study had nothing to do with eating paint flakes found inside the home or on childrens' toys, only lead contaminants in the backyard soil. Leaded paint residue might very well be found in the soil, and presumably, would be ingested simultaneously. I think most would agree that the study was questionable, if not unethical. I just went back and read through this whole exchange, and I think sid took the relatively high road in this one. Hopefully this will temper this debate's mass takeover of the "Recent Comments" section, although that may be a moot point as I see there's a new article to enjoy. And if you really need your pseudo-juridical fix: GUILTY Well sid, I find myself agreeing with you once again. I find Anthropositor guilty of refusing to acknowledge that his statement was misleading, unless it was meant to be not taken seriously. The study had nothing to do with eating paint flakes found inside the home or on childrens’ toys, only lead contaminants in the backyard soil. Leaded paint residue might very well be found in the soil, and presumably, would be ingested simultaneously. I think most would agree that the study was questionable, if not unethical. I just went back and read through this whole exchange, and I think sid took the relatively high road in this one. Hopefully this will temper this debate’s mass takeover of the “Recent Comments” section, although that may be a moot point as I see there’s a new article to enjoy.
And if you really need your pseudo-juridical fix: GUILTY

]]> By: sid http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21063 sid Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:07:06 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21063 But I didn't originally comment on #111. My comment was on #107, which does not have the rather substantive deletion you have made in #111. The original passage, with which I had the problem, stated: [quote]Now, a final note on this story. Look at this: "The sludge, researchers said, put the children at less risk of brain or nerve damage from lead. A highly toxic element once widely used in gasoline and paint, lead has been shown to cause brain damage among children who ate lead-based paint that had flaked off their homes. The researchers said the phosphate and iron in the sludge can bind to lead and other hazardous metals in the soil, allowing the combination to pass safely through a child's body if eaten." Apparently, the idea is, if the children eat some leaded paint chips flaking off their dwellings AND eat some of the "treated" dirt at roughly the same time, THEN phosphates and iron will sequester the lead in such a way as to render it LESS harmful to the children. Presumably, the children were instructed to always eat some of the lawn dirt every time they decided to treat themselves to a few house paint chips.[/quote] The problem is with the last sentence of the first paragaph, and the statement made in the first sentence of the following paragraph. Again, the article, and the "study," refer to sludge as a "remedy" to ingesting soil that is contaminated with lead. Your satirical (I presume) comment refers to lead-based paint chips. Editing out that last sentence in the first paragraph, as you did in #111, makes sense only if you intend to mislead folks as to the origin of our disagreement. It serves no other purpose, as far as I can tell. But I didn’t originally comment on #111. My comment was on #107, which does not have the rather substantive deletion you have made in #111. The original passage, with which I had the problem, stated:

[quote]Now, a final note on this story. Look at this:
“The sludge, researchers said, put the children at less risk of brain or nerve damage from lead. A highly toxic element once widely used in gasoline and paint, lead has been shown to cause brain damage among children who ate lead-based paint that had flaked off their homes.
The researchers said the phosphate and iron in the sludge can bind to lead and other hazardous metals in the soil, allowing the combination to pass safely through a child’s body if eaten.”

Apparently, the idea is, if the children eat some leaded paint chips flaking off their dwellings AND eat some of the “treated” dirt at roughly the same time, THEN phosphates and iron will sequester the lead in such a way as to render it LESS harmful to the children. Presumably, the children were instructed to always eat some of the lawn dirt every time they decided to treat themselves to a few house paint chips.[/quote]

The problem is with the last sentence of the first paragaph, and the statement made in the first sentence of the following paragraph. Again, the article, and the “study,” refer to sludge as a “remedy” to ingesting soil that is contaminated with lead. Your satirical (I presume) comment refers to lead-based paint chips. Editing out that last sentence in the first paragraph, as you did in #111, makes sense only if you intend to mislead folks as to the origin of our disagreement. It serves no other purpose, as far as I can tell.

]]> By: Anthropositor http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21053 Anthropositor Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:20:32 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21053 Thank you for your participation Web. Not quite sure what an e-peen point is. Guess it does not matter. However, one vote does not make a verdict. I just took another look at the red text of #111 which is only my comments isolated out on the AP story, and am still unable to find the part that is "misleading." What specific statement which I made sustains that charge? And whatever statement that it might be, does it really measure up to negate the central point that I was making, that the "study" was unconscionable, and should not have been funded, permitted, or performed at all. In other words, did whatever was misleading really intrinsically negate or invalidate the point of the story? You are under no constraint to answer. I appreciate your getting involved at all. I'll withhold further comment until some others add votes. Thank you for your participation Web. Not quite sure what an e-peen point is. Guess it does not matter. However, one vote does not make a verdict.

I just took another look at the red text of #111 which is only my comments isolated out on the AP story, and am still unable to find the part that is “misleading.” What specific statement which I made sustains that charge? And whatever statement that it might be, does it really measure up to negate the central point that I was making, that the “study” was unconscionable, and should not have been funded, permitted, or performed at all.

In other words, did whatever was misleading really intrinsically negate or invalidate the point of the story? You are under no constraint to answer. I appreciate your getting involved at all.

I’ll withhold further comment until some others add votes.

]]>