While this is indeed pretty dire, it's worth bearing in mind that the entire generation who are currently running the world suffer from lead poisoning to one degree or another - atmospheric lead from gasoline additives was a major source of lead in humans until lead was withdrawn from petroleum. Add that to most paints being lead based until the last quarter of the 20th century, and you have an entire generation of brain damage.
The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership being brain damaged by lead - they added lead acetate to wine as a sweetener, and lined watercourses with lead regularly - although the former was a far greater source. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/win... for some reference.
In any case, a huge chunk of the world's population has heavy metal poisoning, be it mercury, lead, cadmium, or all of the above - and it's largely being ignored, and things like Flint are almost unhelpful, as it makes this look like a localised problem, when it's actually global.
The rundown of the scholarship and the following debate is useful, but I found that post to be immediately suspicious as it simply asserts, repeatedly, that "legitimate scholars" and "legit historians" ignored it or don't agree. I find such language to be a strong indicator that someone is about to try overstating their case, and is trying to discourage people from challenging their assertions by dismissing other views. An unfortunately common problem with historians, I've found.
I think the guy is correct that the "fall" of Rome is a complex topic and it's not entirely clear what this fall really consists of. But it's known from skeletal analysis that some Romans did indeed have very high lead levels in their bodies, we know what kinds of effects that can have, etc. Saying Rome fell exclusively because of lead piping would be perhaps overstating things, but we know that our own much more advanced society was becoming more and more violent until lead was removed from gasoline: if that connection had never been made or the solution never happened it's not hard to believe that in a hundred years or so we'd be existing in a far, far worse state.
If the Romans knew lead pipes made water unhealthy, how did we end up with so much lead piping? (I'm not asking the question as a refutation, I'm genuinely curious - was this a lesson we forgot??)
You could also ask why lead was used for gasoline when it was known that lead was toxic.
The reason is simple. People knew it was toxic and caused brain damage ('madness' in Roman terms) at high levels of exposure. What they didn't realise is that very small levels of exposure could cause an internal buildup over time and cause steady mental degradation. If someone is exposed to massive heavy metal poisoning and immediately goes crazy, the correlation is obvious. If an entire generation slowly gets more violent and crime rates go up, then it's much, much harder to spot the issue because everyone is changing at the same time.
In the USA alcohol was prohibited in the 1920s, and there was a knocking problems with gas engines going over a certain speed that needed to be fixed. They tried different additives until they found lead works.
People got sick on the exhaust but the industry covered it up. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that people got sick on the lead in the exhaust that they switched to ethanol an alcohol based on corn. Prohibition was over by decades by then and ethanol was healthier than lead and solved the knocking problem plus farmers made money growing corn to add to the gas.
Lead paint was the same way, they hid the fact that it made people sick so they could sell more of it.
Lead pipes or copper pipes with lead soldier was used the same way and the safety risks were hidden to people as well.
Lead is a neurotoxin and leads to mental illnesses and brain damage. People effected might have violent outbursts and get arrested for crimes. If there is lead in the water supplies of the poor neighborhoods that minorities live in it could be the cause of crime by those who drink the water, bathe in it, cook with it, etc. This is being hidden as well and just now is being reported on by some news media companies.
Corporations get away with stuff like that because of the ignorance of the public and their short-term memories. Lead has always been a neurotoxin but people tend to forget that and it gets covered up when it is used in products and pipes and other stuff.
> atmospheric lead from gasoline additives was a major source of lead
There's such a direct correlation with leaded gas and violent crime in USA. That it was likely a large if not the largest factor in the rise and fall of crime rates.
Absolutely. Not only is the problem global, but everybody generally acknowledges that there is a problem. Some context is direly needed here, and the story isn't that it's much worse than we thought. We already knew it was bad; that's why Flint is able to be a story.
There's a discussion to be had another day about what's "good enough" -- after all, we want to be healthy, not create a water system so pure that it's never ever existed in human history before. For now, though, the overall story worldwide is positive. We know about metal poisoning, we're able to measure it, and we have instantaneous publishing ability to share with the world what various people are drinking.
That's all good news. In addition, water quality overall continues to get better.
Nobody's making excuses for Flint, but good grief. This is a happy story. People who were suffering will not be in the future. Problems are being identified which we are able to fix.
Sometimes I think the pattern of these stories is so established in some people's minds that they're forced to follow the pattern no matter what, over and over again. A little context here won't fix Flint, but it might give a more balanced view on just where we're at globally.
The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership being brain damaged by lead - they added lead acetate to wine as a sweetener, and lined watercourses with lead regularly - although the former was a far greater source. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/win... for some reference.
In any case, a huge chunk of the world's population has heavy metal poisoning, be it mercury, lead, cadmium, or all of the above - and it's largely being ignored, and things like Flint are almost unhelpful, as it makes this look like a localised problem, when it's actually global.