It wasn't sarcastic, I tried to make people read it, and see that it's nonsense.
edit: I don't know why you reply by editing your comment like this. I'm not proposing any conspiracy theory, I'm claiming that lead toxicity is a conspiracy theory. Its proponents kicked out the original experts, forced lead removal, and people are now sick as the result, because the experts were right, and the normal levels were in fact normal.
There is nothing much to agree or disagree with in the paper, because it's entirely nonsensical. He pulls out random numbers, and makes an illogical conclusion supposedly based on them.
>The approximate fractions of alkaline earths absorbed by the intestine upon ingestion are: calcium 50%; strontium 25%; and barium 5%. If the alimentary absorption factor for lead in food is similar to that for barium, the amount of lead naturally absorbed by man is...
And it's the entire paper like this.
Edit2: No, it isn't because I don't uderstand it. I can read scientific papers, and this doesn't even look or read as one. It's nonsense written by a geochemist who went crazy.
Edit3: No, you can't randomly assume something, and base your conclusions on that. How did you get that idea?
I wrote a longer comment, but it got flagged, so I deleted it, and wrote that one.
My position is that lead toxicity seems to be a conspiracy theory, rather than a real thing, the evidence for it is bizarre, and doesn't make any sense, and lead in fact seems to belong where it goes. That is, it's essential, and people are increasingly weak, dumb, and even have deformities because it has been removed.
Not only that. Life accumulated those over the eons, as the rocks eroded, the useful metals got saved by life, and the rest was washed down. So the natural levels are way higher. Life is good at hoarding these "heavy metals".
People in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631251 have been arguing that these people must have been some top class elite, and I totally get it. They are too good looking. But, that's how it was. The typical of the past would be above celebrity looks today. A lot of curent idols look stunted in comparison.
Most of the people in the photos seem be ordinary, working class people. Even buddhist monks, who swore to live in poverty, celibacy and to avoid food that was too flavorful.
It isn't like we don't have records of ordinary people, even the homeless, or criminals. It's more like people like you claim the existence of a whole another kind of "poor people", who were supposedly the absolute majority, who suffered somewhere, completely ignored by everybody, and worked long hours every day on... being poor? It just doesn't seem to add up.
I'm not buying this. All these claims rely on some nebulous "poor people" who were kept hidden away somewhere. There is no good reason to doubt that these photos show regular people, and the buildings they lived in.
The problem isn't abundance, or the lack of thereof. The problem is capitalism. Capitalism creates an excess, but it gets stuck with:
1. People who have money, who already have anything they want, so they won't buy more.
2. People who don't have money, so they can't buy anything.
And it's specifically the debt based part of capitalism that prevents this from fixing itself. Giving more loans won't fix it, it only shuffles it arpund a bit at best
What needs to be done, if there is the will, is:
1. Ban all further loans.
2. Print enough money to pay all the due debts and distribute it in some way with no strings attached.
To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand what is actually claimed here (it seems that they trained the model on their own, and claim that the problem is in the dataset?) but isn't the more sensible explanation that human doctors were overdiagnosing them?
The excess isn't a problem on its own, but it prevents people from making money.
You get stuck with people who have money, who have everything they want, and people who don't have money who can't make any, becauae there is already a huge excess of anything that people who do have money would want.
We have the exactly opposite problem. We can produce so much that there are no markets to consume it all. There is an excess and we get assaulted by ads to consume some of it. Shortages are almost absent.