Lead in our water and cognitive decline

It’s funny how perceptions and interpretations can change over time.

Take the fall of the Roman Empire as an example. When I was in school a hundred years ago, one of the reasons I remember being taught was that the overarching problem was the lead pipes the Roman aristocracy used to facilitate indoor plumbing. Lead is soft and malleable with a low melting point, and oh so easy to shape into just about anything… including pipes to move water from the river to the kitchen sink.

The theory I was exposed to was that lead — considered a toxic metal even back when I was in school — leached into the Romans’ water. Along with long-term genetic issues, one of the negative effects of lead poisoning is mental — those exposed to lead can become compromised and severely challenged when required to make coherent decisions (such as how to deal with the invaders storming across the Tiber).

The idea was that the leaders of Rome — who surely had the political and economic wherewithal to pipe water into their homes — poisoned themselves, and literally reduced their cognitive abilities to the point that they were incapable of making good decisions… leading to bad leadership and a decline in their ability to protect themselves from the bad guys that were trying to topple the government (the bad guys are always trying to topple something).

Lest you think this is all made up, there are hard data to support the theory. From an article on the Science.org website (21 April 2014):

…a team of archaeologists and scientists has discovered just how contaminated Roman tap water was. The team dredged sediment downstream from Rome in the harbor basin at Portus, a maritime port of imperial Rome, and from a channel connecting the port to the Tiber River. The researchers compared the lead isotopes in their sediment samples with those found in preserved Roman piping to create a historical record of lead pollution flowing from the Roman capital. Tap water from ancient Rome likely contained up to 100 times more lead than local spring water, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Looks like the proverbial “smoking gun” to me…

But times change (they always do), and many historians now propose that, while the lead pipes may have contributed to mental deterioration and a degeneration of Roman defensive planning, the Visigoths and Vandals would have probably made it into town anyway…

Right. So, why does any of this matter in these days of modern times?

Most would agree that lead is a recognized toxin worthy of our respect (and regulation). This from an 8 July 2024 article on the NPR website (most would also agree that NPR is a relatively impartial observer, as opposed to sources like Mother Jones or Fox):

…no amount of lead is considered safe to consume. Lead is a neurotoxin known to cause irreversible long-term organ damage, lower IQs, higher risk for miscarriage, asthma, cardiovascular disease, impotence, and elevated blood pressure.

In the United States, lead has been banned from use in new water pipes since 1986. Unfortunately, it is estimated that more than nine million such water service lines still carry drinking water to homes and businesses throughout the country.

This brings us to 2024 and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is currently at an impasse regarding how to deal with the remaining lead-based service lines in our country.

As usual, there are two sides to this discussion, and — also as usual — the current polarization of our national discourse determines that the sides are diametrically opposed to each other.

EPA rules enacted in the waning days of the Trump administration were meant to deal with how to handle the lead-based water pipes still in use. The regs allow up to thirty years for service line replacement, but are triggered only when lead levels test higher than fifteen parts per billion (15 ppb). These rules are still in place.

Considering this to be unduly detrimental to the population — especially the children — on 30 November 2023 (obviously during the current Biden administration), the EPA proposed the “Lead and Copper Rules Improvements” guidelines.

From the NPR summary:

The proposal from the Biden administration differs from rules put out in the waning days of the Trump term that allow up to 30 years for service line replacement, triggered only when lead levels test higher than 15 parts per billion. The new proposal, which would largely supplant the Trump rules, calls for stricter monitoring, enhanced public education, and the 10-year pipe replacement mandate regardless of lead levels.

And let the battle begin. Again from NPR:

Already, 15 Republican state attorneys general have argued that the proposed rules infringe on states’ rights and chase “speculative” benefits. On the other side, 14 Democratic attorneys general said that the EPA should find more ways to ensure pipes are quickly replaced in low-income areas.

It seems that the deadline for deciding whether to enact the Biden proposal, or let it die and continue with the existing Trump guidelines, is in October of this year (conveniently before the general election).

Weary of science and political debate? Then how about we put them aside for a bit and focus on the economics of the issue. As is often the case, something that sounds good for our health (or the environment) runs up hard against the ever-familiar mantra “Well, yeah, that may be so, but it costs too much money and will trash our economy.”

The NPR article goes into detail about the costs and benefits of replacing lead pipes with copper. I refer you to the article if interested in why they think it makes solid economic sense to invest in the upgrades to our infrastructure. The short version: it may be more cost effective to fix the problem before it blows up. (This is much like noting that your dipstick is dry, and adding a quart of oil before your car’s engine seizes.)

A case in point: The water crisis in Flint, Michigan was in no small part caused by lead in what the residents were forced to drink. A summary on Wikipedia pretty much covers the reality of what the city was faced with, and how they responded. And the costs of repair — not just buying bottled water and replacing the pipes, but dealing with the societal and political fallout (all funded by $400 million in federal funds). No matter what, beyond the long-term health issues, the residents were seriously inconvenienced for years while the problem was (and continues to be) mitigated.

I imagine one could do a demographic study to investigate a possible correlation between economic status and the continuing usage of lead pipes (as was suggested as an underlying contributor in Flint). To be clear: I have not seen such a linkage, but history (and common sense) would suggest that one may well exist. No matter what, I can’t help but wonder how many of the lawmakers (and I use the term very loosely) who are vehemently calling for the Biden proposal to be allowed to die, are serviced by lead pipes. Assuming there are at least one or two, I also wonder if their thoughts about the urgency of the replacement timeline would change in any way, once they realize their misfortune.

Anyway — and as always — it is not my mandate to tell you how to vote. What I would hope to accomplish is to spark a desire on your part to research the issue, consider the arguments advanced by both sides (economic vs. personal health), and then get off the couch in November and vote for the candidate(s) that most closely parallel your stance on this… and so many other issues facing humanity.