Talk:Lead poisoning

Template:Vital article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lead poisoning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial comments

I'm pleased to be able to review this article which is well-written, well-sourced and interesting to read.

First impression is that there are no concerns with any of the quick-fail criteria. More detailed review will follow. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Detailed review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Engaging, well-written article, easily GA-class.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   (1) I have a slight concern about use of compound nouns, such as "Organolead", "wristdrop", "footdrop". I accept that these words have specific meanings as compounds, but are uncommon in English as a single word. Perhaps the hyphenated form, e.g. "Organo-lead", would be better stylistically? (2) I would also prefer "corrosivity" to "corrositivity" - the latter probably exists, but is much less common. (3) Shouldn't "in utero" be italicised per WP:MOS#Foreign words?

   (1) Organolead -> organic lead. wristdrop -> wrist drop, footdrop -> foot drop (Those are the names of the articles for the latter two anyway, so probably the more standard usage). (2) Done. (3) Good catch, done. delldot ∇. 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   Also WP:MOSMED compliance is good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Typically, the best articles don't have references in the Lead. Since the Lead summarises the rest of the article, everything there should be verifiable by citations in the related part of the article. Check to see if you can remove the refs in the Lead - if not it suggests that the lead contains content not present in the rest of the article.

   Done, hiding some in case I need to move them out of the lead later. delldot ∇. 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The vast majority of edits are by the nominator. The article has been much improved and is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The images also have alt text. A slight quibble is that the alt text in three images mentions "electron microscopy photos", ""MRI scans" and "light micrograph", which don't really belong in the alt text - they would be better mentioned in the caption.

   Done. delldot ∇. 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   None of the comments made would disqualify this as GA-class.

This article should be quite capable of becoming a featured article. I have made comments above that I hope will help in that process. One further comment: WP:JARGON is difficult to meet in medical articles, but not impossible. I would recommend reviewing the lead in particular and attempting to explain uncommon terms there. I know you have wiki-linked many of them, but I would suggest that you could rephrase many of these into much more accessible English. For example renal redirects to kidney - why not use the most familiar words (at least in the lead)?

Nevertheless, the nominator deserves considerable credit for the work done in bringing this article up to, and beyond, GA-class. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, the review is very sensible, all your points are great advice. I'll tackle these tonight! delldot ∇. 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Every one of your points addressed, I think. delldot ∇. 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. As you improve the article further towards FA, I'd still recommend looking at ways of making the article, especially the Lead, as easy as possible for a non-medic to understand - even at the risk of a loss of precision in the Lead. For example, how does "Lead interferes with a variety of body processes and is toxic to many parts including the heart, lungs, bones, intestines, kidney, and the reproductive and nervous systems" sound? It's less precise (but that's covered in detail in the article sections), but doesn't rely on the reader taking the time to click the link to find out what (e.g.) "hematopoietic" means - as I had to! If you think this sort of exercise is worthwhile, please feel free to bounce ideas off me - I'll do my best to help. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do a copy edit looking for technical language. In the lead I'll go for "is toxic to many organs and tissues including..." Thanks again for the review and the good advice. I'll most certainly take you up on your kind offer of further help! delldot ∇. 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding reference to the ill-fated Franklin Expedition of 1845

This is one of the most infamous instances of lead poisoning during the 18th century, and has been the subject of significant scientific inquiry in recent decades. The Wikipedia reference is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_expedition . Tony (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

photo of blue gum line symptom desirable

If the article included a photograph of blue gum lines it would be useful since that's a symptom more specific than, say, irritability.Rich (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Zamfara story source

An unprecedented outbreak of lead poisoning linked to a gold rush has killed at least 200 children this year. Can someone help me by moving this to the correct place in the story? Thx. Torchpratt (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning in Ancient Rome through Water

It is contended in the article that lead poisoning cannot have been a major source of problems in ancient Rome because the water was not allowed to stand in the pipes, flowing continuously. One must keep in mind, though, that the aqueducts were miles and miles long and this must have allowed a significant amount of lead to enter the water even if the pipes or linings developed, in time, mineral incrustation. Definitely the poisoning by the sugar substitute used, grape juice boiled down in lead pots, must have been more worrying. Nobody ever used white lead (acetate) as such, but the amounts of lead dissolved from the pots into the juice by its acidity must have been alarming, striking as it did mostly the affluent (and hence, the decision-makers...)27.116.58.18 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The above implies that Roman aqueducts were constructed of or lined with lead. I know of no instance of or reason for this. The aqueducts were constructed of concrete, stone, brick and ceramic tile and needed no lining of any kind. The local plumbing, as in more recent times, was composed of lead pipe, but this comprised only a very small fraction of the above stated "miles and miles" the water traveled. Namati (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Namati

What levels are safe if any. Is a reading of less than 1% found in a toddlers blood bad. What steps should I take? 69.123.197.254 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Jan 16th 2011

In Australia...

Surely the potential for water collected for drinking to be contaminated by contact with lead roofing/storage tanks isn't just a problem in Australia? Seems misleading, the source is from an Australian journal but I would say the fact applies everywhere. 137.205.138.179 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Historic Dates

Dear Sirs, In reading the article on lead poisoning, several ancient dates were referenced. These were said to be either "BCE" or "CE". These are supposed to mean: "Before the Common Era" (?) and " Common Era" (?). This is offensive to Christians who have always believed the terms BC, Before Christ, and AD , Anno Domini (The Year of the Lord) were the appropriate ones to use. I wish the revisionists who wrote this article (and others like it) would stop trying to put down Christianity and use BC and AD, the correct terms we're all used to. Cease and desist monkeying with our religion!--69.114.130.105 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Benjamin Beekman

See WP:ERA. No offense meant here. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonfactual Statement

The statement "No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known amount of lead that is too small to cause the body harm" has no basis in fact. Statistically speaking, it is almost a certainty that every living cell that ever did, does or will exist contains at least one atom of lead (and every other element) and likely many more. As there are about 100 trillion atoms in an average animal cell, the presence of even thousands of lead atoms per cell cannot be shown, even theoretically, to have any effect on the cell whatsoever. More practically, there are certainly a great many studies that have found a level of lead within a creature that below which, no harmful effects have been observed. Namati (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) CHRISTIAN FANATICS CANT IMPOSE THEIR POLITICAL RELIGION ON EVERYBODY. GOD NEVER ADVISED POLITICS. CHRISTIANITY IS POLITICS WHICH JUST IS AN INSTRUMENT TO INVADE THE WHOLE WORLD DESTROYING OTHER RELIGIONS BY FORCE, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.135.123 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the factuality of the statement "No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered." This is well accepted and considered factual by those of us in the public health sector who work with blood lead toxicology in children. See opening statement in http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6213a3.htm. §Sam LeFevre, Utah Department of Health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.19.47 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We really don't know the level - a lot has changed in the last years - This Lancet article suggest lead may well be the leading cause of preventable death - 400,000/year in the USA alone. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30025-2/fulltext

The key bit - toxic levels - that cause rapid symptoms and possibly death are different than levels that trigger disease.  That lead effect mitochondria is key - disrupts insulin system, inflammation/immune function. So lead IS likely cause of the majority of heart disease, strokes, COPD - more speculative - possibly SFPN, obesity, osteoarthritis.  The key research - correlations with bone lead (proxy for lifetime lead exposure - easy test that isn't run in standard medical care) - has not been done - so we just don't know what level is reasonably safe. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

A lot of new papers on low level exposure - yet few that use bone lead. The science is moving forward right now.

led poisoning/ death

can led poisoning kill you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.213.192 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try asking your question at the -> Reference desk <- -- Breedentials (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

mentions

Lead level

We have a number of newspaper source such as the Washington Post here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we should use that as the source. By definition, a non-circulating draft fails WP:RS, but the Post story is sufficient for me. Will changing the ref be okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure or both refs could be used.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

James Herriot

James Herriot mentioned in one of his books treating calves suffering from lead poisoning with bitter salt, which he claims was the best treatment available at the time. Apparently, it worked due to the low solubility of lead sulphate. Did anyone hear of it being used today? Omeganian (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Food contamination

This notice claims "Children under 6 years of age should not consume more than 6.0 micrograms of lead per day from all dietary sources." This cdph web page says "California considers candies with lead levels in excess of 0.10 parts per million to be contaminated.

I found nothing in this Wikipedia article that supports this but and it seems like it would be a useful addition assuming we can find good sources. One copmlication is the links above are for California but I suspect many states have standards for lead contamination in food products. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Research documents link between atmospheric lead and crime

Sourced article in Mother Jones in Feb. 2013, at http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline Knowledgeable persons are invited to take this up and incorporate the information, observations, studies and their sources into the article (which may require some substantial rewriting)68.67.215.116 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Biological Accessibility of Lead

This (and the root Lead entry) regularly refer to lead poisoning and lead ingestion without qualification. Almost without exception lead poisoning refers to lead compounds, but this is not made clear. I understand that eating lumps of lead (unless done daily to excess) does not result in lead poisoning because the human GI is not good at breaking down metallic lead. But eating lead is what this article suggests. A biochemist should review this to clarify.

My interest is that I was shot by an air rifle as a teenager 50 years ago and the lead pellet is still in my foot. I was told by the hospital that lead is not biologically accessible. I should add that I am in excellent health :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See Also

I suggest adding a "See Also" section with entries that include:

• Clair Patterson,
• Tetraethyllead

Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See also sections are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Both term are also already linked in the article and we do not put terms already in the article in a see also section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there tests to check for exposure many years before?

Are there any tests that can detect whether someone has been exposed to higher than normal amounts of lead many years before (testing an adult for exposure that might have happened during childhood)? --TiagoTiago (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See Bone Lead Concentrations Assessed by in Vivo X-Ray Fluorescence Breedentials (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead the lump of metal ... ?

I can't seem to find the part where it describes the risks of lead that you might find on a roof, common lead. It's all about particulate pollution. ~ R.T.G 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is probably because lead only poisons you when it is inside your body, and it is rather difficult to ingest a large lump of metal in one piece! It can get into your body far more readily in particulate form. I doubt touching a lump of lead would have serious risks associated with it: the problem is if you breathe or swallow it, which is far easier to do when it is in particulate form. Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some vague reference to it in the Pathophysiology section. ~ R.T.G 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look closely, you'll see that it first makes it clear in the first sentence that skin contact with inorganic Pb will poison you only if there are breaks in the skin. Yes, some organic lead compounds like tetraethyllead can pass through the skin and poison you, but lead the metal and its inorganic compounds pass only negligibly through the skin. Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

^^This. If it can be said that solid pieces are only a risk on broken skin, I'd like to see that mentioned in the lead. ~ R.T.G 08:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

History section etc

Article about the amount of lead in Roman skeletons: [[2]]. Linked from an article about the dangers of lead [[3]] which has further links to other relevant articles. 92.24.137.12 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead - Biological Roles

A clause should be added to this page to note that lead is not used for any vital biological roles. Like from the Lithium article:

"Trace amounts of lithium are present in all organisms. The element serves no apparent vital biological function, since animals and plants survive in good health without it. Non-vital functions have not been ruled out. "

If HowStuffWorks is considered credible, then this will serve as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.74.238 (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Exposure levels corresponding to blood levels?

The article mentions blood levels, but there seems to be little or no info about the amount of lead exposure that would cause those blood levels, ie the regression slope factors for types of exposure (food, water, air, ...). For example, based on the FDA's Total Diet Study, the lead intake from food for infants and toddlers is estimated at about 5 μg/day (Bolger et al. 1991), what would the corresponding blood level be?
Some of the figures given seem to conflict with those in the lead article, btw:

Of ingested inorganic lead, about 15% is absorbed... In adults, 94% of absorbed lead is deposited in the bones and teeth

94% of 15% is 14.1%; the lead article on the other hand says:

A small amount of ingested lead (1%) will be stored in bones, and the rest will be excreted by an adult through urine and feces within a few weeks of exposure.

Not sure if this is a case of conflicting (wrong) data or conflicting definitions (for example if "94% of absorbed lead" really means "94% of lead stored in the body"). Prevalence 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ammunition

The ref says "Particularly high results were recorded for wild boar meat and pheasant meat, presumably associated with the use of lead ammunition."[4]

Not sure how that supports "As shown by the 2010 EFSA Report, it is demonstrated that the main led contaminants of human body are cereals, vegetables, milk, soft drinks, tea, coffee, alcoholic drinks, water, food supplements and not game meat"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lead poisoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230094829/http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Community_Development/doc_files/LeadExposureStudy.pdf to http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Community_Development/doc_files/LeadExposureStudy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526095843/http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/F07627AA-4D94-4CBC-B8FD-4F4F18401303/0/ND_report.pdf to http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/F07627AA-4D94-4CBC-B8FD-4F4F18401303/0/ND_report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://usmle.biochemistryformedics.com/effect-of-lead-poisoning-on-heme-biosynthetic-pathway/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604105256/http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_EPA_Sets_Tightest_Lead_Air_Emission_Standard_In_Three_Decades_26899.html to http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_EPA_Sets_Tightest_Lead_Air_Emission_Standard_In_Three_Decades_26899.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320030408/http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/lead/health.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/lead/health.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved text

To the users talk page hereUser_talk:Hmc1254#Moved_here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hyperactivity

What confuses me is that lead poisoning is associated with hyperactivity, yet ALA is a GABA agonist. I think it might be that just because something is a receptor agonist does not imply that the effects are equal to the effects of the actual neurotransmitter itself. For example, Both delta aminolevulinic acid (ALA) and porphobilinogen (PBG) depressed spontaneous activity in the isolated hemisected frog spinal cord. ALA was approximately one fifth as potent as GABA in this respect .... I suppose I need to do more research. 2601:14A:600:6420:AAE6:94BB:3E1:538D (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you update this section on what you found when you did "more research", or explain your query more fully? In a chapter in a recent book by Dr Nigg I remember reading that lead is definitely a cause of ADHD in children. Redhill54 (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning Passed Along During Pregnancy

Ever since Flint Michigan I have been rather interested in the effects of lead poisoning, so this article was an educational read. I'm not sure if I skipped over it, but it may be worth mentioning in this article too that lead poisoning can also be transferred from female to child during pregnancy via calcium deposits. During pregnancy, if the mother was previously exposed to high concentrations of lead it gets stored in her bone cells and organs. During pregnancy when the unborn child is in need of nutrients the exposed females body starts to use those "stored" deposits sending it to the unborn child. This causes lead poisoning to transfer from the female to the baby.

Here is a study that somewhat explains it, I am sure there are better ones out there that you could cite if you end up including this information!

All in all, good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatanerd1993 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead Processing Plan Occupational Safety/Environmental Health Discussion at Doe Run Company

There is a discussion that might be of interest to editors of this article over at Doe Run Company about the safety, health, and environmental impacts of lead processing facilities. -Furicorn (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)