Lead poisoning and it's effetcs.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

 

As far as I know, the first unquestioned account of lead toxicity appears in the Alexipharmaca (I, 600) (this beautiful illustration comes from a Byzantine edition) of Nicander of Colofon (circa 130 BC) where he described in Greek hexameters the signs and symptoms arising from the ingestion of litharge and cerusse, including colic, constipation, palsy and a pallor which he fancifully likened to the dull colour of lead.

 

 

Anyway, here is a much older possible account of endemic saturnism ("frequent and dangerous disorders affecting the belly") from Hippocrates (Epidemics , Book III):

 

"... Painful colic and malignant flatulent colic also occurred; in these going to stool did not relieve the pains, the stools being such that much remained within the bowel after attempted evacuation. This condition responded only with difficulty to medicine, and in most cases purgatives did additional harm. Many of those with this complaint perished soon; others lasted rather longer.'"

Edited July 28, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys & Ladies!

 

I

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys! Now, another question.

 

Before we try to explain the "how", we should set the "when".

 

When did lead lead to the Fall of the Roman Empire?

 

Death of Theodosius I in 395 (last time the Roman Empire was unified)?

 

Crossing of the Rhine by Germanic tribes in 406? (should we suppose those tribes weren't affected?)

 

Romulus Augustus deposed by Odoacer, September 4, 476 (the traditional one)?

 

Death of Justinian I, (last Emperor who tried to reconquer the west) 565?

 

Arrival of Islam, 632? (Any relationship between lead toxicity and religion?).

 

Any of those above if we are talking about the Western Empire, as the Eastern ("Byzantine") Empire continued until the Fall of Constantinople (29 May 1453).

 

Were the effects of saturnism limited to the West? Or the lead is the culprit of the East becoming "Byzntine"? Was the lead also related to the Byzantine demise?

[guy]

Any explanation for the "fall of the Roman Empire" must answer these two simple questions:

 

1) Why did the Byzantine (Eastern) Empire continue for nearly a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire collapsed?

 

2) Why didn't the Roman Empire collapse two hundred years earlier during the "crisis of the third century"?

 

Lead poisoning played little, if any, role in the "fall of the Roman Empire". It makes for a seductively simple, but obviously incomplete explanation for a multifactorial event.

Edited March 19, 2022 by guy

[ASCLEPIADES]

Lead poisoning played little, if any, role in the "fall of the Roman Empire". It makes for a seductively simple, but obviously incomplete explanation for a multifactorial event.

 

Salve, G!

 

My point exactly.

 

Good luck!

[Pertinax]

I may have touched upon this point elesewhere, forgive me if I ramble. The exposure to lead seems to have been skewed towrads the more prosperous members of society..if we postulate the (likely) calcification of main water supplies drawn form any mineral rich strata (not an unreasonable assumption in Italy itself) then it is the enhancement/storage of food by exposure to lead that reflects more in terms of higher value consumables (wine especially) .

If we also accept an early age-at-marriage and at conception might this not tend to mean an age sex pyramid skewed toward the young of both sexes , less likely to suffer chronic poisoning (even if poisoned to a degree)? Could we argue that the reproductive base was therefore always quite wide even if some lead toxicity were apparent .and the Romans certainly knew its signs if not its pathogenic origin.

So adoption and inclusion of non-blood persons into a family was acceptable , if continuity of a hierarchy (as opposed to a blood line ) is needed then do we not have ample possible candidates from a base heavy age/ sex population pyramid? So if the elite did consume (and accumulate lead-which I argue against earlier in the thread ) would this degrade the social hierarchy?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, P)

I may have touched upon this point elesewhere, forgive me if I ramble.

Are you kidding? Welcome to your "ramble"!

The exposure to lead seems to have been skewed towrads the more prosperous members of society..if we postulate the (likely) calcification of main water supplies drawn form any mineral rich strata (not an unreasonable assumption in Italy itself) then it is the enhancement/storage of food by exposure to lead that reflects more in terms of higher value consumables (wine especially).

That's certainly possible.

I would love to see the archeological research that supports this social stratification of lead toxicity. Lead storage is up to 90% or more in bones and practically lifelong.

If we also accept an early age-at-marriage and at conception might this not tend to mean an age sex pyramid skewed toward the young of both sexes , less likely to suffer chronic poisoning (even if poisoned to a degree)? Could we argue that the reproductive base was therefore always quite wide even if some lead toxicity were apparent .and the Romans certainly knew its signs if not its pathogenic origin.

So adoption and inclusion of non-blood persons into a family was acceptable , if continuity of a hierarchy (as opposed to a blood line ) is needed then do we not have ample possible candidates from a base heavy age/ sex population pyramid? So if the elite did consume (and accumulate lead-which I argue against earlier in the thread ) would this degrade the social hierarchy?

I think this post is getting long enough and I'll have to continue in the next one.

 

Pleeeaze: DON'T STOP "RAMBLING""!

Edited July 31, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Pertinax]

Further musing..

AD will be the man to tell us the extent of vessels/pans/storage containers for the processing and storing of food and wine , and I suspect there will be a strong correlation between value of passum (for example) and "sweetening" by contact with lead, (speaking from personal experience I can confirm the subtle hint of sweetness in water from old lead pipes..this may account for my excessive use of parenthesis),

There certainly was a known and viable lead technology :

 

this extract from a critique of Jerome Nirigau's 1983 article on Lead Poisoning in the New England Medical Journal:

 

"Cato gives directions for reducing must in "a copper or lead vessel" over a slow fire, "stirring constantly to prevent scorching; continue the boiling, until you have boiled off a half" (CVII). Columella thus:

"Some people put the must in leaden vessels and by boiling reduce it by a quarter, others by a third. There is no doubt that anyone who boiled it down to one-half would be likely to make a better thick form of must and therefore more profitable for use....But, before the must is poured into the boiling-vessels, it will be well that those which are made of lead should be coated inside with good oil and be well-rubbed, and that then the must should be put in....The vessels themselves in which the thickened and boiled-down must is boiled should be of lead rather than of brass; for, in the boiling, brazen vessels throw off copper-rust and spoil the flavour of the preservative....Must of the sweetest possible flavour will be boiled down to a third of its original volume and when boiled down, as I have said above, is called defrutum" (XII.19.1, 19.6, 20.1, 21.1).

 

Pliny recommends that must be prepared in a lead vessel.

"Also boiled-down must and must of new wine should be boiled when there is no moon, which means at the conjunction of that planet, and not on any other day; and moreover leaden and not copper jars should be used, and some walnuts should be thrown into the liquor, for those are said to absorb the smoke" (XIV.136)."

 

so quite a heavy concentration of continued exposure if this is the accepted norm of production for quality goods.

 

My argument is , I suppose, one that suggests the social structure would tend to be preserved even if individual persons (or particular socio-economic groups) had a greater incipient morbidity. Skin ingestion seems to me to be an overlooked factor in poisoning, likewise inhalation ..both potentially more directly toxic than ingestion (where I have also argued that a population with a rugged pulse(and especially brassica) diet would tend not to have the compromised gut walls so commonplace nowadays from lousy processed food...perhaps plebs excreted lead more readily?

 

(Im trying to think of some cutting remark that Cato made in "Rome" ah yes.."what a dreadful noise these plebs make..")

 

A thing that strikes me also is what about foetal viability ? Would that be affected by having very young (by our standards)

mothers..without a heavy accumulation of lead themselves (a "geriatric mother" is 25 nowadays technically I think?), speed and number of births (versus heavier infant mortality) might keep population numbers up?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

Well, here we go.

 

I think lead exposition was significant during at least some periods in Ancient Rome and saturnism was probably common, even if definite archaeological evidence has been hard to find.

 

Anyway, it appears that this exposition would have been far less than it had been in others well-known (declining???) societies; for example, UK and US at the last half of the XIX Century and the first half of XX.

 

Now, let's assume; for the sake of the argument, that we can verify a significantly higher prevalence of saturnism in the Roman ruler class (the most prosperous members of society, I suppose) specifically in the declining spots during the declining period or periods (previously identified by us, of course); obviously, chief enemies of this ruler class (vg, Germans, Persians) should had been basically unaffected.

 

(Clearly a pretty huge assumption)

 

Which of saturnism symptoms do you believe would had been the main contributors for such a decline?

 

Intellectual impairment? Please remember it is mostly mild when it appears and frank dementia is exceptional if ever it happens at all. But, once more, for the sake of the argument

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, P! Sorry, my last post was made before reading your last post due to my poor cybernetic abilities.

 

Anyway, have I read It, I think I would have said more or less the same.

 

this extract from a critique of Jerome Nirigau's 1983 article on Lead Poisoning in the New England Medical Journal:

 

This is a very interesting article. Dr. Nirigau is clearly a medical expert, not a historian. Once again, his article doesn't define the kind of Roman decline and/or fall he is trying to explain; essentially, he doesn't answer any of the questions that had been so problematic to us.

 

My argument is , I suppose, one that suggests the social structure would tend to be preserved even if individual persons (or particular socio-economic groups) had a greater incipient morbidity. Skin ingestion seems to me to be an overlooked factor in poisoning, likewise inhalation ..both potentially more directly toxic than ingestion (where I have also argued that a population with a rugged pulse(and especially brassica) diet would tend not to have the compromised gut walls so commonplace nowadays from lousy processed food...perhaps plebs excreted lead more readily?

 

Skin absorption, I suppose. Once again, methinks the main problem for the "Lead-Toxicity-Roman-Decline-Theories" (LTRDT for short) is not so much the exposition as the mechanisms.

 

A thing that strikes me also is what about foetal viability ? Would that be affected by having very young (by our standards)

mothers..without a heavy accumulation of lead themselves (a "geriatric mother" is 25 nowadays technically I think?), speed and number of births (versus heavier infant mortality) might keep population numbers up?

 

I think that would be a good argument AGAINST the LTRDT.

 

Even if saturnism was common, that is simply not enough to claim the LTRDT.

 

Cheers and good luck!

Edited July 31, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Pertinax]

I must also mention ergotism , my March 8th entry below gives some thoughts:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...;blogid=19&

 

I suggest the argument that lead as a "weakening" co-factor in a morbid population cohort might be viable, but that the huge mortality of ergot "primed" plague outbreaks is a more likely "catastrophe" based model.That is of course if we accept disease as a primary factor in decline as opposed to a coup de grace to a structurally(economically and demographically) morbid Empire.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I must also mention ergotism , my March 8th entry below gives some thoughts:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...;blogid=19&

 

I suggest the argument that lead as a "weakening" co-factor in a morbid population cohort might be viable, but that the huge mortality of ergot "primed" plague outbreaks is a more likely "catastrophe" based model.That is of course if we accept disease as a primary factor in decline as opposed to a coup de grace to a structurally(economically and demographically) morbid Empire.

Salve, P!

 

Fungus toxicity is entirely another matter, and it would probably merit its own thread.

 

Anyway, I would think a lot of what we have said in this topic about LTRDT applies to a great extent to ergotism and other non-infectious diseases theories as well.

 

Cheers and good luck!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

Well, we cannot avoid the exposition matter forever, can we? So here we go.

 

These are the widely accepted Austin Bradford-Hill detailed epidemiological criteria for assessing evidence of causation (1965):

 

1. Strength: The magnitude of the association.

 

2. Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.

 

3. Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]

 

4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).

 

5. Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect.

 

6. Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful.

 

7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect.

 

8. Experiment: Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence.

 

9. Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.

 

(Nowadays, points 6 to 9 are considered mainly accessory because of inherent limitations)

 

From where I am, the main problems for LTRDT are with points # 2, 3 and 5.

 

What do you think about all of this stuff?

 

Cheers and good luck!

Edited July 31, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

Please note that there is a large number of LTRDT that have been thriving since XIX Century.

 

For a short list of some of the most notorious in recent times, you can go HERE.

 

As far as I know, basically most if not all of them have the same or similar caveats as Dr. Nirigau's research.

 

Cheers and good luck!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

2. Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.

 

3. Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]

 

5. Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect.

 

From where I am, the main problems for LTRDT are with points # 2, 3 and 5.

Let my try to clarify a little more.

 

I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that the purported social effects of saturnism ("decline and fall") had occurred at the specific population (Romans), place and site (?), and not at unexposed (?) populations (vg, Germans) (= criterion 3);

 

... even less that such effects were observed in other exposed populations (= criterion 2),

 

...not to talk about a variable incidence with variable exposure (vg, US and UK in XIX & XX Centuries) (= criterion 5).

 

Cheers and good luck!