More problematic may have been using sugar of lead to sweeten wine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/sugar-of-lead-a-d...

Sounds more like a good argument to avoid sugar of lead.

There are plenty of natural poisonous berries. Doesn't mean we should start using them as sweeteners instead.

That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean I trust sucralose and stevia extract (or food-grade aluminum, or long-term storage in BPA-bearing plastic).

Nor do I trust certain natural additives or physical processing methods; chemical is full of unknowns, but natural can be harmful too. I try to avoid white flour and added sugar, for example, and I have my doubts about how good of an idea it was to breed all this sweetness into modern fruit...

>chemical is full of unknowns, but natural

Nature is chemicals. What you are saying is that you trust the chemical outputs of the chaotic natural environment more than the ones produces by scientists.

I'm way too late responding to this, but yes, I do; the chemicals of nature (except for recent extracts like sugar and white flour) are things we co-evolved with.

I don't know if that shows what you suggest it does. Using lead tainted water for irrigation is also harmful because plants will transmit that lead to people though their diet. Further, lead sticks around in contaminated soils and accumulates over time.

In that context, every lead source ends up becoming increasingly important.

If plants transmit the lead to those who eat them how can it also accumulate in the soil? The plants would bioremediate the soil.

It's not 100%. Suppose a plant absorbs 5% of the lead. Well in the first year you get 5% of the lead in all water used for irrigation. But, 95% is left in the soil. Next year you get 5% of 195%. Until, the soil has 20 years worth of lead and all new lead added in a year ends up in the plant. Drop that to 1% and it would take ~100 years to get the same effect.

Note, you would really get a differential equation with several terms, but more or less the same idea just after more time and balanced with water that overflows the field etc.

Ah, yes, of course. I guess at some point you're supposed to develop soil testing and stop putting the toxins in to the soil. And the air. And the water. It's not looking too good is it.