Lead Sciency Experiment

[EquALLity]

I can't wait until holiday break.
I don't know why all my teachers simultaneously think it's a good idea to cram everything into the last week before break. But all my big testing is done now.

In my Science Research class, we've recently been assigned to conduct a middle school level science experiment. Since I care about the environment a lot, I researched environmental science projects, and came across the interesting topic of testing lead levels in soil. It immediately reminded me of Flint Michigan and how water is being found to be contaminated with lead all across the United States, so I got pretty excited about the idea of testing lead levels in water in my school district.

The problem is, my school has actually recently been discovered to contain lead in some water sources, like in the art room, so it's probably unlikely I'd actually get any new/relevant/any data from my school. The other schools in my district and general area have likely been tested as well. So this project doesn't necessarily guarantee me data, which is a problem.
Additionally, it doesn't really follow the format of "Effect of _________(independent variable)________ on _____________(dependent variable)________. The model we're supposed to use is testing the effect of something on something else, but this just tests to see if there is lead in the school water supplies.
I considered testing the effect of poverty on lead levels in school water supplies, and going to collect water samples from areas with more poverty. But according to my teacher, they've likely been tested recently as well, and it might be a challenge to get permission (theoretically, I could just take their water and they'd never know, but that's probably not a good idea ).
However, she said that, while she prefers the more experimental effect format, that it doesn't necessarily have to follow that.

So I'm kind of stuck and not really sure what to do. I'd really like to do something with lead testing to make sure the schools are safe, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it into a project that works.
I've also been considering going with the original experiment of testing the soil, and maybe it could be like "Effect of gas stations on lead levels in soil" or something, and I could test gas station soil vs soil in other areas. Or something like that. But I'm not sure if that'd give me data or if it's as helpful.

What do you guys think?
Thanks! And happy holidays.

[brimstoneSalad]

Correlation study is not really science, though, since there are not adequate controls (it's hard to prove one thing caused another).

You want to be able to change the variable yourself with controls, and get results quick.

Population studies are basically out.

Like if you wanted to experiment with lead pipes, and the kind of water conditions that leech more or less lead into the water. Unfortunately, most of that work has already been done.

Maybe you could examine different methods of cooking with lead contaminated water -- like pasta, or boiled potatoes -- and figure out if adding salt to the cooking water, or something else, helps lower the amount of lead in the food cooked in the water.

[EquALLity]

Correlation study is not really science, though, since there are not adequate controls (it's hard to prove one thing caused another).

You want to be able to change the variable yourself with controls, and get results quick.

Population studies are basically out.

Like if you wanted to experiment with lead pipes, and the kind of water conditions that leech more or less lead into the water. Unfortunately, most of that work has already been done.

Maybe you could examine different methods of cooking with lead contaminated water -- like pasta, or boiled potatoes -- and figure out if adding salt to the cooking water, or something else, helps lower the amount of lead in the food cooked in the water.

Thanks for the reply.
Hm... But we can't dismiss the relevance of population studies, right? Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but if there's a logical reason to believe one thing might cause another, and then a correlation is found, isn't that valuable?
I'm not going to do the poverty one, but the logic is they have less money for infrastructure, so lead in water is more common.

It's supposed to be a simple middle school experiment, not 'real' research, so we gain experience doing an experimental format. So things that have been done before are ok.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't know if I want to put lead contaminated water in my pots though...

[brimstoneSalad]

Hm... But we can't dismiss the relevance of population studies, right?

On their own, 99% of the time... yes.

The only population studies of value are interventional in nature (or done over a long period with off-on states in different areas or to different degrees) and establish a clear dose-response relationship.
Like "we implemented this youth program here and crime rate dropped 10%, then we stopped it and it went back up, then we started it again with double funding and it dropped 15%, then we cut the funding to half of the original funding and crime went back up 8% (down 7% from the original level). This was done independently in different districts at different times to the same result, adjusted for poverty, with it working better where there was higher poverty."

Such studies take a long time to conduct and are inherently very expensive, unless you have data from another program or variable that has been off and on at various rates over a long period of time.

This kind of fit is very convincing:

https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

That's why you always see "climate skeptics" taking short periods (like a single decade) or a single location and making graphs to try to show that CO2 is not a good fit. It's not a long enough period of a large enough scale to overcome other variables.
That (the latter) is basically what most population studies do, except they find unsubstantiated correlations instead of creating unsubstantiated doubt over well substantiated ones.

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but if there's a logical reason to believe one thing might cause another, and then a correlation is found, isn't that valuable?

You can almost always create an ad hoc rationalization based on unproven theory as to why one thing might cause another.
The only evidence that one thing should cause another is typically lacking from the social sciences, where there isn't lot of laboratory experiment or valid computer modeling.

I'm not going to do the poverty one, but the logic is they have less money for infrastructure, so lead in water is more common.

It likely goes the other way too; lead causes brain damage, violent behavior (higher crime), low IQ, which leads to increased poverty.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't know if I want to put lead contaminated water in my pots though...

You can get an old pot, or wash it out after. It's not *that* much lead. The issue is that it builds up over time. If you went to Flint and drank a glass of water you'd be fine.

A study on how to best prepare beans and pasta (the former typically soaked then boiled in the water, and the latter boiled) would be very useful. You might even be able to get it published. These are affordable and nutritious foods, and most people in these areas couldn't afford to make them with bottled water (it would drastically increase the price).

Maybe the membrane on the beans helps keep lead from soaking into them? Maybe the starch in the pasta repels lead too? I don't know. Maybe nobody does. How much lead is soaked in, and is it helped by amending the water with a cheap option like salt or baking soda, or made worse?

It's a project that could help people. People in areas with contaminated water can drink bottled water just fine, and the lead containing water is fine to shit and shower in -- but what about soaking and boiling based food preparation where the amounts of water would be too expensive? Are these people driven to more junk food instead because of the cost, and fear of the water?

[EquALLity]

A study on how to best prepare beans and pasta (the former typically soaked then boiled in the water, and the latter boiled) would be very useful. You might even be able to get it published. These are affordable and nutritious foods, and most people in these areas couldn't afford to make them with bottled water (it would drastically increase the price).

I think this is a good idea, but my teacher doesn't want me to do anything that involves lead. And I don't really see a way to obtain lead contaminated water.
I considered testing bacteria absorption in water boiling on food, but it's probably best not to mess with E. Coli and such.

So... yeah. I might be making this too complicated. It's not supposed to be a *real* study; it's supposed to be a middle school level experiment. It doesn't have to be original or anything like that.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/EnvSci_p053.shtml
I'm thinking about doing this. Except I wouldn't use worms (because that would be really cruel and is also not allowed), I'd use plants.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think this is a good idea, but my teacher doesn't want me to do anything that involves lead.

That's ridiculous.

And I don't really see a way to obtain lead contaminated water.

You can prepare it yourself pretty easily.

I considered testing bacteria absorption in water boiling on food, but it's probably best not to mess with E. Coli and such.

Not sure what you mean. Boiling kills bacteria, and most spores very effectively. This has been well studied anyway.

So... yeah. I might be making this too complicated. It's not supposed to be a *real* study; it's supposed to be a middle school level experiment. It doesn't have to be original or anything like that.

That's the problem with schools these days. They set the standards and expectations at rock bottom.
Tell him or her you want to do something that will actually expand human knowledge and help people.
Tell him or her you will wear gloves and take every precaution with the lead.
Maybe say you're going to do the experiment anyway, so it would be with or without supervision.

[EquALLity]

That's ridiculous.

Well, it would be dangerous, though. I mean, no lead is good for you. If I'm boiling the water, isn't it evaporating? Would that release lead into the air?

You can prepare it yourself pretty easily.

How?

Not sure what you mean. Boiling kills bacteria, and most spores very effectively. This has been well studied anyway.

I would test the same thing I would test with lead except with bacteria. Except I'm not, because I don't want to die from bacteria poisoning.

That's the problem with schools these days. They set the standards and expectations at rock bottom.
Tell him or her you want to do something that will actually expand human knowledge and help people.
Tell him or her you will wear gloves and take every precaution with the lead.
Maybe say you're going to do the experiment anyway, so it would be with or without supervision.

So you want my teacher to hate me?

And trust me, the standards are not set at rock bottom. My school work is intense. I would know.
I'm guessing that you got less homework than I get when you were in high school.

[brimstoneSalad]

That's ridiculous.

Well, it would be dangerous, though. I mean, no lead is good for you. If I'm boiling the water, isn't it evaporating? Would that release lead into the air?

No, it would not.
In order to turn lead into a gas, you have to reach its boiling point (or close to it, where there's meaningful vapor pressure).
Boiling water only releases into the air substances with equal or lower boiling point, for the most part.

Spraying it from a spray bottle would, as an aerosol.

How?

You'd have to look at the compounds involved, which would normally be water soluble lead salts, then make those by exposing some lead to those acids in dilute solution.

I would test the same thing I would test with lead except with bacteria. Except I'm not, because I don't want to die from bacteria poisoning.

It would not make sense with bacteria, since bacteria are rendered harmless by boiling, and lead is not.

And trust me, the standards are not set at rock bottom. My school work is intense. I would know.
I'm guessing that you got less homework than I get when you were in high school.

A large homework load does not equal high standards. Homework is not well correlated to learning.

[Red]

A large homework load does not equal high standards. Homework is not well correlated to learning.

So you're saying the golem effect is at play here?
But I do agree that even if you get more homework, it doesn't make it any 'intense.' I get assigned assloads of homework, but they are all a breeze, even for my Honors classes.

But I do have a few issues with homework not being correlated with learning. Whenever I do homework, I feel the knowledge get reinforced, especially for language classes and math. Then again, that's an anecdote, not a scientific consensus. Probably varies from person to person.

Anyways, at my school, they coddle us to no end. It's kind of insulting with the sheer lack of challenge in the classes. The only way someone can fail is if they don't try or have an IQ lower than 90, and even that's debatable.

[EquALLity]

No, it would not.
In order to turn lead into a gas, you have to reach its boiling point (or close to it, where there's meaningful vapor pressure).
Boiling water only releases into the air substances with equal or lower boiling point, for the most part.

Spraying it from a spray bottle would, as an aerosol.

Oh, ok. Apparently it's boiling point is like 3,000 degrees (Farenheit, which America insists on using for some reason), so I guess that's not really a concern. But... What if it splashes or something? I mean, it's lead. Things could go wrong.

You'd have to look at the compounds involved, which would normally be water soluble lead salts, then make those by exposing some lead to those acids in dilute solution.

Where am i going to buy water soluble lead salts? o_O

It would not make sense with bacteria, since bacteria are rendered harmless by boiling, and lead is not.

Ok, I didn't know that. I was just saying that was something else I was considering related to the original idea.

A large homework load does not equal high standards. Homework is not well correlated to learning.

I disagree. There may be better ways to learn, but completing tons of homework is a high standard in that it requires a lot of effort. It's not like schools these days are encouraging students to slack off; there's MORE work to do now. It might not be useful, but it's not a rock bottom standard.

Anyway, the experiment I'm planning on doing isn't exactly worthless. I'm comparing the most popular conventional detergent (Tide) to a "green" detergent to see if the so-called "green" detergent is truly environmentally friendly.
Basically, something called gray-water, water waste from showers and dish cleaning etc. can be used to reduce waste by being reused for irrigation. But if detergents are harmful to plants that are exposed to the water, then it's just going to be harmful to plant life. Since Tide is filled with a bunch of shit, it's probably going to be harmful to plants. There are some ingredients in the "green" detergent that are also harmful to humans, albeit not as much. Of course, most of the information about specific chemicals in the detergents we have is regarding humans, and obviously just because something is harmful to humans and other animals (animal testing) doesn't mean it's necessarily harmful to plants. It's questionable though, so I'm testing which detergent is better and by how much.