Colored Glass

According to Wiki:

"Lead crystal and food safety

Significant amounts of lead can migrate from lead crystal containers into beverages stored in them.^[1] Lead crystal typically contains 24–35 percent lead oxide. In a study performed at North Carolina State University, the amount of lead migration was measured for port wine stored in lead crystal decanters. After two days, lead levels were 89 µg/L (micrograms per liter). After four months, lead levels were between 2,000 and 5,000 µg/L. White wine doubled its lead content within an hour of storage and tripled it within four hours. Some brandy stored in lead crystal for over five years had lead levels around 20,000 µg/L.^{[citation needed]} To put this into perspective, EPA's lead standard for drinking water is 15 µg/L = 15ppb.^[2] Citrus juices and infant formula leach lead from crystal just as effectively as alcoholic beverages. Several companies do make lead crystal baby bottles and it is suspected they may present a health danger to infants.^{[citation needed]}"

Bottoms up!

Who sponsored the research at these 2 sources? Before going off half cocked, take the time to calculate the amount of lead that amounts to 10 ppb, it is woefully small.

Also, go back to basic molecular diffusion studies for water and other liquids in lead pipes. I believe you will find the results of these studies are grossly overstated...

The specific amounts are not particularly relevant to the original question. He asked if the lead will migrate (not how much). According to the Wiki info referenced and a few other web sources I spot checked, the general consensus is "YES". That answers the question posed.

All that aside, you're right, 10 ppb is woefully small, but the EPA limit is only 15 ppb, still woefully small. Even if the study results are 10X or 100X overstated, they still exceed the limit. And at 35% lead content in the crystal, I'm guessing that's enough to easily contribute the concentrations referenced. Besides, if it was your child, would the actual concentrations really matter to you?

One of the reasons why some of these levels are set so low is not directly related to toxicity. Some materials in incredibly small amounts may interfere with one or more of the cell's processes for mediating the division of DNA.

For example, very low limits for arsenic in drinking water are asked for because these small amounts disrupt a very important process that helps DNA get-it-right. These levels are far below the standard toxic levels, which government argues is sufficient for public health. However...

Yeh, I would be concerned what the actual concentrations were. And I would not ASSUME there was a problem (and announce it to the media, to gain noteriety) until I could PROVE it and have other labs verify it. That's the way science, especially academic science is supposed to work, or it's not science just pushing the buttons of the audience to get more support for a pet project. Medical science is not as far advanced as they would like you to believe. Many of the epidemiologists that raise these issues dont even have a good solid background in statistics (the subject area they are to know best for their projections).

Same issue with lead in paint. How many kids do you personally know that go around chewing on lead house paint? Zero I'll bet.

Same goes with arsenic in water: same data set used by EPA and WHO to justify a 10 ppb limit was analyzed by the NIH labs. They say the limit should have been set at 150 ppb As.

Bush's biggest argument was based on cost, not science.

How many kids do I know that put paint chips in there mouth? Actually, four. Each developed lead poisoning and had to be chelated. What mansion on the hill or ivory tower did you just crawl out of? You really seem quite unaware of real life.

For years, childhood exposure to lead was such a problem is poorer areas, it gained the name "Ghetto Malaria." You also seem deficient on any knowledge about children. Kids put all sorts of stuff in their mouths. It's just part of being a child.

Lead is used in glass to refract the light passing thru it. It help to improve its brillance on decoration peices of art glass. Yes lead will leach from the glass. The amount depends on what the liquid is. Leaded glass should be looked at not used.

Here,here OZZB!

Here's another point to be worried about, and I think it should call for a boycott of Chinese product (at least, as far as that could be done)...

Years ago, a lot of ceramic was coming into the US from Mexico. Anyone who has done pottery work knows that there are a number of great glazes made from heavy metals: lead, cadmium, all the nasty ones. While great for decorative wear, they used it in food related objects. People started getting sick because acidic substances leach the heavy metals out and into the food. When the source was discovered, there was hell to pay.

If China is now committing this same offence, I believe we should send them a message that states if you want to be a leading economic power in the world, you need to clean up your act. If this is the type of thing you do, then I want none of it!!!

So the next time you drink coffee out of a mug that was made in China, you might want to think about all the other stuff you might be drinking besides coffee.

In a word, yes, it does. Years ago the surgeon general advised against using crystal glass for use in foods, especially in things like baby bottles. The high incidence of refraction caused in glass by adding lead oxide to the mix is pretty, but some lead will leach out into the liquid stored inside. For normal use (such as a wine glass), its not a problem typically, but if you are using leaded glass for storage, such as in liquor decanters, the long term contacting of the liquid with the glass can lead to high lead concentrations.

I totally concur.