For anyone mislead by the headline, the misguided bit is the way the war on childhood lead exposure is being conducted, not the war itself. Everyone knows wher

For anyone mislead by the headline, the misguided bit is the way the war on childhood lead exposure is being conducted, not the war itself. Everyone knows where the biggest problems are. There are whole neighborhoods of older housing with peeling lead paint. In many cases honest cost-benefit analysis would say it is cheaper in the long run to tear out/tear down/semipermanently seal up the hazardous buildings. The society costs in medical, prison, and assistance over the lifetime of the poisoned children are less than the cost to fix the root cause. So why don't we have a giant lead paint superfund tearing down or safely refurbishing the hazardous housing before it debilitates more kids? I think the major issue is perceived fairness. Government paying owners to tear down or refurbish housing would look like an unfair give-away to the owners. Requiring all owners to abate lead hazards without payment looks like an unfair take-away from owners. Paying for families to live in safe housing looks like an unfair give-away to the families. (How to make it fair for the families who would have never considered living an unsafe place vs the ones who considered it and are now paid to live elsewhere?) And neither the owners of unsafe properties nor the families living there are groups with much political clout. I guess in a few more decades the fraction of remaining housing stock with lead hazards may become small enough that it becomes politically feasible to address the problem directly. Until then, more of the half-hearted effoet that addresses problems on a case-by-case basis only after kids are permanently impaired.