10 ms·
Seems a overblown. For all of the pages of reporting, they only cite two blood test results of kids, and they were both under the 2.5 ug/dL guideline. Many, m
by cameldrv 7y ago
Seems a overblown. For all of the pages of reporting, they only cite two blood test results of kids, and they were both under the 2.5 ug/dL guideline. Many, many children test over this level in the U.S., and in the eighties a large percentage of kids tested over 10.
- whatshisface 7y agoThere's no safe level of lead, the symptoms start at nothing at 0.0ug/dL and increase proportionally.
- wtvanhest 7y agoYes, but, everyone is exposed to varying degrees and its not uncommon for kids to have above that level. You can get results for san francisco tests for example. The majority of cases are from lead paint exposure which is very dangerous
- whatshisface 7y agoIt's not uncommon to have heart attacks, does that mean there is a safe level of cardiac arrest?
- cameldrv 7y agoI don't doubt that's true, but experimentally, detectible harm has only been demonstrated at 2 ug/dl. In 2014, 4.2% of kids in the U.S. (over 500,000) had levels above 5 ug/dl. I don't mean to say that lead isn't an important thing to reduce, but a few kids with relatively low lead levels in a very small part of one city isn't the story, it's the millions of kids with much higher levels right here in the U.S. The only thing that drives this story is the sensationalism of Notre Dame burning and releasing toxic fumes, not the actual impact on kids.