> Talk about moving the goal posts! Nope. My original response addressed your bizarre and irrelevant comparison with "elemental lead". You wrote a whole para

> Talk about moving the goal posts! Nope. My original response addressed your bizarre and irrelevant comparison with "elemental lead". You wrote a whole paragraph downplaying the risks of elemental lead. When it was pointed out to you that environment contamination doesn't involve elemental lead, but rather compounds that are much more dangerous, you pretended to know that, but then kept on saying that they're "not that much worse than elemental lead from a mobility or toxicity perspective." If you would just do a bit of reading about this stuff, it would be clear to you that you've been talking a lot of nonsense. > So we agree that leaded gasoline in common use for aviation is not a significant contributor to lead poisoning in the population? I have no idea. I never mentioned avgas in this discussion, and I'm not informed enough about it to have an opinion. > And perhaps that whoever hasn’t red tagged the houses sitting on a well know multi hundred year old superfund site should do so, or is being negligent? Um, yes... these are superfund sites. By definition, dwellings at risk have been identified and remediation has been ongoing since the 80's. That's like, the whole point. So again, who exactly do you think should be going to prison for this? > And that said site is not representative of literally any other type of situation? No, a lot of non-industrial contamination is even more hazardous. As I said before, the vast majority of lead poisoning is due to lead paint and PVC miniblinds. Again, you could easily educate yourself about this if you wanted to. > And that eating paint chips is indeed bad for kids - even if they aren’t sweet? Nobody here would argue with that.