3 ms·

My understanding is that all detectable amounts currently have known negative effects when studied. The Action levels are set based on what is possible to addr

by lumost 5y ago

My understanding is that all detectable amounts currently have known negative effects when studied. The Action levels are set based on what is possible to address in an individual child. Lead exists in the environment. It would be impractical to impossible to eliminate it entirely from the blood streams of most people. However certain areas have extremely dangerous concentrations such as dirt near major roads/old buildings, water in certain areas, and lead paints. Lead pipes are an interesting one where it is simply impractical to replace all the pipes and remove lead in old cities. Hence as long as the calcification holds there is no action on the small amount of lead which leaks into the pipes.

shadowgovt 5y ago
In the US at least, were it structured as an infrastructure project on a city by city basis, it would actually be extremely possible to strip out lead pipes and replace them with something modern. The problem is that pipe ownership in a domestic home is the property of the homeowner, and there's no political will to do that kind of massive wealth transfer from the public coffers to the improved infrastructure of millions of individual properties. But while it wouldn't be inexpensive, it's on par with other expenditures the federal government makes for federal projects.
im3w1l 5y ago
That statement has the exact same problem. With sufficiently sensitive tests you might in theory be able to detect the negative effects of a single lead atom. What we really want to know is: how big of a deal is this really?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Does a single atom have known negative effects?
- lumost 5y ago
  There are unlikely to be people in the US with blood levels less than 1 order of magnitude less than the EPA action threshold. Lead is in your drinking water, food, and if you lived near anything with leaded - your air. We used to use lead based pesticides at the dawn of the 20th century, if you eat any food grown in the midwest you are exposing yourself to reasonably large quantities of lead.
giantg2 5y ago
Actually, you dont need to replace the pipes. They can actually line them in place. Of course then people might have concerns about the chemical makeup of the liners (basically plastic), but it's hard to say what other alternatives are out there.

by lumost 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

In the US at least, were it structured as an infrastructure project on a city by city basis, it would actually be extremely possible to strip out lead pipes and replace them with something modern. The problem is that pipe ownership in a domestic home is the property of the homeowner, and there's no political will to do that kind of massive wealth transfer from the public coffers to the improved infrastructure of millions of individual properties. But while it wouldn't be inexpensive, it's on par with other expenditures the federal government makes for federal projects.

im3w1l 5y ago

That statement has the exact same problem. With sufficiently sensitive tests you might in theory be able to detect the negative effects of a single lead atom. What we really want to know is: how big of a deal is this really?

Dylan16807 5y ago
Does a single atom have known negative effects?
lumost 5y ago
There are unlikely to be people in the US with blood levels less than 1 order of magnitude less than the EPA action threshold. Lead is in your drinking water, food, and if you lived near anything with leaded - your air. We used to use lead based pesticides at the dawn of the 20th century, if you eat any food grown in the midwest you are exposing yourself to reasonably large quantities of lead.

giantg2 5y ago

Actually, you dont need to replace the pipes. They can actually line them in place. Of course then people might have concerns about the chemical makeup of the liners (basically plastic), but it's hard to say what other alternatives are out there.