4 ms·

I suspect that if we did an ROI calculation on government funding to remove lead from buildings, we’d find a very good return vs. other spending in the infrastr

I suspect that if we did an ROI calculation on government funding to remove lead from buildings, we’d find a very good return vs. other spending in the infrastructure bills. This could serve as a solid backlog of Keynesian stimulus to inject money & jobs into the economy in recessions. I recall in 2008 the recovery act included funds for broadband build-out, which took years to actually get through planning, and so did not serve the stated goal of getting people back to work; seems like you could do many of these smaller lead removal projects on a much shorter timeframe (especially during a recession when construction resources would tend to be underutilized as investment dries up).

citrin_ru 5y ago
I suspect ROI will be negative (especially given sky-high cost of US infrastructure projects) - lead is safe if not consumed inside. And AFAIK it happens mostly in two situations - old chipping paint and lead pipes. Even chipping paint should be a problem either when paint dust is everywhere or when children are playing with paint chips. Lead pipes are more dangerous and should be replaced but even lead pipes leak significant lead amounts only if pH is high (or water flow is high). In comments to this thread I see what looks to me like a moral panic - people leaving in safe conditions are full of fear (and who are really unsafe are not represented on HN). Lead is not something which can kill you at a distance, or if you consume 1 μg of it.