Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the there-are-acceptable-levels-of-lead-poisoning? dept.

Some neighborhoods in California are experiencing levels of lead that exceed those measured in Flint, Michigan:

Dozens of California communities have experienced recent rates of childhood lead poisoning that surpass those of Flint, Michigan, with one Fresno locale showing rates nearly three times higher, blood testing data obtained by Reuters shows.

The data shows how lead poisoning affects even a state known for its environmental advocacy, with high rates of childhood exposure found in a swath of the Bay Area and downtown Los Angeles. And the figures show that, despite national strides in eliminating lead-based products, hazards remain in areas far from the Rust Belt or East Coast regions filled with old housing and legacy industry.

In one central Fresno zip code, 13.6 percent of blood tests on children under six years old came back high for lead. That compares to 5 percent across the city of Flint during its recent water contamination crisis. In all, Reuters found at least 29 Golden State neighborhoods where children had elevated lead tests at rates at least as high as in Flint.

Interactive map of U.S. lead hotspots.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by termigator on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:50PM (10 children)

    by termigator (4271) on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:50PM (#483424)

    Always pissed me off when the phrase, "unacceptable levels of lead," is used. This is common when products are recalled that tested positive for lead. Such a phrase begs the questions, "What is an acceptable level of lead?"

    Congrats to the FTA for including the following:

    No level of lead exposure is safe, but children who test that high warrant a public health response, the CDC says.

    Emphasis added.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:55PM (4 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:55PM (#483426) Journal

    Is there anywhere outside of a laboratory that does not have a few molecules of lead around? Lead is in dirt all over the goddamn place. So unless you want to spend $100 trillion to collect all the molecules, there has to be an acceptable level of lead, because you are consuming it and breathing it in every day.

    "No level of lead exposure is safe" does not conflict with an acceptable level of lead, because it is impossible to reduce all environmental risks to zero. Did you breathe in a tiny amount of auto fumes today? Did it feel acceptable to you, or did you just accept it? Did you even notice it?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:13PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:13PM (#483428)

      I used to chew Xmas tree tinsel back in the 60s that was made from lead at that time. I didn't suffer from any consequences.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:48PM (#483437)

        Scott Pruitt, is that you?

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:56PM

        by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:56PM (#483440)

        This has been a community announcement from Darth Cheeto.

        --
        Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:04AM (#483442)

        Shut up Ethanol.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Hartree on Friday March 24 2017, @01:18AM (2 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Friday March 24 2017, @01:18AM (#483462)

    "No level of lead exposure is safe"

    Then you're unsafe. No matter who you are. No matter where you are from on earth. And this isn't a new thing. You can go back to Australopithecus and Lucy would have had some lead in her body.

    This is a meaningless phrase as there has never been a human with zero lead among all the atoms of their body. It gives the impression that somehow having those trace levels of lead removed would be healthier in some way. I strongly suspect it wouldn't, but the experiment has never been done and would be almost impossible to do not only in humans but in animals as well.

    Your body is massively parallel for a reason. That way if an individual protein, lipid, carbohydrate, etc molecule (or even a small subset of the protein, lipid, carbohydrate, etc molecules) get screwed up there is no effect on your health. Lead binds to the proteins it screws up, so it isn't a cascade catalytic process. Thus, there has to be at least SOME level that has no detectable effect. And if there is no effect, then saying it is unsafe at that level isn't scientific, but metaphysical.

    When they say "no acceptable level", it's not a scientific statement, but a political one.

    Sorry to get up on a soapbox, but toxicology is an area where there is an amazing amount of nonsense out there.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday March 24 2017, @02:08AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday March 24 2017, @02:08AM (#483475)

      Amen! And when you combine that attitude of "any amount is unacceptable" with the ever increasing ability of labs to measure ever smaller concentrations it creates whole new levels of stupid.

      Everything is a balance. Too much of most things is bad. Low enough and it isn't, or sometimes even good. Don't think anyone has ever even proposed any benefits of lead though, even in tiny quantities.

      We really should be working on eliminating as much lead as practical from places where people, especially children, live. This is a real problem and there really isn't a debate about it. Key word being practical, once we lower the levels beyond a certain point we have to stop and we will probably have to decide some mitigation efforts aren't economical and simply buy out the properties and abandon the area until some point in the mysterious future when new tech makes it practical or time has solved the problem on its own.

    • (Score: 2) by termigator on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:45PM

      by termigator (4271) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @04:45PM (#485291)

      You infer a core problem: What is acceptable? We really do not know. We do know that at some exposure levels, it is detrimental to health, with some effects causing permanent damage (especially to those still developing physically and mentally). Lead is also a substance that the body does not eliminate easily, so it can accumalate over time from repeated exposures.

      So although the statement, "no exposure safe," can be pendantically categorized as a political statement, science cannot yet state what is safe. Therefore, I think the statement is a appropriate when determining how we deal with lead exposure.

      For those interested in the history of the usage of lead in industry and the propaganda industry used to hide the detrimental effects of lead to our health, I recommend the following book:

      https://www.amazon.com/Deceit-Denial-Industrial-Pollution-California/dp/0520240634 [amazon.com]

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 24 2017, @01:25PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 24 2017, @01:25PM (#483622) Journal

    Under the current administration, lead is to be recognized as an important mineral and nutrient. The FDA is directed to come up with RDA guidelines for lead.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @08:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @08:10PM (#483841)

      Interesting that despite both lead issues happening in heavily democratic locations, they STILL manage to blame Republicans for their problems.