- Cape Rolling Out Bloomfield Road Art Trail (8/21/19)1
- Donors Pledge Almost Two Grand To Replace SEMO's Possibly Sentient ‘Gum Tree' (8/16/18)
- SEMO and The Will To (Become A Consultant) – Part 2 (6/14/18)
- SEMO and The Will To Do (You Really Want To See That Legal Notice?) – Part 1 (6/4/18)
- Judge, Jury... Trashman (6/1/18)
- Diary of Cape Girardeau Road Deconstruction (5/11/18)
- Trying To Save A Tree From City “Improvements” (4/30/18)2
Do We Really Need To Get The Lead Out?
I was reading earlier this week that the city of St. Louis is one of the foremost municipalities in the country when it comes to assisting residents with the removal of lead-based paint from their homes.
The vast majority of the houses in the city were built long before the federal government banned the use of lead in paint in 1978.
Experts say that ingesting lead-based paint chips can lead to learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children.
Perhaps.
Obviously, the Consumer Product Safety Commission thinks it is a serious problem considering that they have ratcheted-up enforcing restrictions on the substance to the point of asininity.
Everything from toys to candy wrappers to youth-sized ATVs and even books have come under scrutiny by their overly-diligent eye all thanks to new tougher regulations mandated by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that went into effect in February.
The law is pretty clear.
Currently, if an item contains a minute amount of lead -- 600 parts per million -- and it is a "children's product" as defined by the CPSC, it may not be sold. This coming August the law tightens up even more, slashing the limit to 300 ppm and then to a mere 100 ppm in 2011.
You often hear the term parts per million mentioned when discussing things like lead and other toxic substances. The current restriction of 600 ppm is a very, very small quantity. For instance, if a car has a 13 gallon gas tank, 600 parts per million would be equivalent to a little more than 1.5 ounces. That's it.
When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, the after school TV shows constantly filled empty advertising space with a public service commercial showing a child in some nameless inner-city hovel, pulling off a piece of lead-based paint from a nearby flaking window and eating it as if it were a potato chip.
Even as a 7-year old, I thought the boy shown in the commercial -- let's call him Johnny -- was dumb. Who would do such a thing?
In our every increasing litigious society, laying blame on someone or something else as been elevated practically to an art-form, and personal responsibility is considered one of those archaic practices no longer needed in today's world.
Johnny ate some lead paint so that's the reason why Johnny has to take remedial classes and is so disruptive in school. Got to be the lead paint. Who can we sue?
The fact that Johnny's father is nowhere to be found, his mother has 3 other children younger than him and spends minimal time with any of them, his baby-sitter and role model are a TV and a GameBoy, and the only book in his home has been used to level the coffee-table in the living room has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
Nope. Can't be those things. Got to be the lead paint. Who can we sue?
While ingesting lead paint chips or breathing in lead dust may be bad for you, consuming anything in immoderation or inhaling excessive amounts of any kind of particulates -- lead, sawdust, pollen, ground up Oreos, anything -- will be detrimental to your health.
Lead has existed and been used beneficially by societies for centuries.
Lead was everywhere when I was growing up. The toys I played with as a child were slathered in lead-based paint. The houses I was raised in were coated with lead paint as were the schools I attended. I even went on a field trip to a decommissioned lead mine when I was in elementary school, yet somehow managed to survive the experience with a high enough IQ to write this blog.
While education experts and lawyers can point their fingers at lead for causing stupid children with bad behavior, the fact of the matter is that environment of the familial-kind is far more critical to a child's success in society than over-legislating the use of a substance that mankind has used for millennia.
Although who knows. Perhaps these parents who allow their children to be ignorant little brats got this way by ingesting paint chips when they themselves were growing up, creating a vicious cycle that only a law and the CPSC can possibly break.
That makes perfect sense. Personal responsibility is way over-rated.
Got to be the lead paint. Who can we sue?
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires a subscription.