I do not understand your comment. Are you saying that CPSIA is based on medical science? If so, then how is the threat from the air valves in bicycles based on science. What about the lovely lady who lost online bookstore because Senator Murry can not distinguish between a baby’s eating a book from a baby slobbering on a book? Does that constitute medical science?

Sure looks like you got the drop on medical science there. Good luck to you.

Maybe the DC attorney general can sue on the basis of the district’s Consumer Protection Act.

One reason to ban TEL was that lead “was shown” to cause a 5 point drop in IQ. Has school performance improved since the ban? If so why did we have the “no child left behind” nonsense.

To cause problems lead has to get into the blood steam, yet bicycles are banned for children under twelve because of lead ind the air value in the tires. How, in God’s holy name, would that lead get into a child’s blood stream?

The Chinese toy hysteria was based on two cans of paint applied to a half a million toys. Paint bonds strongly to plastic so the probability of the lead getting into anybody’s blood stream is as near zero as near zero gets. Even if it did the amount would be trivial compared to background.

Lead was in use for centuries and is in use today to make bullets. My friend Jimmy and I had get fun in poring molten lead into sinker molds for fishing. I was a college level instructor in Mathematics and Jimmy was a mechanical engineer.

The study for the IQ effect looked at lead in tooth enamel. It happens that aggressiveness as measured by incarceration rates is inversely correlated to IQ. I believe that lower IQ, more aggressive children will chew on lead tainted window sills. Correlation does not distinguish, by itself, cause from effect, from confounding factors.

I am wary of claims of delayed effects. The ill effects from heavy use of cigarettes wear off over a few years upon suspension of smoking. And some delayed effects may come from lifetime accumulation of materials.

Lead is a problem under high exposures in animal studies. The amount of lead available from incidental use is not high exposure, nor can it be. Unfortunately almost every person will do the word pairing of anti-lead-nut propaganda and will not apply common sense to their conclusions.

What do you base your apparently very strong “lead is not a hazard” stance on? I’ve tried googling for information and can’t find any. The overwhelming consensus is that airborne lead is a toxic substance.

If the lead levels were as high as reported – “In one case, a dust sample showed lead levels 92,500 percent higher than the equivalent regulatory standard to which EPA says it is comparing results.” –
wouldn’t somebody have been injured?

Of course not. Because lead is not the hazard implied by anti-lead nuts!

1. The EPA doesn’t own the building.

2. The EPA didn’t cause the contamination.

3. The EPA is pursuing cleanup efforts.

4. The EPA removed employees from the contaminated areas.