Paying to Get the Lead Out

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's my understanding from something I read several years ago that there have not been significant amounts of lead found more than 3 feet from road surfaces. It was related at that time that this was due to lead being one of the heaviest of metals, so that upon it's exit from the exhaust system it fell pretty much straight down.

It would seem a stretch then (if the above is true) for this lead, deposited on roadways to be a prime source of ingestion by infants.

This does bring up another interesting question (to my mind at least). That question being. If the lead in gasoline was added to help the valves of the internal combustion engine, why did we then get charged a higher price for gasoline that does not contain this additive?

The reason we paid more for unleaded gasoline (when both were available) was the ingredients for unleaded gas to reach the 87 octane rating were more expensive than the lead additive that gave us the 89 octane leaded fuel.

OK RCE,

Good sensible reply. It took quite a while to get. Is there scientific evidence for the source of the lead in the well.

Hmm, Scientific evidence might be a little strong for the investigations of hazardous waste contaminated sites. However, the one site i mentioned was investigated by Cal DTSC, including a number of groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate the groundwater plume. The plume appeared to be centrally located under the site and covered a relatively small area of maybe an acre where it exceeded primary MCLs. The site was considered so toxic, the children of the tenants were poisoned and hospitalized, that the property was confiscated and secured by the State pending remediation. Surprisingly, even after all that, members of the family would regularly cut the chain link fencing, break into the property and set up residence, until the State would come by and threw them out, multiple times. Some people just don't think Lead is all that poisonous even after an acute poisoning. I think this is a problem relating to the amount of trash information propigating threw society about various perceived toxins, causes people to no longer believe that some compounds are really toxic when they have been told everything is bad for them by everyone trying to lobby their agendas or sell their products. Lead is really acutely toxic, not a just some suspected carcinogen, teratogen, or something obscure like that.

Give a dog a bad name!!! Too much straight line thinking!!!

I think the whole position is out of line. Paint is getting blamed for some past problems dating from the times long ago when red and white lead were used in paint. Both of these lead oxides are soluble in the acid in the stomach and so could be absorbed into the system with ease once they got into the stomach.

They both make excellent primers. Red lead was used on metals and white lead on wood. Until the introduction of Titanium dioxide as a white pigment some white lead (along with Zinc Oxide) was used in finishing coats. This is a long time ago - early in the 20th century - it is unlikely that any of the original white lead finish paints exists any where. After that white lead was used as a primer on wood.

White lead (I am told!) has a sweet taste and so any wooden articles chewable by children would be a problem. Hence, I believe, a possible source of the bad reputation.

The use of lead oxides in paints I think stopped some 20-30 years ago.

The lead chromates and molybdenates (yellow, orange, red and green pigments) has carried on but has more or less dissapeared from current non-industrial coatings. In any case the lead in these salts is very much less soluble than the oxides and as it used in smaller quantities and so is a much loer problem. This, in my opinion, means that we lose out. They are still used industrially and a child would probably need to eat all the paint from a caterpillar tractor to get lead poisoning!!

In the case of petrol the lead fumes spilled out into the atmosphere are very mich higher - I think that a calculation of the lead used for antiknock and the lead used for paint would be of interest and also the possibility of his getting into a child examined.

The petrol lead getting into the air means it is widespread and if any one checks out the lead levels in bread (try it on a web search) it gives an indication. Problem I believe is that samplers may be measuring the lead on paint rather than the lead in paint and the volatile nature of petrol lead means that a lot will find itself on the painted surfaces.

In any case the consumer is to blame - why blame the producers - they were only satisfying a demand and used "best available technology" at the time. The state made a few bucks in taxes so are they going to repay the tax paid? We are all to blame at the moment? people are using cell phones in spite of dubious comments - will they sue in the future. Why fine the tobacco companies for problemss caused by tobacco? - they did not force people to smoke.

We all pay !! I don't care who you tag with the bill, the costs get passed back to us. Every time. The People's Republic of California seem to have forgotten that or they are so arrogant to think that the public doesn't understand who pays for it in the end. Just another hidden tax by an oppressive government. Other than kids living in slums with old peeling paint, what's the risk? Seems to me that lead from paint is a much higher risk for children. I'd love to see the soil analysis as a function of distance from roadways. Also, what is the natural levels of lead in the soil to begin with, regardless of proximity to roadways or housing built and painted before 1978? We all ate dirt when we were growing up in the era of leaded gasolines. We made it OK.

I believe the costs should be allocated not by the theorized lead quantities re-introduced into the environment, but by the costs required to mitigate excessive lead levels in the environment. For instance, if the costs to remediate lead paint in housing and in the soils 3 feet from the dwelling is 2 billion dollars, then tax the paint industry. (As repulsive as that seems.) Likewise, if you incur costs remediating the soils near roadways, then that cost would go against oil industry.

While I am on my rant, I despise the use of the term 'fee'. It's a freaking tax. Call it what it is!

As you rightly say the cost will be passed on the consumer anyway. As to taxing the paint industry I still maintain that lead on (from air = gasoline) as opposed to lead in is more of a problem. Results after the use of non-leaded fuels (higher priced because of replacement) might help clarify the issue.

At least over here there is some sense of proportion. In South Africa the whole problem it seems is pointed at paint by the Dept of Health - who haven't got the best reputation anyway! The problem here is that this does not fit the facts and so as they cannot see wood for trees and the real problem is not really located. This could be dangerous.

Meawhile back at the ranch . . . . . . . . ! ! ! ? ? ?

Well said. Appreciate your keeping your emotions in check (cheque)

I gave you a GA! Spared me a rant.

milo

Other than kids living in slums with old peeling paint, what's the risk? Wow, have something against impoverished children.

We all ate dirt when we were growing up in the era of leaded gasolines. We made it OK. Since chronic low-level lead exposures actually causes some degree of mental retardation, how do you actually know?

The problem with setting a tax based on remediation that the costs are highly variable. They do charge responsible parties directly when they can be identified, and are still financially viable (many companies go out of business and parent corporations are hard to tie directly as responsible parties) for environmental impacts. Additionally, many times in rural areas the impacts don't get identified until suburban development occurs in the area, which might be 15 years into the future. I have seen sites that are now in major metropolitan suburban areas, that were used to bury waste 50 years ago in what was perceived as useless swamp land, and the companies that did these activities no longer exist.

Regarding California's environmental policies, actually the State of California is rated substantially behind most of the States (except a few in the midwest, deep south and east coast where specific industrial lobbies have limited some regulations) on environmental regulation. Nothing substantial has changed in California since th 1980s. the trend now is to implement modified federal regulations that are approved by US EPA but are a streamlined version of federal practices meant to benefit development. Many of the streamlined processes are actually the preferred model to federal, like CEQA versus NEPA. Truthfully, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and many other western states are much stricter about environmental regulations (this is why California has more Dairy production than all the other states), which are based frequently on studies conducted by California to evaluate new regulations and policies. California decides against implementing the policies its studies determine are appropriate, or at least implementing to the degree indicated in the findings, so other states implement these policies. I am not sure that this would imply a communist regime, conducting studies and wasting money, when the politicians have no plan to implement the findings if they are not favorable to industry. That just sounds more like corruption and bureaucracy.

Plus the economy in California is consistent with a communist economy. It is equivalent to that of maybe New York and Florida Combined, or 6.75 Marylands, with a population of about 6.5 Marylands. So per capita, the population in California is about 4% more productive than that of Maryland and 14% more productive than the US. I would think that would be inconsistent with a truly communist economy. It actually kind of sounds like Californians may be carrying much of the rest of the US along.

RCE

"We all ate dirt when we were growing up in the era of leaded gasolines. We made it OK. Since chronic low-level lead exposures actually causes some degree of mental retardation, how do you actually know?"

While I may not agree with everything you say, I do like your sense of humor .

And I grew up in the Tri Cities (down-winders syndrome). I sometimes can't sleep at night due to the glow.

Really though, you make a good point (inadvertently perhaps) in that the State of California's disproportionate cut of the national economy may be due, in part, to the relaxed environmental restrictions placed on industry there.

Not going to get into a battle over whose state is more environmentally friendly, you are clearly the local expert and have home field advantage.

but my california shops are far more restricted in solvents and cleaners that they can use and that are available due to photochemical smog regulations; and it is california that has totally banned lead in water supply plumbing, AB 1953 (chan) regardless of whether or not the part actuially touches water, far over and above the national level and NSF 61 regs. There is much bad science involved in the chan bill, but it is a political construct and i am really not trying to pick a fight.

I have had a number of shops move from CA to nevada or oregon and they all mention onerous environmental regs among the reasons why.

Those of us east of California do seem to have a different view of your states enviro policy that you are reporting.

peace.

milo

milo

Smog regulation in california is promulgated by the US EPA, and even then the APCDs drag their feet and seek loophole to meet compliance with EPA standards. The warm dry weather and high mountains, compounded by high populations cause many smog issues. I am not sure why anyone would move to Oregon for less restrictive environmental regulations, since that is where the ecologically sensitive groups congregate. I do know many interests continue to complain, like Dairymen, about the regulations and how they are moving to Idaho or Nevada. It almost never really happens on a purely business profit margins basis though, frequently there is some underlying complaint about immigration. Plus the truth is that most of the States they want to move to are actually less profitable for their industires and have stricter regulation (just less bureaucracy). Arizona would actually be a much less regulated State, and still has a reasonably dry climate (longer production seasons), but i never here anything about moving businesses there (it is also a right to work state, so labor rates are cheaper). As far as lead in water supply components, I would have to look at that bill, there is probably some industrial lobby behind it. However, lead leaches from any metal matrix, as do most compounds. It is unlikely to be very concentrated in most cases, but as you know plumbing component frequently get misused. If even a majority of the contractors and homeowners always appropriately built, regulation of manufacturers would not be necessary.

You are correct about the situation in AZ.

The chan bill Was not at all backed by any industrial lobby group, I can assure you.

Lead will not leach from a metal matrix ifthe part is not wetted- doesn't matter to Chan; LEad can be preleached from wetted parts- not acceptable to chan;

No enforcement provision either, so the chinese parts will continue to come in with lead and nothing will happen, if any leaded part sold say in OHIO gets installed in CA, I will bet that there will be lawsuit.

The real Science shows that the preponderance of lead in the water supply does not come from the fittings...

The joys of trying to do right...

Enjoy your evening.

milo

Preleaching all the lead out of a metallic matrix would not make any sense, it would be more costly than just not using any lead. Also, i suspect it would be a loop hole and enforcement would fail to catch those who did not properly leach their parts. So some would be working to maintain a long-term business and be compliant (at the added expense), while many others would not (but would still price their parts only slightly less than competitors to maximize profits).

The fact that there is no enforcement for imported components should indicate which industrial lobbyist would support such a bill (those who buy these parts from outside the state but want a lead-free image to promote sales or increase sales prices). Keep in mind many bills are passed just to appease the common masses fears and create an image, while maintaining numerous loopholes (lack of enforcement being one), and are supported by many industrial lobbies. Some industries will stab others in the back solely to improve their image.

It is like the immigration thing in Arizona. Business interest support anti-immigration laws, as long as they have no authirty to enforce business compliance. It is good for business to create the perception, no matter how false, amongst your customers that you are of a similar mind as they are, unless it impacts your profits. As soon as Arizona tries to close the federal loop hole and enforce the immigration laws, such that businesses may now see either a loss of underpaid illegal labor or State penalties, the businesses start griping on the news. You are correct though about someone getting sued, after all there are more lawyers here than anywhere else in the country. The courts would then likely end up mandating some internal enforcement by the companies using these parts, just because of the courts decision and the htreat of lawsuit. Of course the fly by night LLCs and such, will still violate such regulations because they won't exist by the time they get sued.

Freind of mine worked at a battery plant some 15 miles from his home. He showered and changed his clothes at work and still the lead levels in his kids blood ran high. No lead in their paint either they live in newer home.

I use a cell phone. I generally held it up to my left ear. I developed an acoustic neuroma in the left ear. Therefore, the cell phone caused my tumor. Right?

IT WAS ALL MARCONI'S FAULT - SUE HIM.