Fw: #689: DUMBING DOWN THE CHILDREN--PART 3

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <rachel@...>

<rachel-weekly@...>

Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 2:52 PM

Subject: #689: DUMBING DOWN THE CHILDREN--PART 3

> =======================Electronic Edition========================

> . .

> . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #689 .

> . ---March 2, 2000--- .

> . HEADLINES: .

> . DUMBING DOWN THE CHILDREN--PART 3 .

> . ========== .

> . Environmental Research Foundation .

> . P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403 .

> . Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@... .

> . ========== .

> . All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .

> . info@... with the single word HELP in the message. .

> . Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .

> . To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .

> . listserv@... with the words .

> . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .

> . The newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .

> . to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .

> . E-mail message to info@.... .

> =================================================================

>

>

> DUMBING DOWN THE CHILDREN--PART 3

>

> We have previously published considerable information about toxic

> lead and its permanent detrimental effects on young children.[1]

> At low levels, lead impairs hearing, diminishes growth, and

> reduces IQ. Children with low levels of lead in their blood may

> have a hard time paying attention, controlling their impulses,

> and learning. In some children, lead contributes to delinquency

> and violence.

>

> In recent weeks we started asking, Why are governments refusing

> to comply with a 1989 federal law that requires all infants and

> toddlers in the Medicaid program to be tested for lead poisoning?

> Medicaid is a federally-funded medical insurance program for poor

> people. It is well-established that lead poisoning now occurs

> mainly in poor neighborhoods.[2] In 1998, 13.5 million children

> (18.9% of all children in the U.S.) lived in poverty.[3] The

> General Accounting Office (an investigative branch of Congress)

> reported during 1999 that " hundreds of thousands of children

> exposed to dangerously high levels of lead are neither tested nor

> treated, " because state governments are refusing to comply with

> the law, the NEW YORK TIMES said.[4]

>

> The current federal " acceptable " level of lead in children's

> blood is 10 micrograms (mcg) of lead in each deciliter (tenth of

> a liter) of blood, expressed as 10 mcg/dL. One way to get this

> lead toxicity standard into perspective is to compare it to

> naturally-occurring levels. Even before Europeans arrived in

> North America, humans had some lead in their blood (and bones,

> where it is still measurable today) because lead is a

> naturally-occurring element and some of it is always blowing

> around on the wind. We could argue about whether it is proper to

> call this a " natural background level " because humans have been

> mining lead out of the ground for perhaps 6000 years, so some

> human-mobilized lead has been blowing on the wind for aeons,

> adding to the levels that nature produces by itself.[5]

>

> In any case, according to the National Research Council, people

> in the U.S. have average body burdens of lead approximately 300

> to 500 times those found in our prehistoric ancestors.[6]

>

> So how does the " acceptable " limit of 10 mcg/dL compare to

> pre-historic lead levels? The relationship between lead in

> people's bones and lead in their blood is well-known. Careful

> measurements of the bones of pre-Columbian inhabitants of North

> America reveal that average blood lead levels were 0.016 mcg/dL

> -- about 625 times lower than the 10 mcg/dL now established as

> " acceptable " for our children.[7] On the face of it, the current

> 10 mcg/dL standard seems imprudent because it assumes that a

> potent nerve poison at levels 625 times as high as natural

> background is " acceptable " for children.

>

> Indeed, some of the nation's most prestigious medical

> organizations acknowledge that children are being harmed at the

> current federally-established " acceptable " level. The American

> Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 reviewed 18 medical studies showing

> that lead diminishes a child's mental abilities. " The

> relationship between lead levels and IQ deficits was found to be

> remarkably consistent, " the Academy said. " A number of studies

> have found that for every 10 mcg/dL increase in blood lead

> levels, there was a lowering of mean [average] IQ in children by

> 4 to 7 points. " Four to 7 IQ points may not sound like a major

> loss, but an average loss of 5 IQ points puts 50% more children

> into the IQ 80 category, which is borderline for normal

> intelligence. It also reduces the number of high IQs; for

> example, one group that should have had 5% children with IQs of

> 125 (or above) contained none.[8] So 10 mcg/dL of lead -- the

> federal government's current " acceptable " standard for lead

> poisoning -- is sufficient to cause a general dumbing down of

> children exposed at that level. As the federal Centers for

> Disease Control (CDC) acknowledges, " Blood lead levels at least

> as low as 10 mcg/dL can adversely affect the behavior and

> development of children. " 2 Thus the federal government has set a

> " acceptable " level of lead in blood that it acknowledges does not

> protect children. Indeed, damage to children has been documented

> at blood-lead levels considerably below 10 mcg/dL. The federal

> Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, within

> the CDC) cites studies showing that children's growth, hearing,

> and IQ can be diminished by blood-lead levels as low as 5

> mcg/dL.[9]

>

> In any case, federal law says that all children in the Medicaid

> program should be tested for lead at age 12 months and again at 2

> years. Many states have no idea what percentage of children they

> have tested because they have failed to keep records. Among

> states that have kept records, the worst is Washington state,

> which has tested only 1% of eligible children; the state with the

> best record, Alabama, has tested only 46% of those eligible.[4]

> Why?

>

> Is it because the problem is too small to merit attention? Has

> the problem of lead-poisoned children gone away, as some would

> have us believe? Here is the most recent published information:

> During the period 1991-1994, the federal Centers for Disease

> Control (CDC) tested the blood of a representative sample of the

> U.S. population, looking for lead poisoning. They found that 4.4%

> of children ages 1 to 5 have at least 10 mcg/dL; CDC says 4.4%

> represents just under a million children (890,000) ages 1 to

> 5.[2] Of course each year roughly 200,000 of these children grow

> to age 6 and leave the " high-risk " group (carrying their

> intellectual deficit with them) and another 200,000 children join

> the " high-risk group " and become brain-damaged. In some cities of

> the northeastern U.S., 35% of pre-school children have 10 mcg/dL

> or more of lead in their blood.[10]

>

> Who are these children? Although poverty itself is a good

> predictor of childhood lead poisoning, there is a clear racial

> disparity at work as well.[11] One researcher who examined this

> question reported that " the homes of Black children had higher

> levels of lead-contaminated dust and their interior surfaces were

> in poorer condition. " [11] Children living in low-income families

> are 8 times as likely to be lead poisoned as children who are not

> poor. Black children are 5 times as likely to be lead poisoned as

> white children.[12]

>

> How can this problem be fixed? The source of the lead must be

> eliminated without leaving a dangerous residue of toxic dust. The

> American Academy of Pediatrics said in 1993, " Identification and

> treatment of the child poisoned with lead continues to be

> essential, but of greater importance is IDENTIFICATION OF THE

> SOURCE and PREVENTION OF SUBSEQUENT EXPOSURES for that child and

> other children in the future. " [8] [Emphasis in the original.] In

> other words, the only real solution is primary prevention.

>

> Testing children for lead poisoning is the current

> federally-approved method for identifying lead-contaminated

> homes. It is important to recognize that this approach is not

> primary prevention. This approach uses children the way miners

> formerly used canaries -- as a signal that trouble has already

> occurred. In the mines, a dead canary meant that toxic gases had

> built up to dangerous levels in the mine; similarly, finding 10

> mcg/dL or more of lead in a child's blood is a sign that

> excessive lead is present in the child's environment and

> poisoning has already occurred.[10]

>

> Primary prevention -- preventing lead exposures -- is the only

> permanent solution to this problem, and it will be expensive. It

> has been estimated that the first-year cost of reducing lead

> hazards in federally-owned and federally-assisted housing would

> be $458 million. However, the calculated benefits from such lead

> abatement would be $1.538 billion -- a net benefit of $1.08

> billion,[11] so it is certainly affordable.

>

> Other public policies could help. A careful study of two

> districts in Massachusetts and neighboring Rhode Island showed

> that lead poisoning is much less common in Massachusetts.[13]

> For 20 years, Massachusetts has required lead abatement in all

> homes built before 1978 that are inhabited by children younger

> than 6. And Massachusetts law makes property owners legally

> responsible for damage sustained by lead-exposed children. Rhode

> Island has no such policies and it has a much higher incidence of

> lead poisoned children. Most states have no laws like those in

> Massachusetts.

>

> When lead abatement occurs, it can be done well or it can be done

> badly. Five to 10 percent of current childhood lead poisoning in

> the U.S. is thought to have resulted from sloppy lead

> abatement.[12] Here again, public policies have gone awry. The

> main source of lead in children is house dust. Both the federal

> Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S.

> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set standards for lead

> in dust which, if met, essentially guarantee that childhood lead

> poisoning at the level of 10 mcg/dL will continue.[10,14,15]

> Even if the current government standard for lead in dust were

> reduced to one-tenth its present level, it would still allow

> children to be poisoned by lead in dust.[10,14,15]

>

> In sum, we have a federally-mandated blood-lead standard (10

> mcg/dL) that permanently dumbs down any children who meet it,

> which is nearly a million children at any moment, and roughly

> 200,000 new dumbing-downs are occurring each year. Medical

> authorities agree that the only real solution is primary

> prevention -- keeping lead-contaminated dust away from children.

> Credible estimates show that the federal government could make a

> profit of $1.08 billion by undertaking primary prevention in

> federally-owned or -assisted housing, but instead the government

> requires the dead-canary approach, blood-lead testing, which the

> states then refuse to carry out. We know from the Massachusetts

> experience that public policies that put the onus on the private

> sector can make a big difference -- but most states have failed

> to adopt such policies.

>

> Most of the victims of all this are babies born into poverty. We

> can only conclude that current government policies must reflect

> the values of those who hold power. Those who make public

> policies must feel a need to maintain a permanent pool of people

> disadvantaged from birth. Governments throughout the U.S. must

> be doing what powerful elites want them to do -- refusing to

> confront the lead industry, the paint industry, the housing

> industry, the real estate industry and the campaign contribution

> industry, refusing to apply the primary prevention approach to

> this public health menace, and, instead, continuing to poison

> hundreds of thousands of poor black and hispanic children each

> year.

>

> If you are skeptical of (or offended by) the suggestion that this

> problem is allowed to endure because it mainly affects poor

> children and minority children, ask yourself this: how long would

> this problem persist if those being poisoned were mainly white

> children who spent their summers at the country club?

>

> ==============

> [1] See 's #2, #5, #9, #10, #20, #22, #25, #27, #32, #36,

> #92, #95, #114, #115, #140, #155, #162, #189, #190, #209, #213,

> #214, #228, #258, #294, #314, #318, #319, #323, #330, #331, #351,

> #352, #356, #357, #366, #369, #371, #376, #392, #403, #411, #442,

> #490, #501, #508, #526, #529, #539, #540, #551, #561, #590, #591,

> #633, #687, #688 available at www.rachel.org.

>

> [2] Anonymous, " Update: Blood Lead levels -- United States,

> 1991-1994, " MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT Vol. 46, No. 7

> (February 21, 1997), pgs. 141-146. A correction was published in

> " Erratum: Vol. 46, No. 7, " Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

> Vol. 46, No. 26 (July 4, 1997) pg. 607.

>

> [3] Children's Defense Fund, " Poverty Status of Persons Younger

> Than 18: 1959-1998, " available at http://www.-

> childrensdefense.org/fairstart_povstat1.html.

>

> [4] Pear, " States Called Lax on Tests for Lead in Poor

> Children, " NEW YORK TIMES August 22, 1999, pg. A1.

>

> [5] Jerome O. Nriagu, " Tales Told in Lead, " SCIENCE Vol. 281

> (September 11, 1998), pgs. 1622-1623.

>

> [6] National Research Council, MEASURING LEAD EXPOSURE IN

> INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND OTHER SENSITIVE POPULATIONS (Washington,

> D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), pg. xii.

>

> [7] A. Flegal and R. , " Lead Levels in

> Preindustrial Humans, " NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 326,

> No. 19 (May 7, 1992), pgs. 1293-1294.

>

> [8] Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of

> Pediatrics, " Lead Poisoning: From Screening to Primary

> Prevention, " PEDIATRICS Vol. 92, No. 1 (July 1993), pgs. 176-183.

>

> [9] ATSDR, TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR LEAD (Atlanta, Ga.: Agency

> for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, July 1999). Available

> from ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Rd., NE, E-29, Atlanta, Ga. 30333, pgs.

> 26-29.

>

> [10] Bruce P. Lanphear, " The Paradox of Lead Poisoning

> Prevention, " SCIENCE Vol. 281 (September 11, 1998), pgs.

> 1617-1618.

>

> [11] Bruce P. Lanphear, " Racial Differences in Urban Children's

> Environmental Exposures to Lead, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC

> HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 10 (October 1996), pgs. 1460-1463.

>

> [12] Don and others, " Protecting Children From Lead

> Poisoning and Building Healthy Communities, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

> PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 89, No. 6 (June 1999), pgs. 822-824.

>

> [13] D. Sargent and others, " The Association Between State

> Housing Policy and Lead Poisoning in Children, " AMERICAN JOURNAL

> OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 89, No. 11 (November 1999), pgs. 1690-1695.

>

> [14] Bruce P. Lanphear and others, " Lead-Contaminated House Dust

> and Urban Children's Blood Lead Levels, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

> PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 10 (October 1996), pgs. 1416-1421.

>

> [15] Bruce P. Lanphear and others, " The Contribution of

> Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Residential Soil to Children's

> Blood Lead Levels, " ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, SECTION A Vol. 79

> (1998), pgs. 51-68.

>

> Descriptor terms: lead; paint; children's health; housing;

> public health policy;

>

>

> ################################################################

> NOTICE

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

> Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic

> version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge

> even though it costs the organization considerable time and money

> to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service

> free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution

> (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send

> your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research

> Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403-7036. Please do

> not send credit card information via E-mail. For further

> information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.

> by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at

> (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.

> -- Montague, Editor

> ################################################################

>

>