!
MI Senate Bill 63 Introduced to Allow Lead in
Water to Remain at 10ppb (1/24/17)
!
Michigan Senators Jim Ananich (D-Flint) and Curtis Hertel (D-East
Lansing) today introduced Senate Bill 63 to establish an allowable
level of lead in drinking water at 10 ppb and to allow it to remain
at 10 ppb (parts per billion) until January 21, 2021, after which it
would drop to 5 ppb. In 2016 the CDC lowered the acceptable level of
lead in drinking water from 10 ppb to 5 ppb stating: "Experts now
use a reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter to identify
children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most
children's levels. This new level is based on the U.S. population of
children ages 1-5 years who are in the highest 2.5% of children when
tested for lead in their blood." The CDC also notes: "No safe blood
lead level in children has been identified." You can read the bill
language here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2017-SIB-0063.htm
!
Child Lead-Poisoning Elimination Board Releases Expansive Plan
Tackling Lead Exposure
!
Enacting the recommendations would represent a paradigm shift
in how Michigan approaches environmental lead exposure, moving from
reaction to prevention. Board members were adamant that up-front
costs should be no obstacle. The dividends that would come from
lessening the societal costs of lead exposure -- in lost wages,
treatment, educational services and even incarceration -- would make
the action more than pay for itself.
!
Lawsuit Alleges Flint Schools Are Failing to Provide Services to
Lead-poisoned Children
!
Public officials failed children in Flint, Mich., by allowing
drinking water to remain contaminated with lead for 18 months and
failing to provide educational services that could counter the
effects of the Flint lead exposure, a new lawsuit alleges.
!
A Legal Loophole Might be Exposing Children to Lead in the Nation’s
Schools
!
Children drinking from water fountains at the nation’s
schools — especially in aging facilities with lead pipes and
fixtures — might be unwittingly exposing themselves to high levels
of lead, which is known to cause brain damage and developmental
problems including impulsive behavior, poor language skills and
trouble remembering new information.
!
A decade before Flint's lead scare, there was Rhode Island
!
(February 22, 2016, Marquette Mining Journal) PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Lisa
Solano-Sanchez looks at her 16-year-old son and sees a bright, healthy,
musically gifted teenager. A relief, considering she had no idea how he would
turn out when she discovered he was poisoned by lead as a toddler. Still, she
scrutinizes her son's behavior and can't help but wonder if he's been held back
from his full potential. "Not knowing drives me crazy," she said. A decade
before Flint, Michigan, there was Rhode Island, a tiny state that took a daring
plunge by suing the paint industry to seek money for cleaning up a danger
lurking on walls and windowsills in up to 80 percent of its homes. The landmark
lawsuit reverberates today not only in Flint, but also in California, where 10
cities and counties are fighting to hold onto a $1.1 billion victory over the
same industry. Though the lawsuit remains influential, Rhode Island has little
to show for its short-lived triumph on Feb. 22, 2006. Two years later, the
state's highest court unanimously overturned the verdict, saying the paint
industry couldn't be held responsible. "My heart is still broken at the Supreme
Court's decision that I still today cannot understand or justify," said
Democratic U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the former Rhode Island attorney
general who had initiated the case. Studies have tied lead poisoning to
permanent damage to children's brains and conditions including lowered
intelligence, learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Symptoms can take
years to manifest and be hard to confirm. Leaded paint, easily ingested by
children whose fingers touch contaminated dust or who pick up sweet-tasting
flakes that end up in their mouth, was a known danger and outlawed in the late
1970s. Rhode Island was hardly the only place with potentially exposed children,
but in a compact and old state with an elderly housing stock, the threat was
especially acute. In 1999, when Rhode Island first sued, more than 2,300
children under 6 years old, nearly 7 percent of all those tested in the state,
were found to have dangerously elevated levels of lead , according to the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2014, that number had
dropped to 217, just under 1 percent of all the children tested statewide — but
still 40 percent above the national rate. Education campaigns helped, health
experts say, as did government subsidies for remediation and laws that put more
responsibility on landlords. But blood tests still find more than 1,000 new
cases each year of children with elevated levels. Few families were immune,
especially in poorer areas populated by racial minorities — a connection also
seen in Flint, where the culprit is the water supply. "Lead poisoning would have
been wiped out" if the problem had been concentrated in wealthier and whiter
neighborhoods, said Roberta Hazen Aaronson, founder and director of the
Childhood Lead Action Project. "It's not an equal-opportunity disease," she
said. But wealthier families did fall victim. Donna Lizotte thought she and her
husband knew what they were doing when they bought a stately Victorian a decade
ago in the desirable Edgewood district of Cranston and painted over old layers.
Later, their daughter was found to have 23 micrograms of lead per deciliter of
blood. Federal health officials have said there is no safe level of lead in
children's blood, but that anything above 5 micrograms is high. The family found
evidence she had scratched at a wall near her crib. "I thought lead poisoning
was something that happened in dilapidated rental units," said Lizotte, an
educator and scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology. "Honestly, I think
I was just naive." Now 10, the girl has attention deficit disorder, something
correlated with lead poisoning, and other conditions. "Here we are, 40 years
later, it's still everywhere," she said. "I think the companies owe it to the
children that are sick to fix it." Most companies began phasing out lead-based
pigments decades before the U.S. banned them in residential paint in 1978.
Plaintiffs have said the companies and the now-defunct Lead Industries
Association, a trade group that declared bankruptcy during Rhode Island's
litigation, should have stopped promoting and selling the paint earlier because
some of lead's damaging effects had been known for a century. Whitehouse — whose
own two children had elevated lead levels — sued on the state's behalf in 1999.
It ended in a hung jury and mistrial, and was followed by a second trial argued
by Whitehouse's successor. A jury found three companies liable:
Sherwin-Williams, Millennium Holdings and NL Industries. After the industry
appealed, Rhode Island's highest court recognized the long-term health
consequences but dismissed the theory that a problem in homes and apartment
buildings was a public nuisance for which paint companies were liable. The
judges declared it landlords' responsibility to keep homes safe. Courts and
state officials elsewhere scrapped lawsuits that sought to hold manufacturers
responsible for the windfall of cash needed to repair hazardous housing stock.
Only in California, where 10 cities and counties are defending a $1.1 billion
victory, could paint companies still be liable for the lead in pigments they
sold decades ago. Plaintiffs there are working with the same firm, Motley Rice,
that Rhode Island hired and before that took on the asbestos and tobacco
industries. A phone call Friday to NL Industries rang unanswered and an email
went unreturned. Millennium Holdings has declared bankruptcy. Dale Leibach, a
spokesman for Sherwin-Williams, declined to comment but pointed to the website
www.leadlawsuits.com, which describes
California's ruling as "the aberration" that unfairly holds companies liable for
creating a durable product that was in high demand. "This litigation by
hindsight has failed nationwide," the website says, calling attention to the
outcome in Rhode Island. Despite the loss, Rhode Island's lawsuit was an
"important and innovative piece of litigation" that "demonstrated that a lot of
the paint companies knew what was going on. They knew there were hazards and
they continued selling the product," said Erik Olson, an attorney who directs
the health program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which was not
involved in the litigation. "It showed that there was a pretty reasonable
argument that this was one way to get the resources to have their housing
cleaned up," Olson said, "that the companies that created the problem ought to
have a hand in cleaning it up."