Lead poisoning is something we shouldn’t have to be dealing with, because we can eliminate its harm, and it is long past time that there is sufficient understanding about why this is necessary. The costs to society - not just the familiar lead victims we think about but to all of us – are enormous and unnecessarily borne. The purpose of this page is to encourage discussion of something that needs to be talked about, so that we can take the quickest and most effective routes to necessary action.
On April 22, construction exposure and prevention expert Michael Sharp, and Eve Gartner and Gabrielle Gonzales of EarthJustice joined Boston University Department of Earth and Environment’s Rick Reibstein and others in discussing how we as a society could better use the law to protect people from lead. The unnecessary harm from the continued use and …
A Public Conversation On Eliminating Lead Poisoning in 2022 took place 12/9/21 at Boston University, as a project of the class Research for Environmental Agencies and Organizations. It was defined as “A gathering based on the concept that lead poisoning does not belong in a civilized society, devoted to the question: What do we do, now, to …
BPHC has posted all the reports from its “Community Action on Lead” (CAL) Project, a year-long public conversation, including the final report, A Roadmap of Future Policy and Program Initiatives to Eliminate Lead Poisoning. This effort shows the benefit to leaders of administrative agencies of consultation with the interested public. Dozens of concerned professionals, nearly …
Boston Public Health Commission’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program obtained funding from the National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO) to identify ways to better address lead poisoning in Boston, and is conducting public conversations with the help of the creator of this website. Here are notes from the planning meeting and first stakeholder meeting, …
Read more “Boston Public Health Commission conducts Public Conversations on Lead”
Barbara Miller, who has worked to draw attention to the need for a more concerted effort to help families with high lead exposures in Idaho (EPA has estimated that more than 100 millions tons of contaminated materials were distributed over thousands of acres – https://www7.nau.edu/itep/main/docs/waste/superfund/SprFund-May16BunkerHillCaseStudy.pdf) shared this flyer concerning an upcoming event to raise consciousness …
Read more “A Convening in Silver Valley of the Public, on Lead”
Barbara Miller of the Silver Valley Community Resource Center, advocate for the clean up of serious lead threats to children, has faced many difficulties standing up for kids. See the Sierra Club blog (Doris Cellarius), 12/21/17 at https://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2017/12/women-and-children-neglected-america-s-contaminated-communities.
Joint Statement of Lead Professionals, Attendees of a workshop at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference of the Lead and Environmental Hazards Association (LEHA) on Lead and Healthy Housing, Philadelphia, PA, November 8, 2017. To the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children (Task Force), which has solicited comments on a new …
Read more “Statement of Lead Professionals to Federal Task Force”
INSIDE EPA reported that in A Community Voice, et al. v. EPA, two of three appellate court judges in the 9th Circuit at June 12 oral argument “doubted EPA’s claim that it has no statutory duty to revise its lead dust standards”. The case involves a petition filed by eight environmental, community and health groups …
If you go to this site, https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=HUD-2017-0029 where comments can so easily be submitted, you will see today that only 36 comments have been received! Yet HUD is in the process of establishing a task force to find regulations that can be repealed, replaced, or modified. Do you have an opinion about the very act …
The Administration’s Executive Order to review regulations is being implemented within an extremely brief time frame. It is being done with inadequate outreach, inadequate notice, and inadequate opportunity for comment. The purposes of review are one-sided in overvaluing the reduction of costs on the regulated community, and undervaluing the intent of the protective statutes the …