BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
We apparently agree on that ... it's an economic consideration.
I think we both read the CDC statement, "No safe blood lead level in children has been identified." differently.
In a perfect world, a level of 'zero' ppb is desired.
In the real world, all water has 'some' lead in it.
The EPA recommends, "Lead concentrations in drinking water should be below the EPA action level of 15 parts per billion."
Should it be lower ... no one seems to know.
People tend to react emotionally when their kids come into play.
There is usually distilled water available in the grocery stores. That's what we use for cooking and drinking in our house.
The cost runs from $0.69 per gallon at WalMart to $1.59 at upscale grocery stores ... maybe more in big cities.
.
.
.
We’re probably agreeing.
I’ll just say that if no lead at all is the goal, and ‘we’ (the royal ‘we’) agree that 15ppb is the lower level, then it’s clear that 15ppb is an arrived arbitrary number, influenced not by science, but by the lowest limits industry would agree to.
Happens all the time.
Industry knew that lead paint and leaded gas was toxic, took fifty years to take lead out of gas and paint.
This is the problem with Milton Friedman; pure capitalism often doesn’t fix the problems, especially when the money-men have their full weight on the lobbyist scale.
Plus, ‘white-flight’ to the suburbs, leaving the red-lined black children in substandard housing and schools, leading to a higher concentration of lead in black kids, leading to a variety of their problems in schools, leading right up to Nixons’ War on Drugs, leading right up to the CIA flooding black neighborhoods with crack...
Lol, jk