Socialist Action /September 1999
 The Poisoning of Children and the Arrogance
of Wealth
A new book, "Work, Health, and Environment: Old Problems, New Solutions,"
edited by Charles Levenstein and John Wooding, points out that "lead
toxicity is a significant problem not only in the workplace. It is also
one of the most prevalent diseases of environmental origin in the United
States today."
The book notes (page 141) that "using a blood lead criterion of
15 ug/dl as an index of increased lead absorption, a value currently under
review by the Center for Disease Control, more than 67 percent of Black
inner-city children and nearly 17 percent of all children under the age
of five in the United States-a total of 2.3 million children-have excessive
internal exposures to lead."
This is a real concern when one realizes that a blood lead level of 10
ug/dl is sufficient to cause permanent brain damage-behavior problems, learning
disabilities, etc.-in children under seven. When you add in that hypertension
is a leading cause of death among Black adults, it is clear that something
must be done.
The book continues: "Many adults also have elevated body lead burdens
as a result of general environmental exposures that put them at increased
risk for neurotoxicity, renal toxicity, and hypertensive heart disease.
Occupational exposures represent an additional burden over and above this
background for that segment of the population working with lead.
"EPA's Toxics Release Inventory confirms that industry remains a
significant source of lead releases into the environment. For instance,
in 1987, more than 33 million pounds of lead and lead compounds were released
in land disposal sites. Primary and secondary lead smelters in the United
States currently emit more than 17 million tons of lead per year into the
environment.
"Reducing exposures to lead in the occupational setting will, if
properly implemented, have the additional benefit of reducing releases of
lead into the general environment."
The lead pigment industry has known about the hazards of lead since the
turn of the century. Most governments outlawed lead paint at that time.
But the U.S. government waited until 1978. The profits of the lead manufacturers
had more priority for the government than the health of children!
In the Aug. 22, 1999, issue of The New York Times, there appeared an
article, "States Criticized on Lax Lead Tests for Poor Youths,"
by Robert Pear. The article states:
"WASHINGTON-Federal investigators say most states are flouting a
1989 law requiring that young children on Medicaid be tested for lead poisoning.
As a result, they say, hundreds of thousands of children exposed to dangerously
high levels of lead are neither tested nor treated.
"The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress,
found that 'few Medicaid children are screened for blood-lead levels,' even
though the problem of lead poisoning is concentrated among low-income children
on Medicaid. Medicaid recipients are three times as likely as other children
to have high amounts of lead in their blood.
"Separately, a federal advisory panel said this week that 'current
lead screening rates among children covered by Medicaid are very poor, despite
federal requirements.'
"Cost is not the main reason for the failure to test children, health
officials say. The laboratory test usually costs less than $10.
"Officials cite more complex reasons for the low rates of testing.
Many doctors do not see lead exposure as a problem for their patients and
therefore do not believe tests are necessary, or they are unaware of the
federal requirements.
"In addition, many poor children do not go to the doctor until they
are sick, and most children with high levels of lead in the blood display
no obvious symptoms at first."
The government has been concentrating its efforts on testing buildings-not
children. For example, when I was a business agent for Painters District
Council #8 in San Francisco, our union was invited by the Mayors Office
of Housing to participate in their lead-prevention program. This program
basically was designed to do the minimum type of lead abatement to make
the building temporarily "lead safe."
They called this program "abatement with a small A." (A community
person who was in the meeting said: "That's like Murder with a small
'm.'")
Once the minimal abatement was accomplished, the responsibilities and
liability to protect children from lead was shifted to the parent-eliminating
the liability of the landlord and the lead paint companies.
The government, in the name of protecting children, is essentially defending
the lead companies from liability, while it charges working people (through
taxes) for the costs of removing or abating lead.
If I poisoned someone, I would be arrested and sent to prison for murder
or attempted murder. The lead companies do not even get fined to pay for
the clean-up of the poison.
In 1997, the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association
(APHA) adopted a policy statement urging that lawsuits be brought by governments,
individuals, and others who are seeking monetary compensation for the damages
knowingly caused by the manufacturers of lead and products that contain
lead.
Following the APHA policy statement, a battery of lawyers that were involved
in the successful Delcon Shield, Fen Fen, and Tobacco class-action lawsuits
have begun the process of organizing such litigation against the lead paint
companies.
The purpose is to make them pay damages and be accountable for poisoning
children, to pay for the removal of lead from the environment, and to pay
for the care of those who have been poisoned. This is being done under the
principle that the polluter should pay for the damage from pollution and
the understanding that the government is protecting these companies.
The goal of safe environment can only be achieved if polluters are held
accountable and severely punished.
Socialist Action /September 1999 |