I'm curious and know nothing of the subject, but what's wrong with the chemical testing? I thought they had home lead paint test kits.
Living in the Pacific NW, we don't really have a lot of lead paint issues like back east.
Living in the Pacific NW, we don't really have a lot of lead paint issues like back east.
You have to scratch the paint to search each layer and people don't want to do that.
You also can't offer to visit someone for free and do a quick test since each test costs you money.
So you scratch the bottom, and patch it if you really care that much.
> You also can't offer to visit someone for free and do a quick test since each test costs you money
A fancy x-ray whizzbang that hasn't been developed yet costs money, too. And so does a technician to run it.
This seems like a very silly solution looking for a problem.
Yet people are still exposed to it.
"Lead paint is poisonous. Your child shouldn't be allowed to consume it."
"No, actually, you're wrong. Have a downvote."
Eventually all civil discourse will look like this. We're already starting to see it in Presidential debates.
No amount of "supervision" is going to keep a child from consuming lead paint. Children do not get lead poisoning because they walk up to lead-painted walls and start gnawing on them like they are corncobs.
Lead paint forms toxic dust. The dust gets on floors and into dirt. Children crawl around, and they WILL put their hands in their mouths even if they are "supervised" at all times.
What we are starting to see in presidential debates is an ignorant man talking like he knows everything.
You may have been downvoted because your response may have seemed a little snarky to some. While your suggestions make sense they are not necessarily practicable or economically feasible in all cases. People are pretty sensitive when it comes to the health their children and wants what's best even when they cannot provide it.