Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

The kids have always been exposed to this stuff, it's unavoidable. Focus on the big wins and don't worry about the small stuff - law of diminishing returns. Eliminating ppb of lead isn't going to move the needle versus getting your kid immunized.

You'll drive yourself crazy otherwise.

View on HN

Thanks. I generally agree but the definition ‘small stuff’ is in relation to how harmful it is. I cook a lot at home and I use a lot of spices — including the brands that tested high for heavy metals. Lead is not safe in any amount particularly for babies. The hard thing to know is what things I should and shouldn’t be paying attention to.

We lived in a house with lead for a few years. I had my kids tested every six months. I even made sure I understood which type of test they were conducting. My thought was that this is a long term problem; if levels start rising, then we would take immediate action. Kind of a pull vs. push model.

It worked, we never saw elevated lead levels. Way easier than worrying about every little thing and monitoring them at all times.

Unless they were eating paint flakes you never were going to see elevated levels.

ISTR that lead dust from wear and tear can be an issue as well though obviously less of one unless you're sanding the paint.

I'd think painting over old leaded paint with modern lead free paint should help alleviate that concern. Unless you're sanding the old paint before applying a new coat.

> We lived in a house with lead for a few years. I had my kids tested every six months.

> It worked, we never saw elevated lead levels.

How does testing them for lead levels result in them not inhaling or ingesting lead?

It doesn't. They meant that their plan to take action if the lead levels rose was a workable one, i.e. they were able to execute the plan. They also said that lead levels in their children never rose. The sentence might have been more clear with an 'and' after the comma, although it was clear enough in context (IMO) without it.

By the time lead is detectable it has done meaningful damage. Yes it’s better to prevent more at that point so don’t stop testing. But testing is a poor prevention mechanism. Lead also does damage below the threshold of detection.

I don't remember all the details now, but the test we were using was extremely sensitive. I believe it was detectable within 1/20 of maximum allowable levels in children.

You had your kids' blood drawn every six months?

> Lead is not safe in any amount particularly for babies.

One molecule is safe, 1000 too. There must be an amount small enough to not cause any detectable changes. And I expect this level to be higher than when most people start to worry and stress causes more harm than a tiny amount of lead present in food or environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com