This week I’m following up on my blog post weighing the health risks of lead paint renovation. Thank you to those of you who have provided feedback on my previous post. Here’s the expert advice I’ve received from Dr. Niladri Basu, RSC Member and Assistant Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, and Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director at the Ecology Center.
From Dr. Niladri Basu:
We are in a similar situation, Tracy, and have spent many hours discussing this very matter. We live in a charming 1920’s Ann Arbor home and for sure there is leaded paint buried deep in the walls.
In addition, we have two young boys (5 months and 3 years) and so are acutely aware of the various environmental health hazards in our home. Young children – their brains and bodies -only get one chance to develop properly. Early life exposure to lead (and other toxic chemicals) can easily have life altering consequences.
So what to do – can we renovate our old house that certainly contains lead and also ensure that our sons are not harmed? I believe Yes, and we did so in a manner that aimed to minimize exposures. All surfaces were painted with low VOC, eco-friendly paint. Any/all chips are immediately repaired. In few instances where surfaces were to be scraped for renovation projects, we made sure to do so when the kids were gone and took diligent clean-up steps. Again, the key is to minimize exposures.
Now, our Pediatrician’s office screens infants for blood lead levels. Our older child had a value under 1 ug/dl (note, the CDC guideline is 10 ug/dl). We will have a value for our younger child soon but are not worried.
From Tracey Easthope:
Hi Tracy,
Sometimes I think there is a clear gap in consumer knowledge and that gap can be filled by information, but in many other cases I think there are values questions, or questions of emphasis, or questions of ‘who bears the risk and who gets the benefit’ that aren’t captured by simply reviewing the science. This framing also assumes that there is always an ‘objective truth’ and I don’t think that is always the case. I think objective truth is particularly hard to come by when the questions are very complex and values laden. Science can’t answer values questions very well. Good science can just help us be more clear about the choices.
I don’t think the two themes you describe are incompatible. I think the first applies unless the second applies. So windows are a special area of concern.
There might be another option, and a greener one. You could just have your windows reconditioned. You can see a video about that here:
I am assuming that the old paint would be removed in this process but I don’t know that for certain. I am also assuming that any lead paint residue would be dealt with well. It might be worth following up with the person mentioned in this video to learn more.
Thank you very much to Nil and Tracey for their advice — it’s great food for thought for me. Does this advice spark other ideas from you? I’d be grateful to hear from you. I’ll be thinking on this, and in my next post, I’ll let you know what we decide to to do!
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Our plans are to replace the windows piecemeal, with some thought as to appearances on the outside, but mostly depending on which ones the seal on the double panes is leaking.
Children’s bedrooms or play areas might be a first choice. Are there some that you are likely to want to open and close more than others? Others that are completely out of reach?
Thank you again for following up on this important issue. I appreciate Dr. Basu and Ms. Easthope for taking the time to comment on the subject of lead and renovation.
Central to the question of risk is the confidence we have in our understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity (from exposure to biochemical lesions to ultimate behavior changes) and, in turn, in the measurable endpoint for monitoring purposes. In the case of lead, “acceptable” concentrations in children’s blood have been lowered over the years as new information became available. Given this pattern, there is no reason that the current standard of 10 ug/dl should be considered protective. In fact, a substantial body of literature is accumulating showing the adverse effects of lead at levels below the standard. Moreover, the marginal increase in adverse effects is greater as one moves from non-detect to 10 ug/dl then it is beyond this point.
Over the years, increasing precision in analytical chemistry and growth in the field of neurobehavioral toxicology have resulted in a much greater understanding of the pervasive effects of lead on living organisms, including humans. Today, we know enough to recognize that this element, which has no known biological function, should not be detected in the blood of children. In those cases where kids are found to have blood lead levels above the detection limit, intervention should be implemented to remove the sources of lead and eliminate pathways for exposure.
Finally, the interesting question to me is whether the response to this discussion is different for males v. females and if females with offspring of an age at very high risk of exposure are even more risk-averse than other females at different points in their reproduction.
Hi Gaythia and David,
Many thanks for your helpful thoughts.
David – I do think that is interesting about behavior varying with age, family type, etc. I know I never thought about this before, even though I lived in a string of flats in various states of repair in my 20s… now that my sister will soon have her first child and we hope they’ll visit often, we’re giving this thought! Your point about the ‘acceptable’ levels of lead in blood trending down consistently over time is also helpful.
Many thanks,
tks
I am very impress from your ideas of home renovation. I will follow these guidelines to renovate my house.