senate Bill S. 2631
Should the EPA Update its Standards for Lead-Painted Houses?
Argument in favor
This bill helps the economy and ensures that low income families with kids that live in federally assisted housing aren’t getting lead poisoning.
06/30/2016
Defining the safe level of something is a basic function of the EPA. Updating the records for future reference points is critical. It would be a better bill to enforce lead inspections for all housing, but it is critical individuals receiving housing funds get inspected to hold less than ethical landlords accountable for their property management. This two fold bill just sets what the EPA recommends while setting requirements for homeowners receiving federal funds. Health and safety and environmental protection is the point of the EPA. In economic terms, this could create jobs for an industry of lead abatement projects.
···
07/01/2016
I know from my experience as a house painter, that there is still plenty of lead present in the environment, especially in old and low income residences. For the most part, people are unaware of this, and children are often at risk.
06/30/2016
All the nay votes are against "regulation" like it's a psychosis. Regulations help people. What would this hurt? Why would anyone be against this?
Argument opposed
Lead poisoning levels are already falling dramatically due to current regulations, so there’s no need to add more regulations.
06/29/2016
It was my belief the Lead components in paint was outlawed around the 1950s. Too old to remember without some investigation. So why this question? Does Obama's EPA need more public money. Probably needs money to pay for its Colorado Mine boondoggle and Office staff bonuses. By the way, did POTUS and EPA tell you the were involved in the Flint, MI disaster? Didn't think so. With so little time left until Novembers election, let cool the spending for a new Congress. Studies are good. Right? If lead levels are lowered, what about ground water lead contamination? Selenium or Chromium can also be serious. Next thing we the public will find out is the closing of public and private wells. Think about that. And just letting you know, gave up chewing on window sills many moons ago.
···
06/29/2016
Why are we beating a dead horse here? Lead paint has been banned since 1978. As far as existing paint on existing houses, I think there is something to be said for teaching our children to NOT EAT THE PAINT!
···
06/30/2016
David Young thanks for personal responses. We don't need this bill because people are already informed of the paint. Plus we don't need the federal EPA. Each state can have their own EPA if they want. We need to bring govt. size and scope to responsible levels.
Defining the safe level of something is a basic function of the EPA. Updating the records for future reference points is critical. It would be a better bill to enforce lead inspections for all housing, but it is critical individuals receiving housing funds get inspected to hold less than ethical landlords accountable for their property management. This two fold bill just sets what the EPA recommends while setting requirements for homeowners receiving federal funds. Health and safety and environmental protection is the point of the EPA. In economic terms, this could create jobs for an industry of lead abatement projects.
It was my belief the Lead components in paint was outlawed around the 1950s. Too old to remember without some investigation. So why this question? Does Obama's EPA need more public money. Probably needs money to pay for its Colorado Mine boondoggle and Office staff bonuses. By the way, did POTUS and EPA tell you the were involved in the Flint, MI disaster? Didn't think so. With so little time left until Novembers election, let cool the spending for a new Congress. Studies are good. Right? If lead levels are lowered, what about ground water lead contamination? Selenium or Chromium can also be serious. Next thing we the public will find out is the closing of public and private wells. Think about that. And just letting you know, gave up chewing on window sills many moons ago.
I know from my experience as a house painter, that there is still plenty of lead present in the environment, especially in old and low income residences. For the most part, people are unaware of this, and children are often at risk.
All the nay votes are against "regulation" like it's a psychosis. Regulations help people. What would this hurt? Why would anyone be against this?
Why are we beating a dead horse here? Lead paint has been banned since 1978. As far as existing paint on existing houses, I think there is something to be said for teaching our children to NOT EAT THE PAINT!
To the dumbass who thinks you have to literally eat paint off the wall to get lead poisoning, you're clearly misinformed. It's powdeeedand rubs off the wall into the air in the home. From there, anyone who breathes in the house will certainly get lead poisoning. There are no safe levels of lead in the human body. Lead kills. Even in the smallest doses.
The EPA fails to act in the best interest of the people. They have become Enviro Nazis.
David Young thanks for personal responses. We don't need this bill because people are already informed of the paint. Plus we don't need the federal EPA. Each state can have their own EPA if they want. We need to bring govt. size and scope to responsible levels.
No! Just reinventing the wheel on a forty year old problem to line someone's pockets. Way to go sellout Dick Turbin!
We must do all we can to protect the most vulnerable of our society. The poor have little options in life and those options should be safe.
Any provision to further protect our children is worth the cost. If this saves ONE child, it's worth it!
Sound great! "Move effected families immediately"but federal agents come inspect my home also.... Scary....
We need to correct all toxic chemicals, we wouldn't want asbestos in in our homes why would we want lead
To those who think adding more "burdensome" regulations is too much to endure to ensure the optimal safety of our children: Just go move to a country with almost no environmental regulations (like China) and live there forever. Not all regulations are likable, but they exist to make sure human competition (like selling cheap, lead-filled paint for a high price) does not kill us.
Lead poisoning has life long neurological impacts. Any level of lead exposure in the blood should be unacceptable. We need to protect all families that do not fully understand the risks of the exposure. Prevention is key.
According to the MedLinePlus database of the U.S. National library of medicine, less than 10 micrograms per deciliter (dL) of lead in the blood is considered normal for adults. Furthermore, less than 5 micrograms/dL of lead in the blood is considered normal for children according the the aforementioned database. Therefore, it is my newly held belief that this new restriction is made and that low-income families are protected from unacceptable levels of lead within the paint of the homes that they are planning on purchasing, or have already purchased (that were made prior to 1978).