[Cerium]

I could not find any data on the actual levels, but there is data available on the effect on children.

By the late 1970s "88% of children had a level exceeding 10 μg/dl" [1] while current data from near the Reid-Hillview Airport shows that there is no particularly noticable effect [2] with just 1.7% of children having a blood level above 4.7 ug/dl. On average around 2% of children in the US regardless of location have a blood lead level around that number.

[1] https://www.jci.org/articles/view/28232 [2] https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-airport-lead-levels-ar...

[nimish]

No level of lead is safe in children, so even that is concerning.

[BurningFrog]

If levels at the airport aren't higher than the "background level" elsewhere, our concern should focus on other factors.

[VLM]

Actually no, not for policy decisions.

Guaranteed kids will have levels medically too high is a policy problem. Immediately downwind of the interstate in the 70s was apparently a very bad place for kids to be, and policy fixed that (more or less).

Almost no kids will have high levels now, and those few with higher levels experimentally are from uncountable random sources rather than the point source airport, is not a useful aviation policy problem.

[nimish]

The issue is high level = any detectable level above zero, especially if man made and easily preventable.

Allowing leaded avgas has always been a policy decision to cater to GA over the health of, among others, children.

[BurningFrog]

The main lead sources now are old water pipes and paint.

Both seem very countable and fixable.