|
|
|
|
|
|
by 09bjb
1560 days ago
|
|
|
Source? I have no reason to doubt you but would love to see where those data. Most of what I heard is that "lead exposure above zero is significant" and "if you're living near an airport, especially one serving smaller plans, you are being exposed". |
|
|
At the bottom here is a link to the studies presented to the local government in an attempt to shut down the airport by local residents: https://news.sccgov.org/newsroom/reid-hillview-airport-airbo...
Here is a PDF of the "airborne lead study" which in fact only talks about blood lead levels, and does not include a single measurement of lead in the environment, oddly.: https://news.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb956/files/docume...
I don't work for anything related to aviation or petrol, quite the opposite, and I don't have any interest in it, just was suprised to hear the FAA say that there's no detectable lead in the environment, and then a lead blood level study trying to argue otherwise. In the study they do admit that 25% of the homes in the study were built before 1960 (which I thought was an odd year to pick, as lead paint wasn't banned until almost 20 years later (1978), and I'd wager 65%+ of the homes there were built 1960-1978).
That's about as much time as I have to look down that rabbit-hole. I may be convinced, but there's enough cherry-picked data to make a very gray issue questionable. Looks like nationwide BLL is about 1.50 ug/Dl and in the homes less than a thousand feet directly downwind of the airport it was 1.70, and a child in a typical lead paint home was 1.90
It would have been much more convincing (and conclusive), to me, if there was a measurable amount of lead, particularly downwind, in the areas with the higher blood lead levels. But those readings either were not done, or were absent in the report.