The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission released an October 2007 report that Home Lead Test Kits are Unreliable. (Link to the full report.) The CPSC conducted these tests in light of recent reports of lead in toys. I, however, am interested in them in the context of testing for surface lead in our apartment to protect my family from eating lead paint chips. (I hear lead paint tastes sweet! Mmmm...)
The take-home: My opinion is that these lead test kits are still useful in testing for exposed lead paint on your walls, doors, and sills. If you do find lead, then you have to thoroughly clean nearby surfaces and prophylactically paint over the exposed lead and keep your kids away from these areas. (See Lead-Safe Cambridge's practical recommendations on protecting your kids from lead exposure.) Here's a post from Thingamababy recommending the Homax, Hybrivet, and Abotex lead test kits from a Consumer Reports study.
Living in Massachusetts, particularly around Boston, it's nearly impossible for the average family to rent (or buy) a place that *doesn't* have lead. The rule of thumb is that if your building was built before 1978, then there's going to be lead paint on your walls. Since then, the lead paint may have been painted over multiple times. But you have to worry about places where the paint may be chipping--where windows or door jams rub, anywhere where paint is cracking. This might cause lead paint to chip and be accessible on the floor, or to turn to dust and then float around your apartment.
In September 2007, the CPSC tested four lead test kits on surfaces (1) painted with lead paint, and (2) with a coat of lead paint covered by a coat of non-leaded paint. (There was also a control with a coat of non-leaded paint.)
All of test kits detected lead in the single coat of leaded paint (0.5% lead carbonate). (The HUD threshold for lead paint is 0.5% lead.) None of the test kits "consistently" detected lead which was painted over with non-leaded paint.
The study reports that of 104 tests, 56 were false negatives--i.e., they didn't find lead when lead was there. But it's unclear as to whether the CPSC considered tests that didn't detect paint over lead paint a false negative. It sounds like this might be the case, but again it's unclear.
In that case, I'm not so worried about false negatives--so long as I can prevent my kid from chewing on the sills or picking up paint chips off the floor. The concern of the CPSC is different, however--kids are more prone to chew on toys and thus a coat of non-lead paint isn't much protection.
And so while there's always a theoretical risk for my soon-to-be infant (and my puppy), I have to calculate the practical risk: Can I find a non-leaded apartment? Can I afford a new, non-leaded apartment? Do I ask my landlord to de-lead the apartment? (They have to by law pay to move me out, pay for alternate housing, and then pay the $10-20K to de-lead the apartment. Come on. Instead, they'll evict us, and we'll spend the next months homeless and in court.)
Instead, I'm going to test doors, windows, and any cracked or chipping surfaces for lead paint. Then I'm going to thoroughly clean all these areas with wet detergents and paper towels (not cloths or sponges: read this great guide to preventing lead poisoning), and then paint or caulk over any cracked or chipping areas. And then I'm going to sleep easy--as much as I possibly can--when the baby finally comes.
On the risks of lead exposure: We spoke with a pediatrician who is extremely concerned about lead dust in the air and the risk of "mental retardation" in children. She strongly encouraged us to immediately find a de-leaded apartment, ignoring the reality of living in Cambridge/Boston. I've spoken to a pediatric cardiologist--so not specifically concentrating on lead in kids--who said the kid's gotta be eating lead chips and then you're talking a statistical drop in 1-2 IQ points. So it's all over the place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment