<< Back To Home

CSU 39/2011: LEAD POISONING AND CHILDREN

Monday, 31st of January 2011 Print
 

CSU 39/2011: LEAD POISONING AND CHILDREN

Does your country ban leaded paint and leaded motor fuel? If not, you are paying dearly for it.

Good reading. See also the Wikipedia discussion of the epidemiology and prevention of lead poisoning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

TWO ON CONTROLLING LEAD PAINT 

1)      COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LEAD PAINT CONTROL

Full text is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19654928

Abstract

Background

This study is a cost–benefit analysis that quantifies the social and economic benefits to household lead paint hazard control compared with the investments needed to minimize exposure to these hazards.

Objectives

This research updates estimates of elevated blood lead levels among a cohort of children ≤ 6 years of age and compiles recent research to determine a range of the costs of lead paint hazard control ($1–$11 billion) and the benefits of reduction attributed to each cohort for health care ($11–$53 billion), lifetime earnings ($165–$233 billion), tax revenue ($25–$35 billion), special education ($30–$146 million), attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder ($267 million), and the direct costs of crime ($1.7 billion).

Results

Each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control results in a return of $17–$221 or a net savings of $181–269 billion.

Conclusions

There are substantial returns to investing in lead hazard control, particularly targeted at early intervention in communities most likely at risk. Given the high societal costs of inaction, lead hazard control appears to be well worth the price.

 

 

 

2: CONTROLLING LEAD PAINT YIELDS BIG DIVIDENDS

 

Full text is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717163/?tool=pubmed

 

Environ Health Perspect. 2009 July; 117(7): A311.

PMCID: PMC2717163

Copyright This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose.

News

Science Selections

A Lucrative Investment: Controlling Lead Paint Yields Big Dividends

Tina Adler

Tina Adler first wrote for EHP about the Clinton–Gore environmental agenda in 1993. She is a member of the National Association of Science Writers and the American Society of Journalists and Authors

 

Fewer children today have the high blood lead levels seen in kids a few decades ago, when gasoline and paint still came fully leaded. But a surprising number of children still have blood lead levels that may place them at risk for a variety of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems. The good news is that boosting current efforts to protect U.S. children from one major source of lead—the house paint used prior to a 1978 ban, which still appears in many homes—may pay for itself many times over [EHP 117:1162–1167; Gould].

 

According to National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey data from 2003 to 2006, an estimated 25% of the 28 million U.S. children aged 6 years and younger have blood lead levels between 2 and 10 μg/dL, a range in which persistent cognitive damage is known to occur. Another 200,000 children are estimated to have levels over 10 μg/dL.

 

Using data from published studies, the author performed a cost–benefit analysis of the effects of controlling children’s exposure to lead paint. She calculated that controlling lead paint in the approximately 1 million worst-case housing units would cost between $1.2 billion and $11 billion, depending on many factors including local costs of lead abatement. But the benefits to be derived from controlling lead hazards could range from $181 billion to $269 billion. For example, abatement could save $11–53 billion in immediate medical treatment and $30–146 million in special education costs. Reducing the incidence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) related to lead paint exposure might save $267 million; and because both ADHD and lead exposure have been associated with criminal behavior, crime-related costs could shrink by $1.7 billion with efforts to eliminate and contain lead-laden paint.

 

The author concludes that every dollar spent to limit U.S. children’s exposure to lead paint—such as through paint stripping, replacement, and covering with a special encapsulant coating—could net $17–221. By comparison, vaccination against the most common childhood diseases is estimated to save $5.30–16.50 for every dollar spent on immunizations.

 

The author noted that the cost savings from better lead mitigation could be even higher than estimated in the current study. For one thing, the calculations of potential benefit pertain only to children under age 6. Yet getting rid of lead paint would benefit other segments of the population as well. Also, the analysis excluded many potential costs of lead exposure, including future health care expenses and the indirect costs of criminal activity.

 

U.S. public health and housing policies have been slow to address the lingering problems related to lead paint, the author asserts. Given the huge projected savings and income in terms of health care, crime prevention, education, lifetime earnings, and tax revenues, she writes, the time for proactive and universal lead control has never been better.


40759196