Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How a Doctor Discovered U.S. Walls Were Poisonous
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Apr 3, 2013, 5:37:23 PM4/3/13
to
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/how-a-doctor-discovered-us-
walls-were-poisonous.html
In a monthly column on the PBS NewsHour website, Dr. Howard Markel
revisits moments that changed the course of modern medicine. Above: A
child with high levels of lead in her blood stands next to a peeling lead
paint wall in her family's apartment in New York. Photo by Spencer
Platt/Getty Images.
Humans have mined and used lead for over 6,000 years. Across time, the
pliable, soft metal has been fashioned into tools and utensils, used as a
sweetener for wines, and even to provide an extra kick to a gallon of
gasoline or add a gleaming sheen to a coat of paint.
Doctors have recognized that high doses of lead are downright poisonous
since, at least, the days of Hippocrates. But it was not until March 29,
1979 that a pediatrician and child psychiatrist named Herbert Needleman
first documented the dangers of even the lowest forms of lead exposure.
This medical detective story is one of many disturbing and intertwining
tales told in a fascinating new book, "The Lead Wars: The Politics of
Science and the Fate of America's Children," by Gerald Markowitz and David
Rosner.
Lead interferes with the normal functioning of just about every cell in
the body because it chemically displaces elements that are essential to
daily life, such as calcium, zinc and iron. So lead can botch up the
elegant way red blood cells carry and deliver oxygen, how one moves his
muscles or her limbs, and, perhaps most importantly, the transmission of
electrical messages by the brain. Because the brains and bodies of young
children are still developing and growing on a daily basis, lead is
especially harmful to youngsters.
For much of the 20th century, the worst cases of lead poisoning garnered
all the attention from doctors. Severe lead poisoning is a bona fide
medical emergency characterized by children with horrific seizures that
simply do not stop, severely swollen brains, and, too often, death.
Sometime in the late 1950s, however, Dr. Needleman observed that patients
with milder cases of lead poisoning kept returning to the emergency room
soon after being treated. And when these children would return for follow-
up visits, Needleman noted a number of unruly behaviors among many of
them.
Sadly, these children lived in homes -- typically unkempt slum houses in
the inner city -- riddled with lead paint flaking off the walls and
windowsills. Small children, who tend to explore the world with their
mouths -- like eating the lead chips because they taste sweet.
When lead paint chips are broken down, one is left with a toxic dust that
is easily inhaled. Paint companies were required to remove lead from their
products in 1978.
Lead in gasoline wasn't banned by the U.S. government until 1996. Photo
courtesy of Flickr user taberandrew.
Nevertheless, more than 38 million homes in the United States contain
deteriorating lead painted walls. Landlords refuse to abate these homes
because it costs so much money; the renting parents have neither the funds
nor access to safer housing elsewhere.
Making matters even worse, for decades, Americans were constantly exposed
to lead in the form of lead gasoline fumes. Lead remained a gas additive
(it makes engines run smoother) until the U.S government began reducing
the lead gas content in 1972 and completely banned it in 1996.
Hypothesizing that no amount of lead was safe, Dr. Needleman focused on
the psychological effects of much lower levels of lead poisoning. It was
an idea that changed the entire science of environmental toxicology.
Rather than studying how much of exposure to a particular toxin it took to
kill someone, he insisted on ascertaining the minimum amounts that cause
subtle but, nevertheless, damaging effects. Eventually, science and the
technology to measure trace but dangerous exposure to environmental toxins
caught up with his theory.
Lead typically settles in the bones and teeth of the body. Consequently,
Needleman collected the "baby teeth" -- an easy and painless way to gather
bone samples-- of first and second graders living in Boston, some of whom
had been exposed to a lot of lead and others who had not. What he found
was that the children with high dentine lead levels scored far less well
on IQ tests than those kids with low lead levels.
He reported these findings in a landmark paper in the New England Journal
of Medicine on this very day, some 34 years ago. The research that
followed showed how low levels of lead exposure can set in motion a wide
range of learning disabilities, anti-social behaviors, and even mental
health disorders. As Needleman famously explained, "lead is a brain poison
that interferes with the ability to restrain impulses. It's a life
experience which gets into biology and increases a child's risk for doing
bad things".
Dr. Herbert Needleman. Photo courtesy of the Heinz Awards.
Not surprisingly, Needleman made real enemies among those working in the
lead industries who feared the financial ramifications of the lawsuits
resulting from tying decades of lead paint exposure to the poor health of
millions of children. These corporations waged a 13-year war by ferreting
out Needleman's work for every mistake and error.
Hiring a team of scientists, the lead companies and their surrogates
accused him of scientific research fraud, falsification and plagiarism.
None of these charges stuck. In 1992, the U.S. Office of Research
Integrity acknowledged that while some human errors appeared in his
published papers, these errors did not refute the results and exonerated
Dr. Needleman of all charges of fraud. Fortunately, by this point of time,
a large cohort of researchers had reproduced and broadened Needleman's
findings.
In 2012, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered the
acceptable blood lead level to a 5 micrograms/dl, a mere fraction of the
acceptable levels only 30 years earlier. In reality, even this seemingly
"low" amount represents too high an acceptable level in a child's body and
brain. The only safe lead level is no lead.
Despite the overwhelming body of science on this danger, millions of
American babies and children are at risk to be poisoned on this
anniversary of the discovery of just how damaging lead could be to the
developing brain. Who will pay to abate such an environmental hazard --
the landlords, the lead paint producers, the government, everyone --
remains to be seen, as the usual subjects duke it out in courtrooms across
America.
For more than a decade, the lead industry, their lawyers and a team of
highly paid scientists fought, fumed and sued to discredit Needleman's
work. Fortunately, he survived these attacks and the nation's children are
the healthier for it. We still have a long way to go in the fight to "get
the lead out" of our environment, but Dr. Herbert Needleman's heroic
scientific sleuthing made it a great deal more imperative.
Comments:
chris87654 • 3 hours ago
Interesting. Now I wonder if there be a connection between high lead
levels and low sagging pants.
13 1 •Reply•Share ›
BlueberryT chris87654 • 3 hours ago
There is apparently a connection between your ignorance and your idiotic
comment.
23 1 •Reply•Share ›
Ghettofever BlueberryT • 3 minutes ago
@BlueberryT, Chris87654 asked an excellent question. Since most of the
pant-saggers voted for Barack Obama, you could reasonably question their
intellect.
1 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Mark • 34 minutes ago
The lesson here is that those with a vested interest may have the
financial backing to publicly deny the latest scientific evidence. Lead,
tobacco, petroleum, climate change. You get the idea.
20-30 years later it is conventional wisdom but the vested interests are
able to delay rational social action for many years.
2 •Reply•Share ›
William Casey • 3 hours ago
Folks-
The geochemist Clare Patterson is the man who demonstrated pervasive lead
contamination in modern society, spanning well beyond the Romans to
prehistoric times.
He did so using the same mass spectroscopy that was employed to estimate
the age of the Earth, but adapted it to measure lead levels in bone.
Patterson met enormous opposition, but is recognized as the instigation
for the 1973 EPA campaign to reduce blood lead levels and the coincident
elimination of tetraethyl-lead from fuels.
Dr. Needleman's end of the problem was to show the chronic health effects
that Patterson assumed earlier were acting on humans, stemming from acute
poisoning incidents.
Bill
2 •Reply•Share ›
Guy • an hour ago
Just one of the countless man-made products that have plagued us since who
known when; all, may I add, in the name of progress.
1 •Reply•Share ›
e2verne • an hour ago
aside from the racist posts, it is nice to see how many are truly
concerned about this problem. Now society has a responsibility to revisit
criminal cases from the past, and to re-evaluate persons today, regarding
lead exposure as a contributory factor to criminal behavior. If one grew
up in a home in New England built anytime before the 1990s, there was
probably exposure to high levels of lead in paint if nothing else.
1 •Reply•Share ›
shmerlop • an hour ago
This is an interesting article, but I have no doubt it will be used as a
back door to ban ammunition containing lead.
The studies I've seen on the net indicate that bullets in the ground do
NOT leach lead into the water table. Instead, a hard shell of oxidation
forms around the bullet, essentially encapsulating it.
This "encapsulation" is easily seen on Civil War lead bullets, which
invariably have a hard shell of oxidation around them.
Yes, wildlife will eat lead fragments found in animals shot by poachers
and hunters. However, I have to wonder how common this truly is.
Lead shot was banned for hunting waterfowl decades ago, because the lead
shot lay on the bottom of ponds and lakes. Ducks, geese and other
waterfowl grazing along the bottom scooped it up and it entered their
system.
It did NOT leach into the water, however. Also, lead shot is very small,
and easily swallowed. Bullets are much larger and would be spit out like a
pebble by waterfowl.
Lead poisoning among waterfowl was a common problem. The adoption of non-
toxic shot for waterfowl hunting has essentially cured the problem (except
in cases where human dredging has exposed old layers of lead shot).
Bear in mind that the worst poisonings occurred in lakes and ponds where
waterfowl hunting had been going on for well over a century, perhaps two
centuries, chiefly along the eastern seaboard and Midwest.
The West, settled much later, had a much lesser extent.
There is a call for lead shot to be banned for all hunting, to include
pheasant, grouse, rabbit, etc. Lead shot lying on the ground quickly
oxidizes and forms this oxidized shell.
It requires the animal to eat it, to be affected. This is unlikely as
rabbits, grouse, pheasants and other game tend to eat berries, clover,
insects and foliage above ground, not near the shot.
I've cleaned enough grouse and rabbits to know what they eat. They're not
grazing at ground level, though they will pick up insects off the ground.
These insects are large and noticeable because they were moving; lead shot
is not likely to be mistaken for such insects.
The ownership and use of firearms is a volatile issue today. I have no
doubt that the findings of Dr. Needleman will be used by those who oppose
gun ownership to impose their will.
Lead in paint chips, and a century-old bullet lying in the ground, are not
the same. One is a proven hazard, while bullets in the soil are relatively
harmless.
However, their presence is undoubtedly sensationalized by those who oppose
gun ownership. Emotion, not science, rules this issue.
see more
0 1 •Reply•Share ›
DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 2 hours ago
And as you all are in the process of signing a lease or rental agreement
for an apartment in an "old" building, you are required to sign a waiver
concerning the "possibility" of lead in the building. Concerning my use of
the word "old" I would not even have a suspicion arbitrarily what years
that would fall under. And in some of the same buildings asbestos was also
used so you all would have an overlap here therefore you all would have a
double whammy, double jeopardy. For those in this era of construction, are
they being tested also for the possibility of asbestos in their bodies.
0 •Reply•Share ›
DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 2 hours ago
And as you all are in the process of signing a lease or rental agreement
for an apartment in an "old" building, you are required to sign a waiver
concerning the "possibility" of lead in the building. Concerning my use of
the word "old" I would not even have a suspicion arbitrarily what years
that would fall under. And in some of the same buildings asbestos was also
used so you have an overlap here therefore you all have a double whammy,
double jeopardy. For those in this era of construction, are they being
tested also for the possibility of asbestos in their bodies.
0 •Reply•Share ›
pcl DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 23 minutes ago
Lead was used in interior paints up until about WWII, so the interiors of
most postwar buildings should be free of it. It wasn't banned in exterior
paint until 1978. For either interior or exterior walls, the method of
choice for abating it is to side or panel over it with stucco, new siding
or (for interiors) Sheetrock. Even if you want to keep your interior
plaster and don't like the tackiness of vinyl siding (which, itself, has
contained lead at times), stucco or fiber-cement can safely encapsulate
the outside while wall coverings (even fiberglass mesh, which can then be
plastered) will do the trick inside. Over-zealous attempts to strip off
lead paint have also caused acute lead poisoning and contamination, so
spending more money won't necessarily make one safer. Interior trim is
much trickier; some expensive paints and coatings can encapsulate it, but
(carefully) chemically stripping it may be worth the cost to preserve the
architectural integrity of an old house.
Unlike lead, asbestos in old houses is not much of a threat
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
walls-were-poisonous.html
In a monthly column on the PBS NewsHour website, Dr. Howard Markel
revisits moments that changed the course of modern medicine. Above: A
child with high levels of lead in her blood stands next to a peeling lead
paint wall in her family's apartment in New York. Photo by Spencer
Platt/Getty Images.
Humans have mined and used lead for over 6,000 years. Across time, the
pliable, soft metal has been fashioned into tools and utensils, used as a
sweetener for wines, and even to provide an extra kick to a gallon of
gasoline or add a gleaming sheen to a coat of paint.
Doctors have recognized that high doses of lead are downright poisonous
since, at least, the days of Hippocrates. But it was not until March 29,
1979 that a pediatrician and child psychiatrist named Herbert Needleman
first documented the dangers of even the lowest forms of lead exposure.
This medical detective story is one of many disturbing and intertwining
tales told in a fascinating new book, "The Lead Wars: The Politics of
Science and the Fate of America's Children," by Gerald Markowitz and David
Rosner.
Lead interferes with the normal functioning of just about every cell in
the body because it chemically displaces elements that are essential to
daily life, such as calcium, zinc and iron. So lead can botch up the
elegant way red blood cells carry and deliver oxygen, how one moves his
muscles or her limbs, and, perhaps most importantly, the transmission of
electrical messages by the brain. Because the brains and bodies of young
children are still developing and growing on a daily basis, lead is
especially harmful to youngsters.
For much of the 20th century, the worst cases of lead poisoning garnered
all the attention from doctors. Severe lead poisoning is a bona fide
medical emergency characterized by children with horrific seizures that
simply do not stop, severely swollen brains, and, too often, death.
Sometime in the late 1950s, however, Dr. Needleman observed that patients
with milder cases of lead poisoning kept returning to the emergency room
soon after being treated. And when these children would return for follow-
up visits, Needleman noted a number of unruly behaviors among many of
them.
Sadly, these children lived in homes -- typically unkempt slum houses in
the inner city -- riddled with lead paint flaking off the walls and
windowsills. Small children, who tend to explore the world with their
mouths -- like eating the lead chips because they taste sweet.
When lead paint chips are broken down, one is left with a toxic dust that
is easily inhaled. Paint companies were required to remove lead from their
products in 1978.
Lead in gasoline wasn't banned by the U.S. government until 1996. Photo
courtesy of Flickr user taberandrew.
Nevertheless, more than 38 million homes in the United States contain
deteriorating lead painted walls. Landlords refuse to abate these homes
because it costs so much money; the renting parents have neither the funds
nor access to safer housing elsewhere.
Making matters even worse, for decades, Americans were constantly exposed
to lead in the form of lead gasoline fumes. Lead remained a gas additive
(it makes engines run smoother) until the U.S government began reducing
the lead gas content in 1972 and completely banned it in 1996.
Hypothesizing that no amount of lead was safe, Dr. Needleman focused on
the psychological effects of much lower levels of lead poisoning. It was
an idea that changed the entire science of environmental toxicology.
Rather than studying how much of exposure to a particular toxin it took to
kill someone, he insisted on ascertaining the minimum amounts that cause
subtle but, nevertheless, damaging effects. Eventually, science and the
technology to measure trace but dangerous exposure to environmental toxins
caught up with his theory.
Lead typically settles in the bones and teeth of the body. Consequently,
Needleman collected the "baby teeth" -- an easy and painless way to gather
bone samples-- of first and second graders living in Boston, some of whom
had been exposed to a lot of lead and others who had not. What he found
was that the children with high dentine lead levels scored far less well
on IQ tests than those kids with low lead levels.
He reported these findings in a landmark paper in the New England Journal
of Medicine on this very day, some 34 years ago. The research that
followed showed how low levels of lead exposure can set in motion a wide
range of learning disabilities, anti-social behaviors, and even mental
health disorders. As Needleman famously explained, "lead is a brain poison
that interferes with the ability to restrain impulses. It's a life
experience which gets into biology and increases a child's risk for doing
bad things".
Dr. Herbert Needleman. Photo courtesy of the Heinz Awards.
Not surprisingly, Needleman made real enemies among those working in the
lead industries who feared the financial ramifications of the lawsuits
resulting from tying decades of lead paint exposure to the poor health of
millions of children. These corporations waged a 13-year war by ferreting
out Needleman's work for every mistake and error.
Hiring a team of scientists, the lead companies and their surrogates
accused him of scientific research fraud, falsification and plagiarism.
None of these charges stuck. In 1992, the U.S. Office of Research
Integrity acknowledged that while some human errors appeared in his
published papers, these errors did not refute the results and exonerated
Dr. Needleman of all charges of fraud. Fortunately, by this point of time,
a large cohort of researchers had reproduced and broadened Needleman's
findings.
In 2012, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered the
acceptable blood lead level to a 5 micrograms/dl, a mere fraction of the
acceptable levels only 30 years earlier. In reality, even this seemingly
"low" amount represents too high an acceptable level in a child's body and
brain. The only safe lead level is no lead.
Despite the overwhelming body of science on this danger, millions of
American babies and children are at risk to be poisoned on this
anniversary of the discovery of just how damaging lead could be to the
developing brain. Who will pay to abate such an environmental hazard --
the landlords, the lead paint producers, the government, everyone --
remains to be seen, as the usual subjects duke it out in courtrooms across
America.
For more than a decade, the lead industry, their lawyers and a team of
highly paid scientists fought, fumed and sued to discredit Needleman's
work. Fortunately, he survived these attacks and the nation's children are
the healthier for it. We still have a long way to go in the fight to "get
the lead out" of our environment, but Dr. Herbert Needleman's heroic
scientific sleuthing made it a great deal more imperative.
Comments:
chris87654 • 3 hours ago
Interesting. Now I wonder if there be a connection between high lead
levels and low sagging pants.
13 1 •Reply•Share ›
BlueberryT chris87654 • 3 hours ago
There is apparently a connection between your ignorance and your idiotic
comment.
23 1 •Reply•Share ›
Ghettofever BlueberryT • 3 minutes ago
@BlueberryT, Chris87654 asked an excellent question. Since most of the
pant-saggers voted for Barack Obama, you could reasonably question their
intellect.
1 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Mark • 34 minutes ago
The lesson here is that those with a vested interest may have the
financial backing to publicly deny the latest scientific evidence. Lead,
tobacco, petroleum, climate change. You get the idea.
20-30 years later it is conventional wisdom but the vested interests are
able to delay rational social action for many years.
2 •Reply•Share ›
William Casey • 3 hours ago
Folks-
The geochemist Clare Patterson is the man who demonstrated pervasive lead
contamination in modern society, spanning well beyond the Romans to
prehistoric times.
He did so using the same mass spectroscopy that was employed to estimate
the age of the Earth, but adapted it to measure lead levels in bone.
Patterson met enormous opposition, but is recognized as the instigation
for the 1973 EPA campaign to reduce blood lead levels and the coincident
elimination of tetraethyl-lead from fuels.
Dr. Needleman's end of the problem was to show the chronic health effects
that Patterson assumed earlier were acting on humans, stemming from acute
poisoning incidents.
Bill
2 •Reply•Share ›
Guy • an hour ago
Just one of the countless man-made products that have plagued us since who
known when; all, may I add, in the name of progress.
1 •Reply•Share ›
e2verne • an hour ago
aside from the racist posts, it is nice to see how many are truly
concerned about this problem. Now society has a responsibility to revisit
criminal cases from the past, and to re-evaluate persons today, regarding
lead exposure as a contributory factor to criminal behavior. If one grew
up in a home in New England built anytime before the 1990s, there was
probably exposure to high levels of lead in paint if nothing else.
1 •Reply•Share ›
shmerlop • an hour ago
This is an interesting article, but I have no doubt it will be used as a
back door to ban ammunition containing lead.
The studies I've seen on the net indicate that bullets in the ground do
NOT leach lead into the water table. Instead, a hard shell of oxidation
forms around the bullet, essentially encapsulating it.
This "encapsulation" is easily seen on Civil War lead bullets, which
invariably have a hard shell of oxidation around them.
Yes, wildlife will eat lead fragments found in animals shot by poachers
and hunters. However, I have to wonder how common this truly is.
Lead shot was banned for hunting waterfowl decades ago, because the lead
shot lay on the bottom of ponds and lakes. Ducks, geese and other
waterfowl grazing along the bottom scooped it up and it entered their
system.
It did NOT leach into the water, however. Also, lead shot is very small,
and easily swallowed. Bullets are much larger and would be spit out like a
pebble by waterfowl.
Lead poisoning among waterfowl was a common problem. The adoption of non-
toxic shot for waterfowl hunting has essentially cured the problem (except
in cases where human dredging has exposed old layers of lead shot).
Bear in mind that the worst poisonings occurred in lakes and ponds where
waterfowl hunting had been going on for well over a century, perhaps two
centuries, chiefly along the eastern seaboard and Midwest.
The West, settled much later, had a much lesser extent.
There is a call for lead shot to be banned for all hunting, to include
pheasant, grouse, rabbit, etc. Lead shot lying on the ground quickly
oxidizes and forms this oxidized shell.
It requires the animal to eat it, to be affected. This is unlikely as
rabbits, grouse, pheasants and other game tend to eat berries, clover,
insects and foliage above ground, not near the shot.
I've cleaned enough grouse and rabbits to know what they eat. They're not
grazing at ground level, though they will pick up insects off the ground.
These insects are large and noticeable because they were moving; lead shot
is not likely to be mistaken for such insects.
The ownership and use of firearms is a volatile issue today. I have no
doubt that the findings of Dr. Needleman will be used by those who oppose
gun ownership to impose their will.
Lead in paint chips, and a century-old bullet lying in the ground, are not
the same. One is a proven hazard, while bullets in the soil are relatively
harmless.
However, their presence is undoubtedly sensationalized by those who oppose
gun ownership. Emotion, not science, rules this issue.
see more
0 1 •Reply•Share ›
DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 2 hours ago
And as you all are in the process of signing a lease or rental agreement
for an apartment in an "old" building, you are required to sign a waiver
concerning the "possibility" of lead in the building. Concerning my use of
the word "old" I would not even have a suspicion arbitrarily what years
that would fall under. And in some of the same buildings asbestos was also
used so you all would have an overlap here therefore you all would have a
double whammy, double jeopardy. For those in this era of construction, are
they being tested also for the possibility of asbestos in their bodies.
0 •Reply•Share ›
DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 2 hours ago
And as you all are in the process of signing a lease or rental agreement
for an apartment in an "old" building, you are required to sign a waiver
concerning the "possibility" of lead in the building. Concerning my use of
the word "old" I would not even have a suspicion arbitrarily what years
that would fall under. And in some of the same buildings asbestos was also
used so you have an overlap here therefore you all have a double whammy,
double jeopardy. For those in this era of construction, are they being
tested also for the possibility of asbestos in their bodies.
0 •Reply•Share ›
pcl DAVID ALAN JONES RIDGE • 23 minutes ago
Lead was used in interior paints up until about WWII, so the interiors of
most postwar buildings should be free of it. It wasn't banned in exterior
paint until 1978. For either interior or exterior walls, the method of
choice for abating it is to side or panel over it with stucco, new siding
or (for interiors) Sheetrock. Even if you want to keep your interior
plaster and don't like the tackiness of vinyl siding (which, itself, has
contained lead at times), stucco or fiber-cement can safely encapsulate
the outside while wall coverings (even fiberglass mesh, which can then be
plastered) will do the trick inside. Over-zealous attempts to strip off
lead paint have also caused acute lead poisoning and contamination, so
spending more money won't necessarily make one safer. Interior trim is
much trickier; some expensive paints and coatings can encapsulate it, but
(carefully) chemically stripping it may be worth the cost to preserve the
architectural integrity of an old house.
Unlike lead, asbestos in old houses is not much of a threat
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Jorge
Apr 3, 2013, 7:05:50 PM4/3/13
to
In article <XnsA197952013...@202.177.16.121>,
and how about mercury?
has your friendly dentist been telling you it is safe?
In article
<8e9b870c-b2a5-4e1f...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jan <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
> MERCURY DENTAL DOCUMENTARY IS IN PROCESS-WATCH! Kickstarter
> fundraiser is LIVE ! CDC#2
>
> The argument surrounding the safety of ³silver² amalgam dental
> fillings, which contain roughly 50% elemental mercury, has always
> centered on the potential adverse health effects from the long term
> use of the product. But the one aspect that both the FDA and ADA
> refuse to acknowledge is the centerpiece of our film. That is the huge
> toxic exposures during routine dental procedures that violate
> occupational safety regulations
> Our film, You Put What In My Mouth? will explore why dentists are
> unaware of manufacturer warnings and the elevated exposures during
> these routine dental procedures. These toxic releases far exceed
> occupational safety regulations and levels at which The Agency for
> Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) relocates individuals
> from residences.
> Our documentary follows the lives of 4 people as they struggle to
> inform the federal government, public and dentists of the extremely
> large amounts of mercury vapor and mercury contaminated particulate
> matter generated during the making, placement, polishing and removal
> of mercury dental fillings.
>
>
>
>
>
> At great expense to their personal lives, the subjects of our film are
> desperately trying to alert public health officials that these acute
> and chronic toxic exposures to mercury have a potentially huge
> influence on the health of dental workers and the 120 million
> Americans who have amalgam, especially the tens of millions who fall
> into ³at risk² categories.
>
> It will be noted that most of the 170,000 dentists in this country who
> work with amalgams do not think exposure to dental mercury causes any
> harm what-so-ever. And why should they since they were taught in
> dental school that amalgams don't release mercury.
> Thus the vast majority of dentists neglect to mention to patients and
> staff that amalgam fillings contain mercury. Also, since most dentists
> are adamant that amalgam fillings are totally safe, they do not know
> to divulge any adverse health effects that exposure to mercury may
> cause. This is the exact opposite of what occupational safety laws
> require. Our lead characters advocate that withholding this required
> information robs staff and patients of the information that would
> enable them to make informed decisions regarding their health.
> In addition to examining the devastating effects of dental mercury
> exposure to patients, staff, and the environment, the advocates in our
> film will highlight the many currently available solutions to reduce
> these toxic exposures.
> The picture below shows the personal protective equipment dentists and
> staff should be wearing, to meet occupational safety regulations, when
> working around large exposures to mercury. As Matt Young DDS from the
> film states: ³No patient would believe a dentist that amalgam is safe
> if they saw how we have to protect ourselves.²
I smell a lawsuit or two?
see; Mad Hatter
he cross-posts.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
has your friendly dentist been telling you it is safe?
In article
<8e9b870c-b2a5-4e1f...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jan <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
> MERCURY DENTAL DOCUMENTARY IS IN PROCESS-WATCH! Kickstarter
> fundraiser is LIVE ! CDC#2
>
> The argument surrounding the safety of ³silver² amalgam dental
> fillings, which contain roughly 50% elemental mercury, has always
> centered on the potential adverse health effects from the long term
> use of the product. But the one aspect that both the FDA and ADA
> refuse to acknowledge is the centerpiece of our film. That is the huge
> toxic exposures during routine dental procedures that violate
> occupational safety regulations
> Our film, You Put What In My Mouth? will explore why dentists are
> unaware of manufacturer warnings and the elevated exposures during
> these routine dental procedures. These toxic releases far exceed
> occupational safety regulations and levels at which The Agency for
> Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) relocates individuals
> from residences.
> Our documentary follows the lives of 4 people as they struggle to
> inform the federal government, public and dentists of the extremely
> large amounts of mercury vapor and mercury contaminated particulate
> matter generated during the making, placement, polishing and removal
> of mercury dental fillings.
>
>
>
>
>
> At great expense to their personal lives, the subjects of our film are
> desperately trying to alert public health officials that these acute
> and chronic toxic exposures to mercury have a potentially huge
> influence on the health of dental workers and the 120 million
> Americans who have amalgam, especially the tens of millions who fall
> into ³at risk² categories.
>
> It will be noted that most of the 170,000 dentists in this country who
> work with amalgams do not think exposure to dental mercury causes any
> harm what-so-ever. And why should they since they were taught in
> dental school that amalgams don't release mercury.
> Thus the vast majority of dentists neglect to mention to patients and
> staff that amalgam fillings contain mercury. Also, since most dentists
> are adamant that amalgam fillings are totally safe, they do not know
> to divulge any adverse health effects that exposure to mercury may
> cause. This is the exact opposite of what occupational safety laws
> require. Our lead characters advocate that withholding this required
> information robs staff and patients of the information that would
> enable them to make informed decisions regarding their health.
> In addition to examining the devastating effects of dental mercury
> exposure to patients, staff, and the environment, the advocates in our
> film will highlight the many currently available solutions to reduce
> these toxic exposures.
> The picture below shows the personal protective equipment dentists and
> staff should be wearing, to meet occupational safety regulations, when
> working around large exposures to mercury. As Matt Young DDS from the
> film states: ³No patient would believe a dentist that amalgam is safe
> if they saw how we have to protect ourselves.²
I smell a lawsuit or two?
see; Mad Hatter
he cross-posts.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
PeterD
Apr 4, 2013, 8:13:29 AM4/4/13
to
On 4/3/2013 7:05 PM, Jorge wrote:
> In article <XnsA197952013...@202.177.16.121>,
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbs.org/new bla-bla-bla
> In article <XnsA197952013...@202.177.16.121>,
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>
> I smell a lawsuit or two?
> see; Mad Hatter
> he cross-posts.
>
No, what you didn't include in the quote was the political rant at the
> I smell a lawsuit or two?
> see; Mad Hatter
> he cross-posts.
>
very bottom in his signature. That was what he wanted to get across, not
that lead was a problem.
I smell a troll, but no lawsuit.
--
I'm never going to grow up.
T. Keating
Apr 8, 2013, 10:58:12 AM4/8/13
to
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:37:23 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org>
wrote:
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/how-a-doctor-discovered-us-
>walls-were-poisonous.html
>
snip.. we're still not done..
>
>Lead in gasoline wasn't banned by the U.S. government until 1996. Photo
>courtesy of Flickr user taberandrew.
Tetra-Ethyl -Lead is still used in aviation gasoline(avgas).
100LL can have up to 2 grams of TEL per gallon..
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a54/
wrote:
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/how-a-doctor-discovered-us-
>walls-were-poisonous.html
>
snip.. we're still not done..
>
>Lead in gasoline wasn't banned by the U.S. government until 1996. Photo
>courtesy of Flickr user taberandrew.
100LL can have up to 2 grams of TEL per gallon..
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a54/
0 new messages