03-13-2019, 02:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
geochem - that second article does indicate that lead levels were actually fairly low for Hawaii children as compared to many mainland areas...
Your plan is that nothing should be done until every possible source of lead has been identified and quantified for each child and then compared to every other likely impact to their health, all in order not to waste money? It is the Hawaii way - more results means more funding for more studies! (but no responsibility or money for addressing the problem - unless we can get the Feds to pony up)
umm, straw-man argument? I didn't propose a plan - if I had, it would have been to do more lead testing in children to determine whether the lead levels had any correlation to the schools that they attended AND to make an effort to identify the major sources of lead before committing $10? $20M, $??M (you don't think these contractors are going to answer their phones for less than a couple mil per site do you?) to lead remediation at these schools without any clear evidence that that effort would actually provide a benefit to the children that are suffering the effects of lead exposure. I agree, it's only taxpayer dollars, and there's always more where those came from, but ignorant fool that I may be, I wouldn't object to a little bit of cost-benefit analysis.