Two versions of the truth.. both in the New York Times
"In the mid-1970s, the average American child under the age of 5 had a blood lead level of
14 micrograms per deciliter. The good news is that by 2014 it had fallen dramatically, to
0.84 micrograms per deciliter, largely because of the banning of lead in paint and the phaseout of lead in gasoline, among other measures.
The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now considers a blood lead
level in children of 5 micrograms per deciliter and higher to be a “
reference level.”
This measure is intended to identify children at higher risk and set off communitywide prevention activities.
It
does not suggest that a child needs medical treatment. In fact, the
C.D.C. recommends medical treatment only for blood lead levels at or
above 45 micrograms per deciliter. Not a single child in Flint tested
this high. This was a surprise for several visiting celebrities, who
requested a visit to the “lead ward” of Hurley Children’s Hospital.
Nonetheless,
the reference level has been misinterpreted by laypeople — and even
public health officials — as a poisoning threshold."
In which she describes finding an alarmingly high lead level in some patients' blood. Was it as high as the avg 1970's kid? We don't know, she didn't say what the highest level she found actually was. We are left to assume it was probably higher than the reference level. So, good for herI'll go with the truth that actually has the numbers data... not a self-serving essay on the doc's heroism.
The bottom line is that the greatest lead threats to children were eliminated decades ago.
Only histrionics remain.
