Lead Paint: Putting Parents in a Bind
This is a nightmare for all of us involved in extensive home renovations and also living and raising families in those homes. I can not even imagine a government agency coming into my home and telling me what I had to do, or face criminal prosecution. Especially in light of the fact that their requirements would most likely do more harm than good.
This week I came across this article online about the Ellis family living in Wellesley, MA that is being forced to do lead abatement in their home.
Court cases involving lead paint are fairly common. By law, the state Department of Public Health must inspect any home where children have blood lead levels of 25 micrograms per deciliter or higher. And if lead paint is found - as it almost always is in old homes - the state can order the homeowners to address the problem, taking legal action if deemed necessary
This case is unique in many ways. First off their 4 year old daughter tested high for lead months before they moved into the house. The family blames a charm necklace that the little girl like to suck on. A necklace which was made in China. Secondly, the family owns the home they live in. Most of the time it is a negligent landlord situation.
As I wrote on the topic of lead paint several months ago:
Turns out there is another more common source of lead dust now– home renovations. Most children now are in fact poisoned during renovations when lead dust flies through the air, through knocking down old painted plaster walls, pulling off old trim, sanding old painted floors. Ah, my own personal hell. I joke with my children that I am going through all of the effort to protect their precious brain cells and IQ they better be thankful. But really it is a serious matter.
It used to be thought that lead poisoning was primarily an issue for children living in housing projects where upkeep by an absent landlord was an issue. Now it is becoming increasingly common for children of middle and upper-middle class homes to become exposed to high levels of lead dust through extensive renovations of older homes in the urban core.
This family in MA did not have any home renovations going on. Yes, their home has lead paint in it. I would challenge anyone to find a house built before 1950 that does NOT contain lead paint.
The Department of Public Health is requiring that the Ellis family delead their home. The family is refusing to do it. Deleading is dangerous because disturbing the paint creates dust and airborne particles. You can’t contain everything. Even the meticulous contractor mentions this in the article. If the lead paint is ENCAPSULATED, it is best to leave it alone.
If you want to remove all the lead paint in a house built before 1978 you will probably have to gut the interior as well as tear off all the siding. But most lead paint is fine. Afterall, most of us grew up in homes that contained lead paint in them somewhere and I daresay that most of us turned out okay.
The cost of such a process factors into this also. The Ellis family has received estimates that say it will cost them $100,000 to delead their home. They will also need to live elsewhere while this process takes place.
One of the commenters said:
I agree with the sentiment that you’d think parents would do anything to protect their children, so why not fix the lead issue?
BUT, it’s not that cut and dry. The law was established to protect children from lead poisoning., yes. But they don’t get the lead in their systemts just by living there, otherwise adults would be at risk as well. They get it by means of ingesting flaking paint, usually in old, not updated, homes. And if this home is well kept, with no flaking paint, then the risk is minimal at MOST. And I believe the parents have a right to determine if they want to live with that risk. The cost of deleading a home is not insignificant, and as their home is 5000 sq ft, that is going to cost a fortune (I think they quoted upwards of $100,000, plus they need to move out for a period of time and live elsewhere). Just because they bought s $1.3 mill home, does not mean $100,000 is chump change. AND, I’ve heard of cases where families moved for a long period of time and spent life savings while their home was deleaded, only to move back and STILL have the child’s lead level too high. Then what?
Then what indeed? Where does it stop?
Families in Massachusetts also report being discriminated against when it comes to finding rental property due to the restrictive lead paint laws. Of course most landlords would not come out and say the reason that they don’t want to rent to families with children is because they fear being held liable should the child be lead poisoned.
In Massachusetts, a state law passed more than 30 years ago says that children under 6 years old cannot live in apartments that contain lead paint on certain high-risk surfaces, such as windowsills and baseboards. And if children suffer lead poisoning, landlords are legally liable. But state law also clearly says that landlords cannot discriminate against families with young children because their apartments are not deleaded. The only way landlords can comply with the law is to delead their apartments, a process that can easily cost $10,000 per unit. (There are some exceptions: Landlords who live in the building and rent out only one other unit, as well as some elderly landlords, are allowed to refuse families with children.)
In January of this year, I wrote about the link between lead paint and the decline of function in older brains.
In March of this year the EPA issued new requirements to keep children away from the hazards of lead paint.