Talk:Lead paint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some High-Profile Cases

Would you think that mentioning some high-profile cases, like the recent recall of Mattel toys would enrich the article? SaintCahier 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is Toxic

(Though, when taken in small amounts, lead may act as a vitamin by interacting with nicotinamide receptors in myocytes to aid in transport.) Where the heck did this come from???? Lead is definately not a vitamin, nor is arsencic nor DDT nor Polonium 210. Lead is not required by any known organism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.87.166.127 (talk) 04:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

eat lead paint chips, they are tasty theyntaste like salt and vinegar

Actually, if you read the article you'll discover they taste sweet. As in "Lead paint - delicious but deadly". Josh Parris#: 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether lead added to paint acted as a fungicide? Was this one of the reasons that lead was added to paint, and was this cited as an advantage when marketing lead paint? Emrys2 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, lead paint was never marketed as a fugicide. Lead was added to paint for two main reasons. First, it is highly durable. That's why you see hundred year old buildings with the paint still relatively intact. Second, lead paint is self cleaning. If you see a house with the exterior walls painted with lead paint you may notice a chalk like material on the surface. This is the paint slightly breaking down, so you can just spray it with a hose and it will wash off with any surface dirt. This chalking effect is also one of the main ways to get lead poisoning. I work as a lead-based paint inspector/risk assessor. Ssabusivefw 00:01, April 12, 2007 (EST)

Thanks! Very helpful. I asked the question because we've been trying to understand why, in the UK, old joinery appears to be more resistant to rot than new. Lead paint was one suggestion, but it doesn't seem to be the right answer. Thanks, anyway. Emrys2 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What about some text and a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson whose work in reducing lead is well regarded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starpom10 (talk • contribs) 14:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I added a few links I found useful in my own search for info on Lead paint, one to a lead based paint study funded by the HUD, another to an article in Nation magazine about the politics of the lead industry and a third I found on the EPA's website, a guide to making renovations in a home with Lead paint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starpom10 (talk • contribs) 14:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Misleading reference to study?

In the section on lead paint in art (which I largely wrote), someone added the following:

"Lead paint will often become discolored over long periods of time. This is due to the reaction of the lead carbonate in the paint with traces of hydrogen sulfide in the air and with acids, often from fingerprints. [2] As a result, many older works of art that used lead paint now show some discoloration."

As I found this surprising, I went and carefully read the study being cited. Their research seemed to refer only to lead in aqueous media on paper, although that wasn't absolutely clear. But lead paint has rarely been used in watercolor techniques in modern times! (It was occasionally used that way in the nineteenth century and earlier.) Today's artists working in transparent watercolor (aquarelle) don't usually use white paint at all, or just occasionally a bit of "Chinese White" (not lead) to make corrections. And opaque watercolors (gouache) and acrylic (polymer) artist's paints typically use titanium dioxide or (rarely) zinc white, but never lead. Normally "flake white" is used only by oil painters, and there's no indication in the study that they were referring to oil paints. Cooperstown is a well-respected institution, and perhaps they were referring to some early-nineteenth century work; but for practical advice to contemporary artists, I'm sticking with the modern master technologist (Ralph Mayer). He and many others have observed that flake white may get *slightly* yellowish after centuries -- but nothing like the gross discoloration referred to in the paragraph above. If someone has more information on this, please mention it here; otherwise when I come back I'm going to delete that paragraph or water it down (no pun intended).

Why the use of "unfortunately" in this sentence? "Unfortunately, it allows owners to not even test for lead-based paint; instead owners can simply disclose that a test has never been performed." That is not viewpoint neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.25.235 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is biased!

This article talks about the dangers of lead in the human body but does not talk about whether lead from paint can get into the body and does not mention specific amounts. Isaac 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several well reported cases of people being poisoned by lead paint, including some high profile cases (see Candido Portinari). Small children are specially vulnerable, as painting chips are sweet and they tend to consume enough an amount to harm them. See this report from EPA [1].

In view of those facts. I am removing the tag. SaintCahier 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This article portrays a "sensationalized" view. "...it is extremely toxic to living organisms" is a bit strong, as any MSDS sheet [2] will classify lead as only "toxic" or "moderately toxic," and will not go so far as to call it "very toxic," let alone "extremely toxic." --Kest 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that portraying, in this article, that lead is "moderately toxic" would convey the wrong idea. It is certainly "moderately toxic" in a LD50 sense, but the seriousness of the consequences of chronic expositions (specially on children) justify characterizing it as very dangerous. I'll try to rephrase to avoid this confusion. SaintCahier 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read over the changes and I'm quite pleased and impressed! I agree that "moderately toxic" understates the danger, as the LD50, TLV and PEL levels are all very low (indicating high toxicity), but I'm glad "extremely toxic" was removed, as it really should be reserved for things like dimethylmercury, hydrogen cyanide, and other things with a 4 in their blue safety diamond. --Kest 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead ingestion specifically leads to mental retardation!

.....and medical studies leading to the decision to ban it in residential use in 1978 should be detailed here. Also the lack of recent government oversight of the problem of leaded paint in imported goods AND NOW LIPSTICK OF ALL KINDS AND TYPES! should surely be included.207.178.98.7 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)207.178.98.7 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World view

Someone chose to add a tag indicating this article does not represent a world view of the subject. I cannot find a reference to a world view in the article or on the talk page. Can anyone point me to it? If not, the tag should be removed as it misleads the reader into believing that other countries differ in their opinion of the dangers or lead paint.

Let me be clear. I would be more interested in reading about another country's differing view of the dangers of lead paint than in removing the tag. But, if there is no mention in the article or talk page about those differences then the tag is inaccurate and must be removed. - Tεxτurε 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag was accurate and I've reorganized the article to park the US-specific items under its own heading although it could use some additional cleanup. The reorg facilitates the inclusion of other countries take on the issue by just adding a new section.--Hooperbloob 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still used in US?

"Paint with significant lead content is still used in industry and by the military. For example, leaded paint is sometimes used to paint roadways and parking lot lines."

Well, that certainly is somewhat shocking information. But, how true is it? Where exactly is this taking place? The US section is silent on this matter. It should tell us exactly where new lead paint is actually being used on purpose.-69.87.200.233 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Lead-based paint was only banned in the US for residential usage. "Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992--Title X" (Title X) was the first federal law that dealt with the control of lead-based paint. The US Department of Housing and Development (HUD) wrote their "Guidelines For the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing" (HUD Guideline) pursuant to Title X, thereby only applying to residential buildings. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) restricted the amount of lead allowed in paint to 0.06% by weight (600 parts per million)in 1978. Some localities however did ban lead paint earlier (such as New York City) which banned lead-based paint for residential usage in the 1960's. Lead-based paint is still used almost all the time on bridges, military vehicles, and other large steel structures. This is because lead-based paint is a very good paint in the sense that it holds up very well over time and there is a very low exposure to the general population, especially children, in these circumstances. I work as a lead-based paint inspector/risk assessor. If anyone knows of any laws that have been passed paint lead-based paint in anything besides residential properties and consumer products I would be very interested in knowing.--Ssabusivefw (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic Levels of Lead in Toys?

Are the huge lead-based toy recalls related to the use of lead paint or does the lead come from some other source? I just don't understand where this lead in toys are coming from. A friend said the source was paint. Please help conform/deny this assumption. Thanks!