About the author

Lilly Fowler is assistant editor at FairWarning.

One comment to “Lead Exposure in Older Homes Means Children “Pay With Their Lives””

  1. Iggy

    Nice article. A few comments:

    David Rosner got this part wrong: “just recently, the CDC basically terminated its lead screening programs. So they don’t want to look, they’re not even looking, because of, quote, financial reasons.”

    This is not correct. The CDC did not terminate its lead screening programs, because it didn’t have a lead screening program. The CDC Lead Poisoning Branch collected and analyzed screening data from state and local agencies and put the data up on its website. They didn’t conduct or pay for the screening themselves. Although the CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch no longer exists as a separate entity, it is now combined with the Healthy Homes Program. It appears they intend to maintain their data summary function as before.

    Given the way Markowitz and Rosner characterized the Kennedy Krieger Institute studies in your interview, it seems your intro oversold the researchers’ evils intentions. This wasn’t Tuskegee.

    Finally, you make little mention of the huge progress that has been made in reducing lead exposure. Federal laws and regulations in the late 1970’s reducing lead in gas and paint had ENORMOUS effects. Laws limiting lead in water, food, and consumer products have also helped. The reductions in average lead levels in US children, and in the number affected by higher levels of lead, has gone way, way down. It truly is something for people in public health to be proud of, and shows how effective public policies initiatives can be in creating a healthier population.

Leave a comment