Of the few you gave which I could look at the one with this extract will do
a) The most substantial evidence from cross-sectional and
prospective studies of populations with PbB levels generally
below 1.2 µmol/litre (25 µg/dl) relates to decrements in
intelligence quotient (IQ). It is important to note that such
observational studies cannot provide definitive evidence of a
causal relationship with lead exposure. However .... blah blah
So, if it isn't on the internet, it isn't important? Hmm? You know that
the first casualty of the internet was the truth.
As I said earlier, it is all but impossible to prove causality with humans.
Something about the moral implications of doing a double blind test, of this
sort, on twin children. The tests have been done on mice, and other mammals,
and what a rant the last linked reference you gave is.
On that I agree. I had to read the stupid thing twice to figure out what
his beef was. Basically, he was mad because the council didn't consider
that lead may be the cause of low performance in children.
But seriously, what is your agenda?
Are you trying to prove that the poor inner city utes are dumb because it
is their nature? [Thoughts like that make some white folks feel superior,
and better about their own dismal lives...]
I surely hope that you aren't in that category.
Or are you trying to prove that the government/environmentalists/do-gooders
are trying to pull one over on the public for some as yet undisclosed reason?
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy (hell, more than the next guy!),
but I cannot see the angle on this one. Maybe it is to keep the bridge painters
RoHS, fits in the same catagory as lead paint bans; but, my reason for being against RoHS
is that it is too expensive, too dangerous, and provides too little return for the
cost or the danger. I do fundamentally believe that lead is worthy of respect
in its handling. It is indisputable that it is a poison for humans. The question
is in what quantity does it pose the most risk.