I can't tell from the article if there's a real problem. None of the levels exceed FDA thresholds, and it sounds bad, but there's also no definite claim of harm.
Actually, this is Shaddam Corrino IV. I'm still pretty bitter about the events on Arrakis, but I'm effectively backed into a corner in exhile. I don't have many ways to get back at Paul Atreides, so I've taken to spreading petty, hurtful references online. There's not much else to do here on Salusa Secundus aside from going on maneuvers with my sardaukar.
Tamara Rubin is an internationally recognized, multiple federal award-winning Lead-poisoning prevention advocate, documentary filmmaker, and mother of four sons (ages 26, 20, 17, and 14). She took on the cause of childhood Lead poisoning and consumer goods safety advocacy after her sons were acutely Lead poisoned by the work of a painting contractor in 2005. Tamara lives in Portland, Oregon with her husband and two youngest sons (who each have permanent disabilities from Lead exposure as infants).
She does this work specifically because it can cause permanent harm. Her family literally are victims of it.
Also, as the article notes, Washington State has much stricter standards than the Federal government.
If her youngest sons with permanent lead exposure injuries were 14 and 17 in 2023, and the lead exposure event took place in 2005, when her older children were young, some of the math isn't mathing for me.
When it comes to lead, there is no "safe" level of lead in ones body. I think the reason the FDA has a limit is because we know it's everywhere, so having a standard limit lower than where the average person may begin to see noticeable side-effects is important. Although, as everyone's body chemistry varies, what is "safe/tolerable" for one individual may not be for another.
Lead is also one of those things that from research I have read affects children to the greatest degree while their little brains are growing. In children it can cause things like aggression, learning disabilities, and slow growth and development amongst other things.
Also this is only one source of lead children (or any of us) may be absorbing, which would make you wonder about a compounding affect when looked at in aggregate. We know it's in a LOT of chocolate, spices (cinnamon being the current one doing kids in), toys, and environmental things like paint in places like old homes and schools (read a story not long ago about a kid they figured out was being poisoned from lead paint dust on a windowsill at school).
The max thresholds don't mean it's fine if it's lower, just that at some point it becomes difficult to both detect the presence of things and there's a limit on how much can be prevented. If we were progressing in time correctly we should be lowering these maximum levels both in the ability of detection and in the beginning sources. Especially in cases like this where either the metals are being added or are part of specific ingredients that would cost more to process and remove the metals.
And wow, they said Washington State was lower than the FDA, but that's a magnitude less! Good job, Washington!