HISTORY OF LEAD
As
with asbestos, health problems related to lead poisoning
were visible thousands of years ago. Lead poisoning
is primarily accomplished through ingestion or inhalation.
The health effects, depending on exposure, range from
the mild (anemia) to the horrifying (sterility, brain
damage, and death).
While
they were not technologically able to identify the root
cause, ancient physicians in a number of cultures documented
the plethora of learning and health problems in the
families of smelters and metal workers. The society
with the most pronounced problem was the Roman Empire.
Ironically, their high degree of lead poisoning was
due to the fact that they were much more technologically
advanced than their neighbors.
Roman
aqueducts and piping systems were constructed using
lead as the primary metal component, as it was soft,
ductile material. Any developed area throughout the
Empire used Roman engineers to design and build water
supply systems. The use of large quantities of lead
in the construction of these systems had effects the
designers never dreamed of. Unbeknownst to them, the
profusion of lead water pipes was steadily poisoning
their entire nation. Practically every person throughout
Rome drank wine that had been thinned to varying degrees
by water. Their water bore large quantities of dissolved
lead and lead particulate matter. Historians consider
the steadily falling birthrate throughout the Italian
peninsula to be one of the primary causes of the Roman
collapse. The “madness and diseases of the mind”
that were so prevalent among the leading citizens of
Rome was another indication of the insidious poisoning
occurring every day. By the 8th Century, the population
of the Italian peninsula was roughly 40% of what it
had been 600 years previously. The argument could be
made that lead destroyed the Roman Empire, rather than
the northern tribes who eventually overran it.
Modern
data on lead poisoning, especially in the United States,
focused on children and lead based paint (LBP). In the
late 1960’s, The Department of Housing and Urban
Development prepared and publicly issued a study on
the health effects of LBP in inner city environments.
The results of the test were conclusive, and frightening.
Due to the sweet taste of LBP, and the natural tendency
of young children to place everything possible in their
mouths, learning and health problems were much more
extensive than originally anticipated. Entire neighborhoods
were determined to have elevated levels of lead in their
blood. While this is dangerous to adults on in high
concentrations, the effect on children under age 10
is much more severe. Evidence of learning disabilities
and brain damage were noted in many of the cases.
While
many Government programs and plans get sidetracked or
diverted from their original purpose, the campaign HUD
waged against LBP was one of our Government’s
best, most defining domestic efforts. The fight was
waged by comparatively minimal regulation, focusing
instead on information, containment, and reduction of
further use. They developed reasonably clear methods
for abatement, removal, and clearance of contaminated
areas. They developed comparatively low cost control
measures for building owners to protect their tenants.
HUD intelligently, carefully laid out the plan to protect
children from this material, and have been diligent
at addressing and identifying properties that could
place children at further risk. HUD’s procedures
for abatement are still the guideline for most State’s
lead abatement programs.
While
the nasty health effects of lead poisoning were known
for adults, the susceptibility and greater potential
damage children could suffer had not been public knowledge
previous to this effort. OSHA’s data for the manufacturing
and construction industries was well researched and
solidly regulated. HUD, however, determined that children
could be injured by amounts less than 1/10th of the
Permissible Exposure Levels listed in the OSHA guides.
Simply, OSHA’s data was based on research of employed
adults, which is their primary responsibility.
Due
to their own studies, as well as the new data coming
out, OSHA decided to take a closer look at the use of
lead in industry and construction. In 1994, OSHA released
new standards for lead exposure of employees. Many firms
to this day do not understand these “new”
rules. OSHA has no minimum content threshold for material.
This means that their regulations can be enforced upon
an owner or contractor even if the exposure came from
material that contained only a trace amount of lead.
Also, Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) sampling is required,
on every task being performed in the vicinity of the
potential lead hazard. Until this exposure assessment
is complete, all employees are required to have body
and respiratory protection. Many companies, especially
those less familiar with environmental requirements,
either fail to comply with these requirements, or fail
to perform them properly. Many Owners do not understand
the strictures OSHA has placed on them, as well. An
Owner can and will be held liable for hiring a Contractor
who fails to comply with these regulations. In many
recent cases, Owners were held to be at least 50% liable
when an otherwise qualified contractor failed to protect
employees and occupants from exposure. This can often
amount to fines worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Many
employers unintentionally fail to comply with proper
OSHA procedures, as they are not easy to interpret.
Many employers feel that as their employees are only
incidentally handling or demolishing lead painted building
components, there is no way they will exceed the PEL
standards. Unfortunately, they are often wrong. <<<
Back to services page
|
