Search

 In 1991, the Public Health Service articulated a vision for primary prevention in Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning, a departure from previous federal policy focused on finding and treating lead-poisoned children. This publication detailed a 15-year strategy for primary prevention and offered a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the monetized benefits of this approach. A strong national effort to follow this strategy developed but was eventually abandoned.

The organized campaign against universal screening began in California, where letters questioning the reported prevalence of elevated BLL began appearing in pediatric journals and newspapers. These letters acknowledged receiving editorial assistance from Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospitals and argued that money spent on screening, treatment and abatement would be harmful to more worthy public health efforts. The AAP president took up this attack on universal screening as well, and efforts for universal screening were gradually eroded. 

Needleman identifies racism and the belief that lead poisoning “is a product of poor mothering, not of environmental pollution” as a driving factor shaping lead detection and prevention efforts (or the lack thereof) … “this weighting of personal choice or behavior over environment is a tool used to shift responsibility away from health authorities or polluters and onto the victim” (1875).

"Infrastructure is material (roads, pipes, sewers, and grids); it is social (institutions, economic systems, and media forms); and it is philosophical (intellectual trajectories: dreamt up by human ingenuity and nailed down in concrete forms). Infrastructure has a capaciousness and scope that makes it both an infinitely useful concept and a concept that is open to facile misinterpretation or to being encumbered by overuse."

Infrastructure as paradox

• Infrastructures, paradoxically, both mitigate and magnify precarity in the Anthropocene.

• The overtly human-centered orientation of infrastructure led us to our third paradox: the purpose of infrastructure is to mitigate risk, yet it also introduces new risks. 

The fact that when the government went to collect samples of lead, they didn't go to all the sites. Also the fact that EPA has an action level for lead in the water. 

The author of the article read over the New Jersey's Drinking Water Watch database and read a letter that was sent by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to the Newark Water Department.

The article informs its readers that there is an excess amount of lead in Newark's drinking water as of September 20, 2017. Five addresses had the tap water tested and the lead levels exceeded at least three times the federal standard and Newark's Water Department was informed. The article then explains the process at which Newark's Water Department must go through in response to the excess amount of lead and what residents must do.

The Aim of this organization is to examine the dangers and amount of lead water in Newark. The article states that Newark water department exceeded the federal "level" for lead in it's water.  

I agree that Newark had terrible water but a big issue is the funding to fix the problem... and the artical goes into all the research about the water but neglects to talk about federal and local funding. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead and Copper Rule regulates the presence of lead in drinking water. Under the rule, if more than 10 percent of samples test above 15 parts per billion, the federal lead “action level” is exceeded. An “action level” exceedance triggers mandatory requirements that a water system must perform. For Newark, these requirements include water quality monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring and treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. Newark must treat its water to guard against corrosion (pipe erosion and damage) to minimize lead “leaching” (when lead is dissolved from pipes or fixtures and transfers into the water) or flaking of small lead particles from pipes or fixtures into tap water.

This article brings Newark’s water contamination problem up, specifically the amount of lead found in recent studies. Newark’s water was found to have three times the amount of acceptable lead in its tap water, but no specific locations were give as to what places are being affected by this contamination. Newarks Water Department will be required to take actions such as testing public school water supplies, changing lead pipe lines, and maintaining more accurate maintainence schedules and records. By holding people accountable, Newark is changing its vulnerability towards water contamination