These books certainly have artistic and historical value, and I don't think that they should be destroyed, but it is important to keep them out of little hands. The ink in most books printed prior to 1985 contain lead. Just touching the books, not to mention gnawing on them which many kids do, can result in unsafe levels of exposure.My reply:There is no safe level of lead in anyone's body, but it is especially dangerous to babies and young children. Blood lead levels of just 5 to 10 mcg/dl in young children, below CDC limits, can result in 7 lost IQ points. There might still be a lot of bugs to work out with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, like the prohibitive cost of testing for one, but the goal is a very important one.
The CPSIA does not keep pre-1985 books out of 'little hands;' it keeps them out the hands of every single American youngster from age TWELVE on down.And they are ending up in landfills thanks to this bill- many thrift shops have pulled theirs and are refusing to accept them in their donations. My library is pulling ours right now, and if they cannot sell them they will dispose of them.
Books printed before 1985 *sometimes* contained *some* lead in the inks. The Smart Mama (Jennifer Taggart) XRF tested several older books and she found most of them were lead free, only a few had lead in some of the illustrations.
"Just touching the books, not to mention gnawing on them which many kids do, can result in unsafe levels of exposure. "
There is no evidence I am aware of that this is true. What is your basis for making it? What studies do you know of that suggests lead in the ink (which becomes part of the substrate) somehow just comes off on a child's fingers?
And while your next statement may be true (there are no save levels of lead in the blood), you took a flying leap of logic there, as there is not a case on record where lead from a child's book entered the blood stream.
What evidence that does exist suggests that touching, holding, reading, even licking the book will not result in a chlid absorbing the lead, because saliva turns out not to be a very effective way of separating lead out of a printed page.
Actually EATING the entire book *might*- if a child chanced to eat a book that had more lead in it than most other pre-1985 books, but I suspect most children would be complaining of a belly ache for other reasons before they finished chomping down an entire book.
And I don't know any children over 2 who lick, suck, or chew on their books, yet this draconian law forbids the sale of all pre-1985 books for the use of children as old as 12- with zero evidence it's even possible for that book to harm a ten year old.
risk assessment is completely forbidden by the CPSIA as it stands.
Letter two from one PJFry on Boing Boing
I agree with you that there are major major problems with the CPSIA, and I think it would be a terrible tragedy if any books ended up in a landfill as a result of this bill, as I am sure that many probably already have. However, I do believe that it is important to protect children from lead, and other toxins, wherever they may be found.
The problem with lead is that it is a cumulative poison, each exposure results in more lead being built up in the body, and even small amounts of lead can lead to lifelong health and behavioral problems. Lead is in soil, paint chips and dust from older homes, vinyl blinds, pvc coating on power cords, antique furniture, keys, brass objects, and yes, some books. It all adds up.
Babies and toddlers routinely mouth their books, it is the first way that they learn to interact with them. I am sure that I am not the only parent to read their kid a book so many times that they have personally witnessed the ink being worn away. Or to watch the corners of books disintegrate from being sucked on.
Children absorb lead much more readily into their body than adults do. A child will absorb approximately 40-50% of all lead that they place in their mouths, as opposed to adults who will absorb about 10%. And young children, especially those younger than two, place their hands in their mouths much more frequently than adults. Certain health factors, such as a high fat diet, and low calcium and iron intake, can cause even higher rates of lead absorption. Children from poor backgrounds, the kind of children who are more likely to own items purchased from thrift stores, are most likely to suffer from the effects of lead exposure.
Right now, the CPSIA seems poised to do very little to punish the companies that are actually posing a significant health risk to children, and a lot of damage to the people that actually care about nurturing and protecting kids. It would be awful if libraries and thrift stores were harmed or forced out of business by the CPSIA. Likewise, WAHMs making cloth diapers or baby clothes, or the companies that make the wood toys that I buy my children. I feel very strongly that the INTENT of the CPSIA is a good one. However, I do agree with you that it is poorly written and needs to be thoroughly overhauled before being implemented.
My Reply:
I do not know if you are doing this sort of fear mongering bait and switch on purpose or if you really have been deceived by the Press Releases from PIRG, Public Citizen, NRDC, the Consumer's Union and other Naderite groups.
Nobody is arguing that lead isn't nasty stuff in the blood stream or that it isn't a cumulative poison. But you seem to think it somehow just magically enters a child through the air, and this is not so. You jump from 'lead in the blood is dangerous' to 'books poison children,' and there is NO evidence to support this.
Lead is in soil, paint chips and dust from older homes, vinyl blinds, pvc coating on power cords, antique furniture, keys, brass objects, and yes, some books. It all adds up.
Here's where you are wrong- NO, it only adds up if the child actually INGESTS it- there has to be some mechanism to GET the lead from point A to point B, and you seem to imagine this transferrence as something almost magical.
the paint chips have to be ingested, the dust gets on their hands and they put their hands in their mouths, or the inhale it, and the lead in keys, brass objects, etc ONLY 'adds up' in a child if they suck on or chew those things- and sucking doesn't extract the lead from every item- lead crystals, for instance, and books for another. The only scientific data I know of on this topic indicates licking a book does not, repeat NOT leach lead from the printed page. Chewing an entire book MIGHT, IF that book actually had lead in it (doubtful, as lead was NOT used in all pre-1985 books, only in a few) and IF the child at enough pages with lead in them (again, doubtful), and if the child had poor nutrition (vitamin C and calcium deficiencies have a lot to do with the higher lead absorption rates in children from impoverished families)- except, and this absolutely astounds me- there is NO RESEARCH supporting this theory about what MIGHT happen.
You include books with ZERO science to back that up. You are not using any scientific data or risk assessment to back up your claims.
Once more- SOME books have SOME lead in SOME of the colored inks. T
Babies and toddlers routinely mouth their books,
Cute. Not only is there no scientific data indicating any child ever has ever had the slightest bit of lead introduced to their blood stream from a book- not ONE, but we also aren't talking about regulations on only books for babies and toddlers. We are talking about books for 12 year olds, 11 year olds, 10 year olds, 9 year olds. 8 year olds, 7 year olds, 6 year old, etc.
I am sure that I am not the only parent to read their kid a book so many times that they have personally witnessed the ink being worn away.
And your evidence that this somehow magically translated into lead separating out of the substrate, separating out of the ink, and entering the child's bloodstream is based on.... what?
Or to watch the corners of books disintegrate from being sucked on.
When Jennifer Taggart lead tested her pre-1985 books, the majority of them had no lead. A few had lead well within the new limits set by the CPSIA, and a small handful had *some* lead in *some* of the illustrations. Do you understand it's not saturated throughout the book? This is where risk assessment is extremely useful, because, as you say, when babies do chew books, they chew the corners. They do not eat through the center like the Very Hungry Caterpillar. And low and behold, IF there is any lead (and remember there generally is NOT), it will be where there are brightly colored illustrations (and only a few of those) NOT in the corners of the book.
Children absorb lead much more readily into their body than adults do. A child will absorb approximately 40-50% of all lead that they place in their mouths, as opposed to adults who will absorb about 10%. And young children, especially those younger than two, place their hands in their mouths much more frequently than adults.
None of which in any way supports your contention that pre-1985 books need to be kept out of children's hands. In fact, the fact that they would only absorb half or less indicates the law is even more unnecessarily draconian than we knew, since older books do not routinely have lead, and it wasn't used in all the inks, either. .
Children from poor backgrounds, the kind of children who are more likely to own items purchased from thrift stores, are most likely to suffer from the effects of lead exposure.
Children from poor backgrounds are the kind of children most unlikely to own BOOKS, and now they will be even more unlikely to own them, with no benefit to their health, and much harm to their education.
Take a look at thisLetter Three, for another party: I'm certain that there are fewer than a dozen cases that could ever conclusively link lead poisoning to ink in books.
My reply: I am not aware of a single one, and I've been looking as have others. So there are actually zero cases that could ever conclusively link lead poisoning to ink in books.
The law doesn't outright ban their existence (like say Lawn Darts were) but it does put into place regulations that make their existence financially crippling to the point that they might as well ban them.
It is true that private citizens, at the moment, may continue to own those books. They simply cannot donate them to thrift shops or sell them and libraries are not supposed to check them out to children or in cases where children might use them. Libraries are, some of them, ignoring this law. Mine, sadly, is not ignoring it. They are pulling all kids pre1985 books, and because some books have no printed dates other than copyright date, they are pulling some books purchased in the last year or two that were undoubtedly printed post-1985 'just to be safe.'
And recently the CPSC ruled that it doesn't matter, because books have no useful value after 20 years anyway.
here.
