Contribute Try STAT+ Today

Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general picked by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, immediately drew blowback during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday for saying that he “hasn’t looked into the scientific research” on precisely how much lead exposure is unsafe for children.

Critics slammed Pruitt’s response as an uninformed and dangerously naive perspective on a critical environmental health issue. But, in fact, Pruitt’s not alone in his uncertainty on this question. There’s an ongoing debate among scientists and regulators about how much lead is too much for kids to have in their bodies.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT+ is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • How dishonest can a journalist get?

    “All of which is to say: Pruitt probably deserves some slack on this point. We don’t know what level of lead is safe to be taken into children’s bodies”

    vs.

    “Both the CDC and the EPA say on their websites that there is no level of lead known to be safe in a child’s bloodstream.”

  • The establishment of “reference levels” or “levels of concern” by the government is pure black magic. One concrete example. Anyone who has ever bought a house in NJ has to have the home tested for radon levels at a cost to the buyer of couple hundred bucks. Ever wonder how the “safe” level of 4 picocuries/L was established in the first place? The inspector didn’t know so I looked it up. The way the “safe” level was established was by exposing caged rats to radon concentrations typically found in uranium mines, which are about 65 times higher than levels in the atmosphere. Whether they did an LD50 I don’t recall, but the “safe level” for humans breathing the air in their homes was based on how much of a supersaturated concentration of radon in a rat cage was required to sicken the rodents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the determination of “safe” lead levels was based on science that was just as bad.

  • I’m particularly disappointed in this journalists’ headline. The good point is lead never existed in our air or water prior to industrial activity, and no lead level is safe for humans. The debate of how much is too much will continue in the medical community to direct medical intervention. Realizing lower levels cause harm, our government has been lowering treatment thresholds for years.
    What is scary is this EPA nominee seems to be clueless about this massive issue, and this journalist chose to make his ignorance seem like he had a ‘good point’.

  • No amount of lead is safe; this is indisputable. Uncertainty exists only about when we, as doctors and as a society, need to take action.

Comments are closed.