I highly doubt they're eating sufficient quantities to make any impact. They'd have to eat about 1/4 pound in the highest contaminated area to even hit the action level, assuming they fully absorb all the lead which isn't how it works.
Over several years of playing in the muck every day before maturing past the tendency to eat dirt / cram dirty hands in mouth, 1/4 pound is just not that much. There is no "safe" level of lead exposure.
And...? Do you think there's no exposure anywhere? This line, at least the way it's being used in arguments here, might as well be religion - used as a one line ideology that doesn't add anything to the discussion and ignores the realities.
How is 1/4 pound of dirt not that much? And remember, they would have to eat multiple times that much to actually absorb 100% of lead in that amount. If you're really that concerned, then you shouldn't be letting them eat any dirt due to other health concerns, like toxoplasmosis.
Spread over a childhood of say, 8 years, 1/4lb is only 28mg per day. That's a couple grains of rice. So, yeah, it's not much dirt.
I'm clearly not that concerned, as I don't keep my child in a bubble, but environmental lead is detrimental to society at large and something that we should make every reasonable effort to reduce.
8 years is a bit long, right? Newborns aren't playing in the dirt. By at least age 6 I would hope that most kids have basic hygiene to not be eating dirt. At such a low dose over such a long time, it's unlikely to accumulate. Plus, 28mg of dirt is still like eating a teaspoon of it.
"make every reasonable effort to reduce."
I agree. It's the reasonable part that comes up for debate. To me, it seems reasonable to live in an area that has elevated lead in the soil while not growing crops or raising chickens. It's more reasonable to replace the "lead free" plumbing components with truly lead free components, carefully select toys (eg no Chinese), and stay away from certain foods (carrots are a big one if I remember correctly).
