Obama re-election

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

Terms said:
Yes that is why they passed a law that homes built before 1978 you have to have a Lead paint disclosure. Funny if they stopped in 1955 why didnt the law get dated to back then?

The industry is fond of claiming that it stopped adding lead to interior paints when it learned that lead-based paint was dangerous. In fact, the lead pigment manufacturers knew that lead-based paint was hazardous long before 1955. The decision to push for adoption of a 1955 standard limiting the lead content in paint was a ploy to further delay government regulation. The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

The 1955 standard notwithstanding, these companies continued selling paint with lead in it, at reduced but still harmful levels. They did not stop until the government forced them to by banning lead paint in 1978. And from 1978 to today, they have done virtually nothing to prevent children’s exposure to toxic lead dust from paint, or to remove lead-based paint hazards from children’s homes.

http://www.afhh.org/action/action_legal_remedies_lawsuits_record.htm

I am glad you can use my reference.... please, continue to read my post on how it was an unregulated American manufacture who began to produce the alternative to lead in paint that is known as Titanium Dioxide.

Furthermore, without reference to any of these regulations it can be widely accepted as fact that manufacturers using lead paint today are being ignorant. This, in it's self, creates the ability of the consumer to not only test the paint prior to use to see if there is lead in it, but they can also, oh I don't know, SUE. Don't kid yourself either, the regulations in 1977 have not prevented lead from being used in some paints. The best recourse against companies in the market who are taking advantage of consumers is not by regulation but by consumers refusing to buy their products, and when they do buy them, they sue for damages. You know, that whole crazy self correction thing we free market supporters are always talking about.

NLXSK1 · Dec 11, 2011

Terms said:
Paint Degrades. The Biggest issue isnt eating it. it is breathing it. Im sure 3000 kids in Cleveland are not all Eating lead paint chips

Each year in greater Cleveland, nearly three-thousand children are diagnosed with lead-poisoning

More than 4% of children in the United States have lead poisoning. Rates of lead poisoning are higher in large cities and among people with low incomes.
The most common cause of lead poisoning today is old paint with lead in it. Lead has not been used in house paint since 1978.

OMG!!! We should bulldoze all those homes immediately. Most of them are probably IDOC anyway...

Look at the glaring statistics about how many more cases are happening now rather than 10 years ago!! Oh WAIT!!


1997		23,345,397	1,611,569	122,641	7.61%	67,793	28,312	13,473	11,693	1,170	200
1998		23,143,133	1,761,674	114,571	6.50%	66,305	25,636	11,498	9,896	1,076	160
1999		23,023,683	1,875,500	94,292	5.03%	55,538	20,782	9,120	7,903	839	110
2000		23,304,631	2,216,700	87,782	3.96%	51,639	18,921	8,512	7,748	814	148
2001		23,380,551	2,538,008	76,992	3.03%	45,856	16,502	7,060	6,647	800	127
2002	U.S. Totals	23,380,855	2,652,964	67,914	2.56%	41,160	14,592	5,958	5,475	628	101
2003		23,612,242	3,092,229	70,236	2.27%	43,214	14,301	5,760	5,496	601	864
2004		23,903,723	3,250,848	57,204	1.76%	34,996	11,490	4,612	4,363	532	1,211
2005		24,204,520	3,529,634	54,051	1.53%	32,594	10,743	4,628	4,467	502	1,117
2006		24,507,506	3,578,103	46,912	1.31%	28,522	9,328	3,955	3,659	448	1,000
2007		24,761,587	3,136,843	31,524	1.00%	19,078	6,410	2,771	2,635	340	290
2008		25,082,312	3,449,062	28,717	0.83%	17,330	6,012	2,540	2,461	311	63

In 1997 it was over 122,000 cases... In 2008 it was less than 29,000 cases. And if you dig into the details it is less than 12,000 cases that were beyond minor. Divide by 50 states and you get 240 cases per year per state. Hardly an epidemic.

We are talking about surfaces that have not been painted IN OVER 30 years!!! Or surfaces that are being remodeled. And as I have said, putting kids in those spaces is just stupid.

Do you know that brake pads are still being made with asbestos? That just standing on a street corner in a busy city is likely to be more exposure to asbestos than inside an old home for years?

How about we let Detroit pass some local ordinance about it's deteriorating infrastructure and not keep it a federal issue.

Terms · Dec 11, 2011

sync0s said:
I am glad you can use my reference.... please, continue to read my post on how it was an unregulated American manufacture who began to produce the alternative to lead in paint that is known as Titanium Dioxide.

Furthermore, without reference to any of these regulations it can be widely accepted as fact that manufacturers using lead paint today are being ignorant. This, in it's self, creates the ability of the consumer to not only test the paint prior to use to see if there is lead in it, but they can also, oh I don't know, SUE. Don't kid yourself either, the regulations in 1977 have not prevented lead from being used in some paints. The best recourse against companies in the market who are taking advantage of consumers is not by regulation but by consumers refusing to buy their products, and when they do buy them, they sue for damages. You know, that whole crazy self correction thing we free market supporters are always talking about.

The industry is fond of claiming that it stopped adding lead to interior paints when it learned that lead-based paint was dangerous. In fact, the lead pigment manufacturers knew that lead-based paint was hazardous long before 1955. The decision to push for adoption of a 1955 standard limiting the lead content in paint was a ploy to further delay government regulation. The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

Terms · Dec 11, 2011

NLXSK1 said:
OMG!!!
How about we let Detroit pass some local ordinance about it's deteriorating infrastructure and not keep it a federal issue.

OMG Maybe we shouldnt do anything about it
OMG let the Free market decide if people want to spend money they may not have investigating whether They have a Lead paint hazard in their house or the Previous owners Knew about it but didnt say anything before the New Owners dropped a couple hundred grand and Moved their kids in
OMG you have all the answers

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

Terms said:
The industry is fond of claiming that it stopped adding lead to interior paints when it learned that lead-based paint was dangerous. In fact, the lead pigment manufacturers knew that lead-based paint was hazardous long before 1955. The decision to push for adoption of a 1955 standard limiting the lead content in paint was a ploy to further delay government regulation. The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

Yes. Stop where you see fit.

The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

Moreover, it was largely a concession to market forces. By 1954, with lead-based paints losing market share to safer, better alternatives and with the expanding demand for lead in automobile fuel, it was a clever exit strategy for the lead industry to magnanimously participate in the adoption of this unenforceable standard.

Terms · Dec 11, 2011

sync0s said:
Yes. Stop where you see fit.

[/B][/B]

Do you think 10000 ppm of lead is a safe level?
Yes Or no?
The industry is fond of claiming that it stopped adding lead to interior paints when it learned that lead-based paint was dangerous. In fact, the lead pigment manufacturers knew that lead-based paint was hazardous long before 1955. The decision to push for adoption of a 1955 standard limiting the lead content in paint was a ploy to further delay government regulation. The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

The 1955 standard notwithstanding, these companies continued selling paint with lead in it, at reduced but still harmful levels. They did not stop until the government forced them to by banning lead paint in 1978. And from 1978 to today, they have done virtually nothing to prevent children’s exposure to toxic lead dust from paint, or to remove lead-based paint hazards from children’s homes.

And again Your Original answer was They stopped putting lead in Paint Long before the law in 1978.
Now say you are sorry you were wrong and maybe i wont think less of you than I already do.

sync0s said:
Pointless argument. I have already referenced in the last debate about lead in paint as to how the lead regulations were useless post-facto regulations. However, people of the left love to continue to perpetuate their lies in order to prove their points. Just look at the Enron debate.

The lead paint regulations were political regulations done only to serve the politicians who could go to their constituents and say: "Hey, I am fighting for your safety by preventing the evil paint business from putting lead in your paint." Meanwhile, the paint companies didn't care to fight the regulation because they had already begun to stop putting lead in paint anyways.

laughingduck · Dec 11, 2011

Poor kid, I would suggest he go outside and play, but I think he just get beat up.

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

Terms said:
Do you think 10000 ppm of lead is a safe level?
Yes Or no?
The industry is fond of claiming that it stopped adding lead to interior paints when it learned that lead-based paint was dangerous. In fact, the lead pigment manufacturers knew that lead-based paint was hazardous long before 1955. The decision to push for adoption of a 1955 standard limiting the lead content in paint was a ploy to further delay government regulation. The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

The 1955 standard notwithstanding, these companies continued selling paint with lead in it, at reduced but still harmful levels. They did not stop until the government forced them to by banning lead paint in 1978. And from 1978 to today, they have done virtually nothing to prevent children’s exposure to toxic lead dust from paint, or to remove lead-based paint hazards from children’s homes.

And again Your Original answer was They stopped putting lead in Paint Long before the law in 1978.
Now say you are sorry you were wrong and maybe i wont think less of you than I already do.

1) No. Above post indicated an exit strategy for putting lead in automotive fuel. Thanks, please read some more.

2) Direct quote

sync0s said:
Meanwhile, the paint companies didn't care to fight the regulation because they had already begun to stop putting lead in paint anyways.

3) The government did not ban lead until 1977 which makes their law 22 years late.

4) I'm sorry, but I don't fall victim to patronization by a 16 year old who is trying to talk down on paint companies for putting lead in paints when they their selves can't even follow the RULES on a god damn marijuana web site.

Hypocrisy is astounding.

Terms · Dec 11, 2011

The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

Im a lot Older than 16
And a lot more Mature than you

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

Terms said:
The self-serving standard allowed 10,000 parts per million of lead in paint, exempted exterior paints altogether, was completely voluntary, and lacked any means for tracking or enforcement.

Im a lot Older than 16
And a lot more Mature than you

More lies than the hypothetical offspring of Barnie Frank and Newt Gingrich.

laughingduck · Dec 11, 2011

He is ate up with the dumbass and completely unaware of it.

NLXSK1 · Dec 11, 2011

10000 ppm of lead means 1 part of lead for every 9999 parts of something else.

Do I think it is an acceptable level? The question is retarded without providing the amount of paint eaten.

But 1 part for every ten thousand is a pretty small amount.

jesicalorren · Dec 11, 2011

my boy is a GANGSTA .....

UncleBuck · Dec 11, 2011

NoDrama said:
How much lead paint do you think you would sell? I know I wouldn't buy any from you. Its kind of like selling a turd, no one will buy it. Your business will fail and you will learn that trying to sell a deadly paint is not good business.

you can test the levels of lead in your paint?

do tell....

redivider · Dec 11, 2011

sync0s said:
I am glad you can use my reference.... please, continue to read my post on how it was an unregulated American manufacture who began to produce the alternative to lead in paint that is known as Titanium Dioxide.

Furthermore, without reference to any of these regulations it can be widely accepted as fact that manufacturers using lead paint today are being ignorant. This, in it's self, creates the ability of the consumer to not only test the paint prior to use to see if there is lead in it, but they can also, oh I don't know, SUE. Don't kid yourself either, the regulations in 1977 have not prevented lead from being used in some paints. The best recourse against companies in the market who are taking advantage of consumers is not by regulation but by consumers refusing to buy their products, and when they do buy them, they sue for damages. You know, that whole crazy self correction thing we free market supporters are always talking about.

test the paint? you have a gas spectrometer i could borrow? lol

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

redivider said:
test the paint? you have a gas spectrometer i could borrow? lol

[h=3]Can I just use a lead test kit from a paint store?[/h]
Kits for testing paint and ceramics are available at most paint and hardware stores for $8 - 10. They have chemicals that change color when rubbed against a surface that contains lead.

These kits can only tell you if there is lead in the paint you tested.

They will not tell you how much lead is in the paint or if it is a hazard.

You can not use them to test for lead in soil.

If you decide to use a lead test kit to test your paint, follow the directions on the package very carefully. Be sure to test the bottom layers of paint. To do this, use a sharp knife to cut a slanted notch through all the paint layers on the spot you want to test. Test all the layers of paint in the notch. Look for the color change indicated by the test kit.

If your house was built before 1978 and your lead test kit comes out negative (does not change color), you should have an accredited lab test the paint to make sure the lead test kit worked properly.

I spent this much on a PH test kit for soil.

NoDrama · Dec 11, 2011

sync0s said:
I spent this much on a PH test kit for soil.

awww you ruined all the fun from the other guys who think you need a lab of well trained technicians and million dollar equipment to see if something contains lead.

UncleBuck · Dec 11, 2011

NoDrama said:
awww you ruined all the fun from the other guys who think you need a lab of well trained technicians and million dollar equipment to see if something contains lead.

much more fun to spend as much as the can of paint costs just to make sure it is not ridden with lead.

that's the america i want to live in.

sync0s · Dec 11, 2011

UncleBuck said:
much more fun to spend as much as the can of paint costs just to make sure it is not ridden with lead.

that's the america i want to live in.

Yes, because the cost of passing and enforcing these regulations isn't much greater. Sorry that you're to lazy.

NoDrama · Dec 11, 2011

UncleBuck said:
much more fun to spend as much as the can of paint costs just to make sure it is not ridden with lead.

that's the america i want to live in.

lead paint does not scare me one bit, chipped lots of it just this summer, nothing happened.

Obama re-election

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member