Search results

Lead is a well-established environmental contaminant that over the last 50 years has become recognized as a neurotoxin with its greatest concern for the developing child (i.e. both in-utero and postnatally). What is problematic is that children exposed to lead often come from lower socioeconomic status (SES), are largely Black communities and are further at increased risk for developing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). The literature on ACEs had focused much on trauma, single parenting, child abuse, lack of finances and stress, etc., but has not considered the intersectionality of these ACEs as risk factors within environmental neurotoxic exposures such as lead poisoning. This is important as most low SES communities are Black. In particular, within the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Black families have been neglected of proper lead-abatement to their apartments for nearly 70 years.

This is a viewpoint/perspective paper that examines the lived experiences of Black folxs in NYCHA through a Black critical theory (BlackCrit) and antiblackness framework pertaining to ACEs, and lead poisoning within the NYCHA system of New York City. This perspective paper draws upon the last three years of news reports, five decades of publicly available data sets from NYCHA and the comptroller to raise an awareness of how Black children are treated by NYCHA generation after generation which can be argued as a mass atrocity against NYCHA residents. Furthermore, the systematic and institutionalized racism and environmental injustices by NYCHA and the state can also be considered as a crime against humanity. As such, BlackCrit could help to position awareness, advocacy and knowledge about Black folxs residing in NYCHA to achieve fair, safe and affordable public housing to experience Black joy across future generations.

Thus, rather than civic and state government response efforts focusing their full attention and resources to serving and supporting individuals affected by ACEs they should equally consider the environments in which Black people live and also allocate funds proportionally to address these areas often overlooked. Moreover, proportions of these funds should be redirected especially to lead-abatement and removal of known sources of lead exposures, evaluation of suspected sources of lead exposures (i.e. drinking water, baby food and formula, children’s juice and cereal products, superfund and other waste sites, electronic recycling plants, etc.) and accompanied by all affected children undergoing full and comprehensive neuropsychological testing and follow up studies paid for by the state. The goal should have two fundamental objectives: (1) accepting accountability for failing to address these preventable neuropsychological issues directly affecting Black children generation after generation and (2) offering the proper waived or reimbursable supports and resources to help Black children sustain the best quality of life (QOL) trajectory possible when diagnosed with lead poisoning.

The manuscript is a viewpoint/perspective paper grounded in BlackCrit and an antiblackness framework. There are ample public news reports and public data available from NYCHA on these matters over the last three years. However, the scope of this paper was not to delve too deep into these numbers per se, but rather to address the concerns leading up to and arguably contributing to, at least in part, to these numbers of lead-exposed Black children in NYCHA. Lead poisoning has never been considered as an ACE and its relationship to mass atrocity research is novel which may pave a new avenue for research of this kind through the utility of BlackCrit and antiblackness framework to support and advocate for change so that Black children can be provided with a basic human right of safe housing and experience Black joy.

BlackCrit has not been used in the context of lead poisoning research. Mostly individuals and families of middle- and low-income have been studied in the context of poverty and lead poisoning. However, many people who live in poverty, in public housing, within New York are Black. Thus, Black children are generation after generation exposed to unaddressed lead-abatement and it appears that now more than ever BlackCrit should become the framework for how this work should be discussed in the literature to raise awareness to state governments regarding Black folx's persistent lead poisoning, NYCHA's neglect and mass atrocity research as a long overdue advocacy effort to bring the necessary voice, authentic narrative, and actual knowledge of the lived experiences of Black families in NYCHA with lead poisoning.

The goal of this viewpoint/perspective paper should have two fundamental objectives (1) NYCHA and New York State accepting accountability for failing to address these preventable lead poisoning issues directly affecting Black children; and (2) offering the proper support and resources to help Black children sustain the best QOL trajectory possible when diagnosed with lead poisoning.

Lead poisoning research has never been approached through a mass atrocity and BlackCrit framework and perspective. This is the first report on bridging these fields within the context of NYCHA public housing neglect of lead-abatement and continued poisoning of current and future generations of Black children. This failure of NYCHA lead-abatement contributes annually to economic loss in New York State for many years to come which could be entirely avoided.

Aims to: familiarize the audience with the potentially serious consequences of exposure to lead and ways of preventing them; facilitate understanding of how massive environmental contamination with lead occurred, and is still happening, with the expectation that this knowledge will be useful in designing strategies to reduce environmental contamination with lead and other toxic substances, in the future; emphasizes the relevance of lead to the subject‐matter of virtually every department in schools of arts and sciences in anticipation that some instructors will incorporate this information into their respective courses to increase their students′ awareness of this topic. Discusses some of the properties and uses of lead and its compounds and then indicates its ubiquitous presence in air, water, soil, dust and food. Considers some effects of exposure to lead and describes some pivotal contributions of various researchers. Explores the role of lead in history, in literature and in art. Briefly surveys occupational exposure to lead in the USA and elsewhere. Describes the reasons for, and consequences of, lead in petrol and in paint. Summarizes an outstanding paper on the topic of values and lead. Finally, based on an examination of a portion of the voluminous literature on lead, offers some opinions on this subject.

Potentially major shifts in privacy norms are taking place as a result of advances in genetic technologies. This chapter identifies a spillover effect in the form of the inadvertent emergence of new norms and introduces an original typology developed in response to these new norms regarding privacy. It focuses on the emerging practice of compelling access to genetic information of biologically related persons to gain information about a particular individual. This chapter highlights the recent practice in child lead paint poisoning cases in which defendants seek to discover medical and I.Q. records of biologically related non-parties to establish alternate genetic causation of low I.Q. It concludes that greater attention should be given to the spillover effect and the emergence of shadow norms.

We publish elsewhere a report of the judgment delivered by Mr. LOVELAND‐LOVELAND, K.C., Chairman of the County of London Sessions, in the case of the Kensington Borough Council versus Bugg. The termination of this case has been called a “compromise” by some of the trade journals, and it is well to point out that it was nothing of the kind. When a conviction is confirmed in a higher court, and when proceedings are stayed upon an undertaking being given by the defendants that they will do what they were proceeded against for not doing, the description of such circumstances by the term “compromise” is ridiculous—particularly when a judgment is accompanied by remarks so decisive and uncompromising as those which were made by the learned Chairman in reference to this case. The suggestion that the case should bo brought to a conclusion in the manner indicated came from the Bench, who were evidently perfectly satisfied as to the meaning which attaches to the word “Cornflour,” and the course suggested was obviously intended merely to save the time of the Court; while the fact that the defendants submitted to the terms imposed without oven attempting to bring forward such evidence as they might have been able to get to support their position, is in itself amply sufficient to show that their advisers had appreciated the weakness of their case. There has been the usual outery in the trade journals about the sufferings of the innocent tradesman, and about “interference with the liberties of manufacturers.” In the whole history of the administration of the Food Acts in this country there are hardly any instances of prosecutions for the sale of an article under a name which is properly applicable to another, in which such outcries have not been raised. Such outcries may, however, be taken as blessings in disguise, since they mainly serve to emphasise the facts and to educate the public. The term “Cornflour” is well known to have originated from the expression “Indian Corn Flour,” and it unquestionably has a specific meaning which is not applicable to either of the two words of which the term is made up. Originally, perhaps, the term “Indian Corn Flour” may have meant the actual meal of Indian Corn or Maize, but, by the usage of more than forty years the term “ Cornflour” means the prepared starch of Maize. No doubt it has been honestly thought by some that in view of this fact any starch might bo described as “Cornflour,” but such a position is quite untenable There is no argument which can bo adduced in support of the contention that rice starch may bo described as Cornflour, which cannot also be brought forward in support of a statement that any starch whatever may be sold as Cornflour. The absurdity of this position is so obvious that it is needless to discuss it. The starches obtained from different sources are different in physical characters, in structure, and in other respects. For these reasons they are differently acted upon by the digestive juices. Moreover different starch preparations exhibit differences which are due to the presence of minute amounts of special flavouring substances derived from the raw material; and these differences it is most important to consider since they often give to an article certain characters which are required by the purchaser. A number of instances in point could be brought forward. It is no more permissible to substitute rice starch for maize starch than it is to substitute potato starch for arrowroot starch, and, for reasons which are perfectly well known and always acted upon in the medical profession, a medical man who orders a patient to be fed on a particular starch food, such as cornflour, would strongly and rightly object—particularly in certain cases —to the substitution of another starch preparation for that which he had ordered. The matter has been settled in such a way and with so strong an expression of opinion on the part of the tribunal which dealt with it, that we think it unnecessary to discuss it further.

In quite a number of the American states strict regulations forbidding the use of leaded coating materials have been passed in recent years. As a matter of fact, there is nothing new about the fact that lead compounds are toxic. Centuries ago, sugar of lead (lead acetate) had been a well‐known “legacy powder” used by poisoners. Its sweet taste and slow effect made it particularly suitable for such purposes. Thus, in Germany, a law was passed as early as in 1887 prohibiting the use of leaded paints in packing material for foodstuffs and toys. In all civilized states ordinances exist which protect workers in contact with such paints from lead poisoning.

In the House of Lords on the 13th November last the Earl of MEATH asked whether it was a fact, as stated in the public Press, that the leaflet of the Board of Agriculture recommending the use of glucose, salicylic acid, and a coal‐tar product known as saccharin, or saxin, as sugar substitutes in jam had been condemned by the Kensington Public Health Committee on the ground of possible danger to health, and whether the Public Analyst told the Committee that glucose was liable to contamination with arsenic, that salicylic acid was a dangerous drug, which should only be administered under medical direction, and that the use of saccharin, except under medical supervision, had been recently prohibited in America, and was entirely prohibited in France in certain commodities, including preserves; and if the facts were as stated, what steps the Government proposed to take to warn the public against the use of these drugs in the preservation of food. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, is reported to have replied that the opinion of expert chemists had been taken on the matters raised in the question. They had reported “that glucose had long been used in the manufacture of jam and for other food purposes, that its value as a food was well recognised, that its manufacture in this country was in the hands of a few firms, and that samples were systematically tested for arsenic at Government Laboratories.” Continuing, his Grace observed that “samples of foreign glucose were also taken for examination on importation. In no case did the arsenic exceed one‐hundredth of a grain per pound of glucose, the point below which the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning had reported that no action should be taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Manufacturers exercised great care to secure freedom from arsenic. Further, the Board of Agriculture had suggested that, as glucose was sold for human food, it came within the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and was subject to public analytical examination. The public was therefore doubly safeguarded. The leaflet did not refer to the use of salicylic acid in jam making, but to its use for sterilising the paper covers on the pots. The Committee of the Local Government Board which was appointed in 1899 to inquire into the use of preservatives in food had placed a limit of one grain of the acid per pound in the case of solids and of one grain per pint in the case of liquids. The amount used for the paper covers of jam pots was not nearly one grain per pound of jam. The use of coal tar for sweetening was not advocated, and was not referred to in the leaflet. It had, however, been suggested that saccharin or saxin could be used in place of cane sugar where cane sugar was not obtainable. Saccharin underwent no change in and was not absorbed by the body. The Department had no precise knowledge of the reasons which had led to the alleged prohibition of the use of saccharin in America and France. It would appear, however, that the prohibition if it existed, was due to fiscal reasons.” After the delivery of this statement the Earl of MEATH is reported to have said it would relieve a great many minds to hear that in the opinion of eminent chemists there was no danger in using the substances in question. He hoped the public would no longer be afraid to use them.

The Food and Drugs Bill introduced by the Government affords an excellent illustration of the fact that repressive legislative enactments in regard to adulteration must always be of such a nature that, while they give a certain degree and a certain kind of protection to the public, they can never be expected to supply a sufficiently real and effective insurance against adulteration and against the palming off of inferior goods, nor an adequate and satisfactory protection to the producer and vendor of superior articles. In this country, at any rate, legislation on the adulteration question has always been, and probably will always be of a somewhat weak and patchy character, with the defects inevitably resulting from more or less futile attempts to conciliate a variety of conflicting interests. The Bill as it stands, for instance, fails to deal in any way satisfactorily with the subject of preservatives, and, if passed in its present form, will give the force of law to the standards of Somerset House—standards which must of necessity be low and the general acceptance of which must tend to reduce the quality of foods and drugs to the same dead‐level of extreme inferiority. The ludicrous laissez faire report of the Beer Materials Committee—whose authors see no reason to interfere with the unrestricted sale of the products of the “ free mash tun,” or, more properly speaking, of the free adulteration tun—affords a further instance of what is to be expected at present and for many years to come as the result of governmental travail and official meditations. Public feeling is developing in reference to these matters. There is a growing demand for some system of effective insurance, official or non‐official, based on common‐sense and common honesty ; and it is on account of the plain necessity that the quibbles and futilities attaching to repressive legislation shall by some means be brushed aside that we have come to believe in the power and the value of the system of Control, and that we advocate its general acceptance. The attitude and the policy of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULTERATION, of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and of the BRITISH ANALYTICAL CONTROL, are in all respects identical with regard to adulteration questions; and in answer to the observations and suggestions which have been put forward since the introduction of the Control System in England, it may be well once more to state that nothing will meet with the approbation or support of the Control which is not pure, genuine, and good in the strictest sense of these terms. Those applicants and critics whom it may concern may with advantage take notice of the fact that under no circumstances will approval be given to such articles as substitute beers, separated milks, coppered vegetables, dyed sugars, foods treated with chemical preservatives, or, in fact, to any food or drug which cannot be regarded as in every respect free from any adulterant, and free from any suspicion of sophistication or inferiority. The supply of such articles as those referred to, which is left more or less unfettered by the cumbrous machinery of the law, as well as the sale of those adulterated goods with which the law can more easily deal, can only be adequately held in check by the application of a strong system of Control to justify approbation, providing, as this does, the only effective form of insurance which up to the present has been devised.

Introduction Before any metal is immersed, it is usually exposed for some time to the atmosphere. During this period the metal normally reacts with the oxygen present in the air and forms an oxide film. It may also combine with any moisture and dissolved gases in the atmosphere to produce surface films. The presence of these surface layers affects the rate, and possibly the distribution, of any subsequent corrosion. Hence the formation of surface films in the atmosphere is discussed before the corrosion of immersed lead.

The question of Britain's entry into the Common Market would appear to have been resolved. For a time it did seem as if the Government was looking before it leapt, but if we can read the signs aright, only the controversy now remains. The implications of the Common Market, both political and economic, are largely unknown to the public and if recent events among French farmers are an indication, are not entirely acceptable to those already in it.