Note:
My husband and I have been working on writing this article for a few weeks now. We have done our best to present this information in a way that gives the reader historical context and demonstrates these issues as endemic in for-profit-industry over the past century and beyond. The opinions we have expressed here are not only ours but are those of top historians (and others) who have been researching this issue for decades. If you have questions about anything you read here and would like additional information or links to other writings and research on the subject, please let us know. I suggest starting with reading the writings of world renown historians (and professors) David Rosner and Jerry Markowitz.
Section #1
Background & History
For more than a century, most Americans have been intentionally misled — through a false narrative carefully crafted and disseminated by the Lead industry via an incredibly successful “marketing” campaign (employing propaganda, political influence, and skullduggery) — to believe specific “facts” (myths) about childhood Lead-poisoning.
Why?
This effort has been undertaken to intentionally obscure the true size, scope, and impact of Lead-Poisoning — the single largest and most costly long-term public health crisis in this country — and to deflect blame and accountability for the incalculable ongoing harm done to successive generations of Americans from the Lead-based paint products (and, to a lesser degree, other Leaded products) these companies knowingly manufactured and promoted for decades even after their own scientists determined these products to be incredibly dangerous (harming employees of the companies but also causing permanent brain damage, seizures, and death to children exposed to even small amounts of the invisible toxic micro-dust continually coming off of surfaces in homes painted with Lead paint).
As you can see from the image below, the industry actually
promoted the dusting of these products as a benefit:
“… because its mild chalking action lets the surface continually renew itself…”
At the core of this false narrative are two key ideas
For most of the last four decades (since the “1978 ban on Lead paint”) if you randomly asked virtually any U.S. citizen what they knew about Lead-poisoning, you’d get an answer that contained various elements of this Lead industry-authored (or influenced) narrative. The two key misconceptions are as follows:
- Lead-poisoning is mostly* a thing of the past, ‘solved’ with the 1978 ban on Lead-based paint.
- Lead-poisoning “only” (primarily?) happens to low-income Black families, living in in poorly-maintained housing (“slums”).
*”mostly,” with the public consciousness exception being the situation in Flint.
Neither of these “facts” are true; yet both are essential pillars of the strategic false narrative developed by Lead industry** marketing executives. This narrative was originally crafted in order to ensure that consumers (in the U.S. and abroad) would falsely believe that culturally-specific behavior (including alleged poor hygiene and poor home cleaning habits) of (“Negro” and “Puerto Rican”) “ineducable parents [the actual language used in Lead industry internal memos — see images below!]” was the cause of the Lead-poisoning of children.
As a result of these marketing initiatives (which date back to the early 1900s) historically, white families (today and in the past) have been led to believe that Lead-poisoning was not “their” problem or concern (ostensibly because they were educated and knew how to keep their homes clean).
The image below is a 1957 memo reiterating the popular thinking (based on the Lead-industry narrative that this was “essentially a problem of slum dwellings and relatively ignorant parents”).
Continue reading below the images.
Still image from the documentary feature film: MisLEAD: America’s Secret Epidemic
The Lead industry considered Lead poisoning an “adverse publicity” problem and set their marketing teams to the task of dealing with it:
Still image from the documentary feature film: MisLEAD: America’s Secret Epidemic
**Who is the Lead industry? Historically the Lead industry was made up of a handful of vertically-integrated companies — companies who mined, refined, and manufactured Lead pigment, and then turned that into Lead paint and other Leaded products. This included The National Lead Company (later the branding for their paint products was strategically changed to “Dutch Boy”); Sherwin Williams (their paint is still on our national monuments today — like the White House, and the “Hollywood” sign); Anaconda, Glidden, and a few other paint and product manufacturers. Even today (in 2020), the Lead industry (including many of these same original corporate dynasties) still exists and is thriving — reporting record profits year-over-year. (Read more at this link.)
As professors and historians David Rosner and Jerry Markowitz discuss, in their books on the subject, Lead-poisoning has been a racially-charged issue since the period of the American Industrial Revolution. In their research, they were able to obtain several of the original records of internal conversations and actual meeting minutes (including the documents in the images above) in which the Lead industry’s propaganda campaign architects discussed their concerns about “adverse publicity” caused by publicly shared incidents of children being poisoned by their products, and the need to combat this bad press by shifting public opinion based on a set of what some would now call “alternate facts” — made up to suit their own goals.
Section #2
Racist Origins &
the Truth of the Matter
Lead-poisoning prevention’s racist origins
The top “layer of the onion”:
“What everyone knows…”
Who is actually “at risk” of being Lead poisoned?
Lead-poisoning is not caused by (nor dependent on) race, heritage, level of education, socio-economic status, or poor housekeeping. Lead-poisoning is primarily caused by Lead paint micro-dust – found in homes that were built and painted before 1978. Other sources of exposure include: Lead-contaminated soil, water, air, food, consumer products, and industrial or occupational exposure to Lead.
ANY man, woman, or child (any human, or any animal for that matter — livestock, wild, or pet!) who comes into contact with this incredibly potent neurotoxicant is potentially at risk. Lead does not discriminate; it is an “equal-opportunity poison.”
The second “layer of the onion”…
Is that the first layer was an intentionally created myth — created so the Lead industry would not be held responsible for the financial repercussions of the human damage caused by their products:
- As long as this is perceived as being a predominantly Black issue, funding to solve it would not be allocated.
- As long as this is perceived to be a predominantly Black issue, corporations who created the problem would not be held accountable for their actions.
- The societal lack of value on Black lives historically, combined with the false narrative that this is restricted to being a “low-income, Black problem,” is the reason the issue of childhood Lead poisoning persists today.
Section #3
Failings of the Public Health System
Continue reading below the image.
Still image from the documentary feature film: MisLEAD: America’s Secret Epidemic
The public agency role in holding systemic racism in place when it comes to Lead poisoning prevention initiatives:
The third “layer of the onion”…
Public agencies cementing the Lead industry narrative in the public consciousness by parroting Lead-industry created myths in their programs and materials.
Continue reading below the image.
Continue reading below the image.
With 90% (+) of Lead poisoning prevention brochures depicting children of color, along with the focus of those brochures being that mothers need to clean their homes better, the public agencies that have created these brochures are playing right in the the blame-deflection-game crafted by the Lead industry.
In this way, the Lead industry has deflected blame for Lead poisoning and put the responsibility on the shoulders of mothers.
The fourth “layer of the onion”…
Societal blaming of mothers (& specifically Black mothers)
This myth, the public perception crafted by the Lead industry at the turn of the twentieth century — that childhood Lead-poisoning is a “low-income Black” problem is discussed extensively in my film.
To recap:
- Starting as early as the early 1900s, the Lead industry capitalized on the deep racist undercurrents in our country.
- They harnessed systemic racism as a tool to deflect blame for their dangerous products.
- Their marketing campaigns also claimed their products were “white” and “pure” (and therefore by association “safe”) and so the harm could not be the fault of the product.
- They quite literally used racism to benefit and enrich themselves.
Industry specifically harnessed systemic racism to perpetuate the idea that “poor, ignorant Black women don’t clean their house well enough,” so “it’s only their children who are poisoned.”
Because Lead poisoning was therefore known to be a low-income Black problem, white women didn’t need to worry about Lead-poisoning (it was — by association then — asserted that white mothers have “superior” awareness/ education and know how to clean their homes properly). Since white families were thought to not be impacted, our predominantly white political base never allocated sufficient funding to solve the problem.
Through this narrative (and injecting elements of this narrative into our culture with an aggressive marketing campaign) the Lead industry protected themselves from the financial liability for the health impacts caused by their products (“health impacts” that included permanent brain damage, seizures, and death).
Shaming and blaming mothers for poisoning their children
- They blame themselves for not cleaning enough.
- They blame themselves for not noticing hazards.
- They blame themselves for moving into an unsafe home.
Yet none of this is their fault — their child’s Lead poisoning is 100% the fault of the Lead industry knowingly selling toxic products for decades upon decades and insisting they were safe.
Our public health programs should be helping families with this issue, but they are not. Why is this? Who is the public health system designed to benefit?
- Our “leaders” are suggesting we stop testing. This has also been the case with Lead poisoning. Testing will show the true scope of the problem. Ceasing testing (because so many children are “testing low” now) will result in less pressure (in theory — as presented by rich white politicians) to allocate the necessary large-scale initiatives — and commensurate funding — to solve it permanently.
- Elderly, low-income, and communities of color are being disproportionately impacted — primarily because they are prevented from having access to financial resources to address basic health, housing and safety concerns to keep them safe and healthy.
- A lack of political will is generating a situation in which funding is not being appropriately allocated to resolve the problem quickly because the perception is that the people being impacted are “them” (not us) — with divisions along racial, socio-economic (and in the case of Covid-19, age) lines.
Those are just a few of the highlights of parallels between the epidemic of childhood Lead poisoning in this country and the COVID-19 pandemic. What these parallels demonstrate is that, fundamentally, public health is not a concern of our government and that public health is seen as a racially-divided issue.
Public health initiatives should benefit everyone
In most other “developed” countries (Finland, Norway, Denmark, England, etc.) public health resources are for all people. Public health is seen as a national priority. In America today (and historically), public health has been regarded as a (controversial) “last resort” intended only to (minimally) support low-income families and families of color — and again, it is our politicians using systemic racism to influence politics and “conserve” (redirect) tax revenue and other public resources that should be available to everyone.
Since these issues are not proportionately impacting our politicians directly (as most of them are old white men in the 1% and can afford Lead-free housing, for example), appropriate funding is simply not being allocated.
Section #4
The Influence of Old White Men
How do we get past this — and protect all the children?
a rich white male politician whose child or grandchild has been poisoned
Case Study — Section #4.a. — Jim
A textbook example of the above “truth” is the case of the drowning of Graeme Baker — and the consequent legislation (fairly rapidly enacted) to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again.
*Using numbers published by the CDC, it can be clearly demonstrated that one in three American children (people under the age of 18) in the United States today has had a blood Lead level of 2.5 or higher in their lifetime. This is approximately 22,000,000 children. Federal agencies agree there is no safe level of lead exposure for a child. The scientific consensus is clear that even blood lead levels as low as 1.0 or 2.0 can cause irreparable harm in the form of neurological damage and physiological implications including reproductive disorders, increased risk of heart disease, and more. Read more here.
Case study — Section #4.b. — Jason
A.J.’s Law — Lead-Safe Schools
Case study — Section #4.c. — George (Sr.)
In 1990 it took the poisoning of a DOG (the dog of an older white male politician) to generate action.
Case study — Section #4.d. — Bernie
What about Bernie Sanders?
In Conclusion
#LeadSafeMama
#BlackLivesMatter
Filmmaker’s note:
PLEASE do take 92 minutes to watch the preview screener of my film on YouTube. Make time — I promise you that you will not regret the time spent. It is a REAL movie movie. It was made for theatrical release and has been very well received by test audiences. While it looks done to most audiences, it was never completed (due to the lack of finishing funds precipitated by my need to divert all my available funds and energy to defend my advocacy against false accusations that attempted to shut it down). The film has MUSIC DONATED BY THE WHO! It has music DONATED BY TOM WAITS! It has footage from my interview with NOAM CHOMSKY and footage from my presentation with BERNIE SANDERS in FLINT! It has interviews with families of Lead-poisoned kids across the country. It has interviews with experts, scientists, and policy makers across the country, too. Thank you. Link: https://youtu.be/eRKlaC2EjL0
If you appreciate my advocacy work, please consider making a contribution so Lead Safe Mama, LLC can continue doing what we do. We still have over $50,000 in unpaid legal bills from defending this work against false charges over the past 4+ years, and my civil rights case (in Federal court, against the State of Oregon) is not likely to be resolved for another year or more. Here’s a link to contribute in support of this work. Here’s a link with the full original filing of my civil rights case.
For those new to this website:
Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005). Since 2009, Tamara has been using XRF technology (a scientific method used by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission) to test consumer goods for toxicants (specifically heavy metals — including Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Antimony, and Arsenic). All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate, and replicable. Items are tested multiple times to confirm the test results for each component tested. Tamara’s work was featured in Consumer Reports Magazine in February of 2023 (March 2023 print edition).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1971.tb01121.x
Knowledge is Neither Neutral Nor Apolitical
Celia S. Deschin Ph.D.
First published: April 1971
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
Page 344
For too long, professionals in the sciences–physical* and social–and those in the helping professions have attributed to their research and clinical findings a neutral and apolitical character that these did not and could not have. In the January 1971 JOURNAL, the lead article in the THEORY AND REVIEW section (Elizabeth Herzog: Who should be studied?) and the lead article in the CLINICAL section (David A. Anderson: Public institutions: their war against the development of black youth.) both highlight the need for a critical rethinking of the role of knowledge (i.e., theory and practice) if, as professionals, we are to be of service to a country in crisis. In particular, we need to challenge the assumption that our practice is not based on theory, an assumption that prevents periodic assessment of whether the underlying theory is consistent and supportive of the professional goals to which we are committed.
The Herzog article makes in clear that the practice of focusing studies on blacks and, to a lesser extent, poor whites is based on the theory, never made explicit, that the problem lies with those studied. The Anderson paper provides an analysis of the racist practices of institutions that have it within their power to eradicate childhood lead poisoning; it makes explicit the theory underlying the role of these institutions, unmasking their pretense of powerlessness and exposing their guilt in the murder of black children. (In the case studied, hospital doctors also were reluctant to test, and then to tread for lead poisoning at a time when mass screening for the disease was in the news.)
Not infrequently the research of professionals in the social sciences and the helping professions serves to obscure and block solutions that the researchers are presumed to be supporting. A case in point is the research focus on pica ** as [end of free sample]
* Today’s pollution problem was surely foreseen by scientists in industry, who, like good military men, were content to take orders, since to raise questions might jeopardize their jobs.
** Pica is described as a “perverted appetite for non-food items such as dirt, paper, paint and plaster,” or as “the habitual, purposeful, and compulsive search for and ingestion of such non-food items as clay, plaster, laundry starch, putty, string, paint chips, paper, dirt, crayons, yarn, matches and cigarette butts.”1
This is ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT AND EXACTLY what I was saying! (and more) Thank you for sharing this with me. It’s amazing! From April of 1971… I was not yet two years old and yet this was known. Now, nearly 50 years later, the same thing holds true yet everyone (especially our pubic agencies) has turned a blind eye to the possibility of exploring fault within the underlying theory on which they base their programs. I really love this. Thank you for sharing it with me, Kenneth! I am going to post the PDF of this separately.
Tamara
Tamara
You’re welcome.
The pica aspect aspect to the Blame The Victim approach to lead poisoning also implicates the mother:
Lourie, R., Layman, E.M., Millican, F., Sokoloff, B. and Takahashi, L., 1958. A study of the etiology of pica in young children: an early pattern of addiction. In Problems of Addiction and Habituation (pp. 74-86). Grune & Stratton, New York.
… In an attempt to understand why children ingest lead-containing substances the focus shifted from the management of lead poisoning to the etiology of pica. Although organic, cultural and socio-economic factors were recognized as operative in the etiology of pica, the major emphasis in this study was on the emotional components. …
… Pica may be dealt with effectively by psychotherapy involving mother and/or the young child so that early treatment of pica has important implications from the viewpoint of public health (prevention of accidental poisonings, etc.) and mental health (prevention of adult addictions). …
—————-
I think the bigger picture is that the manufacturers of toxic products were paying doctors to lie about lead poisoning. Blaming races, mothers and children was their modus operandi.
“No honest and competent expert witness can prevail against such testimony unless he is in possession of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.”
Note that in the letter below “0.079 mg. of lead per 100 grams of blood (or as it is expressed in the record, .079 mg.%)” is now represented as 79 µg/dl. “0.10 mg./100 g” is now 100 79 µg/dl.
https://www.toxicdocs.org/d/npR4MzrGZw39NKML5ov6L1y0G?lightbox=1
October 3, 1968
Mr. W. M. Pallies
Health and Safety Manager
ESB Incorporated
P.O. Box #8109
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Dear Mr. Pallies
I have gone over the information contained in the record of Reuben D. Shoemaker
which you forwarded to me, and have concluded that this would be a very difficult
case to defend unless you have other and better information than that contained
in the record. The point that would be hardest to deal with, in evidence of
the incorrectness of the diagnosis of lead poisoning, is the finding of 0.079 mg.
of lead per 100 grams of blood (or as it is expressed in the record, .079 mg.%).
In evidence of the likely significance of the finding is the record of the
analytical findings previously. The record gives values as high as 0.10 mg./100 g.,
from time to time, and other high results more recently. As you know, the analytical
error of the best methods is of the order of 0.01 mg./100 g. for samples of 10
to 15 grams of blood, and since this figure is not challenged, and appears to be
the only one given in the record, it may well be satisfactory evidence of significant
exposure, especially if the claimant had been out of exposure for a time. The
clinical work-up appears to have been reasonably good, and here again, unless you
have evidence that will challenge the findings severely, you are up against it.
To answer your direct questions, I am still available for medico-legal testimony
if I can arrange to obtain information that enables me to arrive at an opinion.
In industrial cases, whether those of compensation claims or those concerned with
civil suits, and in trials based on alleged negligence, I am prepared to review
the facts and to advise concerning the validity of the claims. My appearance in
such cases is dependent upon my being able to meet the date or dates set for the
hearing, after I have determined whether or not I can testify effectively and in
good conscience.
The efficacy of the testimony intended to counteract false or mistaken claims, in
the specific case, is based, to a considerable extent, upon the reputation of the
specific plant for freedom from dangerous types of exposure to lead. The more
specifically applicable feature of the defense is the evidence available in the
hands of the plaintiff, to demonstrate (a) that the illness complained of is not
lead poisoning, and (b) that it is due to some definitive, alternative type of
disease. Without these features, a plausible medical record from a physician or
medical group with good professional standing, in association with a reputable
hospital, is very likely to stand against any outside opinion.
I feel sure that you know these things, but I mention them for emphasis. No honest
and competent expert witness can prevail against such testimony unless he is in
possession of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
If you wish me to give further consideration to this case, you should obtain for
me such evidence as may be available to discredit the diagnosis of lead poisoning.
If it should turn out that no such evidence exists, I would consider that my
service to your people might well be that of reviewing the situation of your
plant, or plants, from the aspect of industrial hygiene and medical information,
and determining, if possible, what should be done about them.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Kehoe, M.D.
Professor Emeritus of
Occupational Medicine
I’m really disappointed in you for jumping on the “systemic racism” bandwagon. At a time when common sense Americans need to come together, you are joining those who are trying to drive us apart with the racism scam. American is the least racist country in the world. Black Americans have more freedoms and more opportunities here than in any other country. Thankfully, many blacks see this and take advantage of the opportunities they have. Sadly, some don’t. There are poor and disadvantaged in all races. I know from personal experience that white people can be very poor also. Coming from the south, I know from personal experience that racism exist towards all colors, including whites. Yes, racism still exists in America, but we have come a long way in correcting that problem. Please don’t be one to help perpetuate the “systemic racism” false claims. That only sets us back.
I”m a bit confused about the Bernie bit of your article. I think Bernie is a sincere man, and I’ve seen him in videos when he would visit homes in Michigan about water quality. Why did you pull in his name? Why the interpretations on what his wife did and did not say? I don’t think it is fair that you did that.
What’s incredible about this is that Health Canada has absurdly portrayed lead paint as “an American issue” that we don’t have here. I couldn’t fathom how they could take this stance, but this article made me realize that the lead industries work in portraying this as a “black problem” is the reason why. Health Canada’s view is really “We don’t have the same poor black demographics as the US so logically we do not have a lead paint problem.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222495/
Thank you so much for posting this comment here!
Tamara