I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

On Aug 7, 11:43*am, Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial rehabs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on chinese
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead paint
gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy test in
apartments.

On Aug 7, 12:53 pm, ransley wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:43 am, Pat wrote:



I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial rehabs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on chinese
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead paint
gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy test in
apartments.

No, this isn't about apartments and anything big. While it applies to
that, it also apply to YOUR house if YOU do the renovations. If you
renovate over 6 s.f. of inside space or 20 s.f. of outside space, it
covers YOU as a homeowner unless you opt out. But you can only opt
out if your house doesn't have any children under 6 in it (pregnant
women).

So what rule is effectively saying is that you cannot rehab your own
house if there are kids in it, unless you have taken a safe work-
practices course. Period. The only other way out is to test for lead
in advance and show it to be lead-free. If you don't test, then you
have to assume it's lead. Once your work is done, you have to go
through a clearance procedure which is a real pain.

It could create some catastrophes. For example, say you had your
house painted 10 years ago and they left lead paint on the ground but
you don't know about it. Now, you are doing a roof. You try to get
clearance at the end by testing the soil and the lead shows up. The
roofer is going to have to clean up the lead. Not the best example
because a roofer would probably test for lead in advance, but you get
the idea.

The other way it could be bad is if you have an apartments. Say a kid
moves in and has a lead problem but no one knows about it. You do
some work on something with lead, but do it right. Then, the kid gets
tested for lead because he's doing bad in school. They see that you
have lead and just did work. Guess who gets sued. This would be
particularly true if you didn't have lead training and didn't go
through the procedure.

This regulation could really change the way we do things on pre-1978
houses. After 1978, you can do as you please.

On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big problem in
many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

What a crock of BS. People will work on their houses regardless

On Aug 7, 9:18*pm, Pat wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:53 pm, ransley wrote:





On Aug 7, 11:43 am, Pat wrote:

I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial rehabs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on chinese
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead paint
gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy test in
apartments.

No, this isn't about apartments and anything big. *While it applies to
that, it also apply to YOUR house if YOU do the renovations. *If you
renovate over 6 s.f. of inside space or 20 s.f. of outside space, it
covers YOU as a homeowner unless you opt out. *But you can only opt
out if your house doesn't have any children under 6 in it (pregnant
women).

So what rule is effectively saying is that you cannot rehab your own
house if there are kids in it, unless you have taken a safe work-
practices course. *Period. *The only other way out is to test for lead
in advance and show it to be lead-free. *If you don't test, then you
have to assume it's lead. *Once your work is done, you have to go
through a clearance procedure which is a real pain.

It could create some catastrophes. *For example, say you had your
house painted 10 years ago and they left lead paint on the ground but
you don't know about it. *Now, you are doing a roof. *You try to get
clearance at the end by testing the soil and the lead shows up. *The
roofer is going to have to clean up the lead. *Not the best example
because a roofer would probably test for lead in advance, but you get
the idea.

The other way it could be bad is if you have an apartments. *Say a kid
moves in and has a lead problem but no one knows about it. *You do
some work on something with lead, but do it right. *Then, the kid gets
tested for lead because he's doing bad in school. *They see that you
have lead and just did work. *Guess who gets sued. *This would be
particularly true if you didn't have lead training and didn't go
through the procedure.

This regulation could really change the way we do things on pre-1978
houses. *After 1978, you can do as you please.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 7, 9:25 pm, wrote:
What a crock of BS. People will work on their houses regardless

That assumes that a building inspector will issue you a building
permit and/or CO.


On Aug 7, 9:18 pm, Pat wrote:

On Aug 7, 12:53 pm, ransley wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:43 am, Pat wrote:

I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial rehabs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on chinese
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead paint
gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy test in
apartments.

No, this isn't about apartments and anything big. While it applies to
that, it also apply to YOUR house if YOU do the renovations. If you
renovate over 6 s.f. of inside space or 20 s.f. of outside space, it
covers YOU as a homeowner unless you opt out. But you can only opt
out if your house doesn't have any children under 6 in it (pregnant
women).

So what rule is effectively saying is that you cannot rehab your own
house if there are kids in it, unless you have taken a safe work-
practices course. Period. The only other way out is to test for lead
in advance and show it to be lead-free. If you don't test, then you
have to assume it's lead. Once your work is done, you have to go
through a clearance procedure which is a real pain.

It could create some catastrophes. For example, say you had your
house painted 10 years ago and they left lead paint on the ground but
you don't know about it. Now, you are doing a roof. You try to get
clearance at the end by testing the soil and the lead shows up. The
roofer is going to have to clean up the lead. Not the best example
because a roofer would probably test for lead in advance, but you get
the idea.

The other way it could be bad is if you have an apartments. Say a kid
moves in and has a lead problem but no one knows about it. You do
some work on something with lead, but do it right. Then, the kid gets
tested for lead because he's doing bad in school. They see that you
have lead and just did work. Guess who gets sued. This would be
particularly true if you didn't have lead training and didn't go
through the procedure.

This regulation could really change the way we do things on pre-1978
houses. After 1978, you can do as you please.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 7, 8:52*pm, Pat wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:25 pm, wrote:

What a crock of BS. *People will work on their houses regardless

That assumes that a building inspector will issue you a building
permit and/or CO.





On Aug 7, 9:18 pm, Pat wrote:

On Aug 7, 12:53 pm, ransley wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:43 am, Pat wrote:

I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial rehabs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on chinese
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead paint
gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy test in
apartments.

No, this isn't about apartments and anything big. *While it applies to
that, it also apply to YOUR house if YOU do the renovations. *If you
renovate over 6 s.f. of inside space or 20 s.f. of outside space, it
covers YOU as a homeowner unless you opt out. *But you can only opt
out if your house doesn't have any children under 6 in it (pregnant
women).

So what rule is effectively saying is that you cannot rehab your own
house if there are kids in it, unless you have taken a safe work-
practices course. *Period. *The only other way out is to test for lead
in advance and show it to be lead-free. *If you don't test, then you
have to assume it's lead. *Once your work is done, you have to go
through a clearance procedure which is a real pain.

It could create some catastrophes. *For example, say you had your
house painted 10 years ago and they left lead paint on the ground but
you don't know about it. *Now, you are doing a roof. *You try to get
clearance at the end by testing the soil and the lead shows up. *The
roofer is going to have to clean up the lead. *Not the best example
because a roofer would probably test for lead in advance, but you get
the idea.

The other way it could be bad is if you have an apartments. *Say a kid
moves in and has a lead problem but no one knows about it. *You do
some work on something with lead, but do it right. *Then, the kid gets
tested for lead because he's doing bad in school. *They see that you
have lead and just did work. *Guess who gets sued. *This would be
particularly true if you didn't have lead training and didn't go
through the procedure.

This regulation could really change the way we do things on pre-1978
houses. *After 1978, you can do as you please.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody gets a permit to paint a house, and nobody cares, the sky isnt
falling and wont fall. You are out of touch with reality.

On Aug 7, 11:43*am, Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Nothing bad will happen for a homeowner, In apts bad stuff does happen
with inspectors.

In article af1efaaf-b085-4a55-b753-a12e8f317021@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 7, 9:25 pm, wrote:
What a crock of BS. People will work on their houses regardless

That assumes that a building inspector will issue you a building
permit and/or CO.

No, it assumes most people don't get permits for DIY renovations to
begin with, and inspectors don't have the time or desire to go around
revoking occupancy over minor home renovations.

Seriously, go to one of the big box stores, look at all the water
heaters in stock, and tell me you honestly think most consumers take out
a permit to replace their own water heater.

Look at all the drywall, paint, and paneling in stock, and tell me you
honestly think most consumers get a permit to spruce up the pantry.

Unless this new rule is backed by substantial new enforcement funding,
it will join the long list of rules that are routinely ignored by
homeowners working on their own homes.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big problem in
many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

On Aug 8, 6:11*am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. *Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. *Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. *Some varnishes had lead. *It's a big problem in
many areas. *Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

* * The putty in windows was almost pure lead. *My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. *He worked it in his hands to keep it flexible.
He died at age 90. *It must have shortened his life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lead putty, when was that used, Lead isnt flexible until near 600f, I
know lead was in paint but putty? The problem is these hungry kids
eat paint chips and suck on chinese toys painted with lead paint, so
when they dont achieve in school they are tested and the parents can
sue the lanlord. It doesnt matter if the mother drank a gallon of
booze a day in pregnancy or that the kid got it from toys. Lanlords
have gotten screwed from kids testing positive for lead.

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 6:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the
area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be
there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big problem in
many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lead putty, when was that used, Lead isnt flexible until near 600f, I
know lead was in paint but putty? The problem is these hungry kids
eat paint chips and suck on chinese toys painted with lead paint, so
when they dont achieve in school they are tested and the parents can
sue the lanlord. It doesnt matter if the mother drank a gallon of
booze a day in pregnancy or that the kid got it from toys. Lanlords
have gotten screwed from kids testing positive for lead.

Yes, lead-based putty. He swore by it. Said lead-based paint would chalk,
but not peel, thus providing for a long life. Of course, we grew up with
lead-based paint and no one thought much of it.

Locally we had a scare this year when the water works changed to ammonia and
chlorine combinations which, it turned out, leached the lead out of copper
tubing joints. Kids started to show up in school with symptoms. They tried
to hide the fact that they had picked a bad mixture, and eventually quietly
changed it, and we have no heard a word about it since.

ransley wrote:
On Aug 8, 6:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...





On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly

wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new
EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was
all new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it
can
stand things on it head for most people because there's no way
they are going to be able to train every contractor in the
country be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the
area if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be
allowed back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance
can take a week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add
time and money to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will
be
there for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the
'50s are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big
problem in many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put
on vinyl siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible. He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lead putty, when was that used, Lead isnt flexible until near 600f,
I
know lead was in paint but putty?

It's not solid metallic lead, it's "white lead" or lead carbonate
[(PbCO3)2·Pb(OH)2] powder, generally mixed with calcium carbonate and
linseed oil.

The problem is these hungry kids
eat paint chips and suck on chinese toys painted with lead paint, so
when they dont achieve in school they are tested and the parents can
sue the lanlord. It doesnt matter if the mother drank a gallon of
booze a day in pregnancy or that the kid got it from toys. Lanlords
have gotten screwed from kids testing positive for lead.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big problem in
many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot for
migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was
all
new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can
stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the
area
if they don't have training. Homeowners really shouldn't be
allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and
money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will be
there
for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the '50s
are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big problem in
many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put on vinyl
siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot for
migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.

I read this year of a woman who ate food which her group (husband?) hunted.
Her appendix was full of lead, a lifetime accumulation from eating water
fowl shot with shotguns.

George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new
EPA lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it
was
all new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it
can stand things on it head for most people because there's no
way they are going to be able to train every contractor in the
country be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zone, neither the architect nor the building inspector could
enter the area if they don't have training. Homeowners really
shouldn't be allowed back in the work area until it's cleared,
and clearance can take a week or so. All the testing,
clearance, etc will add time and money to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad
happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will
be there for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of
things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the
'50s are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big
problem in many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go
put
on vinyl siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by
lead putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to
keep it flexible. He died at age 90. It must have shortened his
life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of
us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot
for migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.

I read this year of a woman who ate food which her group (husband?)
hunted. Her appendix was full of lead, a lifetime accumulation from
eating water fowl shot with shotguns.

Shot collecting in the appendix is apparently not uncommon. If it's
lead shot then lead toxicity can result.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George Conklin wrote:


The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.


Everyone has a story about some relative about how they drank a quart of
booze a day/smoked 5 packs/cleaned their hands with solvent every
day/turned brown from the sun from working on a tuna trawler/mined
uranium etc and they lived to some ripe old age so therefore it is
evidence that that activity is OK.

All of the wisdom about causation of cancer pretty much points to having
a genetic predisposition which is "switched on" by a stimulus such as
radiation (nuclear or UV), exposure to chemicals or whatever. So the
reality is handle/expose yourself to whatever you want with abandon only
if you feel lucky.

"George" wrote in message
. ..
George Conklin wrote:


The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible.
He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.


Everyone has a story about some relative about how they drank a quart of
booze a day/smoked 5 packs/cleaned their hands with solvent every
day/turned brown from the sun from working on a tuna trawler/mined
uranium etc and they lived to some ripe old age so therefore it is
evidence that that activity is OK.

All of the wisdom about causation of cancer pretty much points to having
a genetic predisposition which is "switched on" by a stimulus such as
radiation (nuclear or UV), exposure to chemicals or whatever. So the
reality is handle/expose yourself to whatever you want with abandon only
if you feel lucky.

I know lead is not a good thing to work with.

ransley wrote in
:

On Aug 7, 8:52*pm, Pat wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:25 pm, wrote:

What a crock of BS. *People will work on their houses regardless

That assumes that a building inspector will issue you a building
permit and/or CO.





On Aug 7, 9:18 pm, Pat wrote:

On Aug 7, 12:53 pm, ransley wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:43 am, Pat wrote:

I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the
new EP
A
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it
was
all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it
can
stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they
are going to be able to train every contractor in the country
be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zo
ne,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter
the
area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be
al
lowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can
take
a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time
and
money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad happens.

Are you talking about apartments and tenants or big commercial
reha
bs,
I went through lead removal probably some kid was sucking on
chines
e
toys. The big issue is keep paint from peeling, peeling lead
paint gets ground up to dust, that is what inspectors usualy
test in apartments.

No, this isn't about apartments and anything big. *While it
applies
to
that, it also apply to YOUR house if YOU do the renovations. *If
yo
u
renovate over 6 s.f. of inside space or 20 s.f. of outside space,
it covers YOU as a homeowner unless you opt out. *But you can
only opt out if your house doesn't have any children under 6 in
it (pregnant women).

So what rule is effectively saying is that you cannot rehab your
own house if there are kids in it, unless you have taken a safe
work- practices course. *Period. *The only other way out is to
test for
lead
in advance and show it to be lead-free. *If you don't test, then
yo
u
have to assume it's lead. *Once your work is done, you have to go
through a clearance procedure which is a real pain.

It could create some catastrophes. *For example, say you had your
house painted 10 years ago and they left lead paint on the ground
but you don't know about it. *Now, you are doing a roof. *You try
to
get
clearance at the end by testing the soil and the lead shows up.
*Th
e
roofer is going to have to clean up the lead. *Not the best
example because a roofer would probably test for lead in advance,
but you get the idea.

The other way it could be bad is if you have an apartments. *Say
a
kid
moves in and has a lead problem but no one knows about it. *You
do some work on something with lead, but do it right. *Then, the
kid g
ets
tested for lead because he's doing bad in school. *They see that
yo
u
have lead and just did work. *Guess who gets sued. *This would be
particularly true if you didn't have lead training and didn't go
through the procedure.

This regulation could really change the way we do things on
pre-1978 houses. *After 1978, you can do as you please.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody gets a permit to paint a house, and nobody cares, the sky isnt
falling and wont fall. You are out of touch with reality.


Uh, Pat isn't the one who wrote/passed that regulation...he is adressing
potential propblems arising out of the regulation. In what way is that
"out of touch with reality"?

ransley wrote in news:42705436-bcde-4982-a636-
:

On Aug 7, 11:43*am, Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new EPA
lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it was all
new. *So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like it can stand
things on it head for most people because there's no way they are
going to be able to train every contractor in the country be
mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. *For example, if the contractor sets up a work zone,
neither the architect nor the building inspector could enter the area
if they don't have training. *Homeowners really shouldn't be allowed
back in the work area until it's cleared, and clearance can take a
week or so. *All the testing, clearance, etc will add time and money
to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing bad
happens.

Nothing bad will happen for a homeowner, In apts bad stuff does happen
with inspectors.


Ever look into buying a house that turned out to have major renovation work
with no permit? What a mess - best to pass it by as fast as possible.

Frst, Pat had mentioned that the reg. applies to houses built prior to
1978. Second, painting a wall or tacking up some panelling is not
"renovation" - simple painting doesn't create dust from sawing, hammering,
relocating support beams, and so on. THe dust is what could carry old
layers of lead paint into the air. If a homeowner does somethign that
major withour a permit, uh, "bad things" can happen. You can run afoul of
any homeowner's association, and of the city and possibly state.

Even if the bozo gets away with it for a while, I have seen that very sort
of thing put the kabosh on selling the place.

Pat wrote in
:

On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new
EPA lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it
was all new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like
it can stand things on it head for most people because there's
no way they are going to be able to train every contractor in
the country be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zone, neither the architect nor the building inspector could
enter the area if they don't have training. Homeowners really
shouldn't be allowed back in the work area until it's cleared,
and clearance can take a week or so. All the testing,
clearance, etc will add time and money to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will
be there for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the
'50s are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big
problem in many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go put
on vinyl siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by
lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible. He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot for
migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.


The Romans used to use lead as a flavoring.
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/102664.html
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/micro/ga.../mineral4.html
http://www.lead.org.au/q&a/2004/swee...040507002.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acetate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_s...e#Lead_acetate

HTH

Kris Krieger wrote:
Pat wrote in
:

On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new
EPA lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it
was all new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like
it can stand things on it head for most people because there's
no way they are going to be able to train every contractor in
the country be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zone, neither the architect nor the building inspector could
enter the area if they don't have training. Homeowners really
shouldn't be allowed back in the work area until it's cleared,
and clearance can take a week or so. All the testing,
clearance, etc will add time and money to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will
be there for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of
things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the
'50s are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big
problem in many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go
put
on vinyl siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by
lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible. He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of
us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot
for migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.


The Romans used to use lead as a flavoring.
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/102664.html
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/micro/ga.../mineral4.html
http://www.lead.org.au/q&a/2004/swee...040507002.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acetate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_s...e#Lead_acetate

Learn something every day. That explains much. And it's much more
compelling than the "lead pipes" theory.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Pat wrote in
:

On Aug 8, 7:11 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

news:584e3ccb-db38-4759-9ed3-1e770c657692
@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
...



On Aug 7, 1:07 pm, Blattus Slafaly
wrote:
Pat wrote:
I was just wondering who was doing what in response to the new
EPA lead rules that take effect in 2010.

I took the safe work practices course way back when, when it
was all new. So I guess I'm okay, But this new rule seems like
it can stand things on it head for most people because there's
no way they are going to be able to train every contractor in
the country be mid-2010.

It seems like the reg could have some serious, practical
consequences. For example, if the contractor sets up a work
zone, neither the architect nor the building inspector could
enter the area if they don't have training. Homeowners really
shouldn't be allowed back in the work area until it's cleared,
and clearance can take a week or so. All the testing,
clearance, etc will add time and money to projects.

What are most people doing, just ignoring it and hope nothing
bad happens.

Most lead paint is covered with siding or painted over. It will
be there for hundreds or even 1000's of years.

Absolutely, positively not.

Windows, including interior were big. Much (if not most) of
things
with bright colors such as red or orange. Big red doors from the
'50s are loaded with it. Some varnishes had lead. It's a big
problem in many areas. Besides, under the new rule, if you go
put
on vinyl siding, you need to use lead-safe work practices.

The putty in windows was almost pure lead. My father swore by
lead
putty, and he was a chemist. He worked it in his hands to keep it
flexible. He died at age 90. It must have shortened his life.

Actually, to an adult I don't think lead is particular bad for you.
It's only bad during your developmental years. Heck, how many of
us
put pure lead sinkers into our mouths while fishing.

For birds, the lead shot is bad because the birds pick it up and it
hurts the eggs and endangers the flock. So lead is banned as shot
for migratory water fowl. Ironic that the danger of lead is in the
swallowing of it, not the shooting of it at the birds.

As for the kids, I have been told that what makes lead particularly
dangerous is that it tastes very sweet so they actually like eating
it.


The Romans used to use lead as a flavoring.
http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/102664.html
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/micro/ga.../mineral4.html
http://www.lead.org.au/q&a/2004/swee...040507002.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acetate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_s...e#Lead_acetate

Learn something every day. That explains much. And it's much more
compelling than the "lead pipes" theory.


I actually don't know how much lead (from pipes) would eb dissolved into
water - I'd haev to aska chemist. But they used lead fro pretty much
everything it seems, fromlining cups and other food vessels, to everyday
items and utensils, and so on. It might not have been any one thing, but
when you add it all up together, what's most amazing to me is that *any*
of them survived.

I also heard or read that the ROmans has double-paned windows - they weer
very rare (expensive item, glass), but still fascinating.

Kris Krieger wrote:


I actually don't know how much lead (from pipes) would eb dissolved
into water - I'd haev to aska chemist. But they used lead fro pretty
much everything it seems, fromlining cups and other food vessels, to
everyday items and utensils, and so on. It might not have been any
one thing, but when you add it all up together, what's most amazing
to me is that *any* of them survived.


Considering it took Rome longer to fall than the U.S. has been in existence,
the alternative explanation is that the hype over lead is, um, exaggerated.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Kris Krieger wrote:


I actually don't know how much lead (from pipes) would eb dissolved
into water - I'd haev to aska chemist. But they used lead fro pretty
much everything it seems, fromlining cups and other food vessels, to
everyday items and utensils, and so on. It might not have been any
one thing, but when you add it all up together, what's most amazing
to me is that *any* of them survived.


Considering it took Rome longer to fall than the U.S. has been in
existence, the alternative explanation is that the hype over lead is,
um, exaggerated.


Huh?? Even despite contradicting even contemporaneous accounts, never mind
history, that doesn't make sense logically. In many ways, an empire
functions from the bottom up - even if the upper classes were having some
level of brain damage from ingestion of lead acetate, there are a lot fo
people in the lower classes still doing things as they'd alwasy doen, IOW,
in ways that had worked for hundreds of years.

Again, I don't know how much lead dissolves in average (i.e. undistilled0
water, but the thinking is that the highest lead levels occurred in those
who were ingesting luxury foods, a category whihc includes specially-
prepared sweetened wine and foods (i.e. sweetened with the syrup that was
created by reduction of the solution created by heating wine with lead).

OTOH, you're more than welcome to start ingesting as much lead as you wish,
if you *really* want to prove your point. MEanwhile, the effect of lead
poisoning was well-known to the Roams, and their successors (such as
Lucretia Borgia); additionally, in more recent times, the effect of lead
upon the neurological development of children has also been studied and is
well-known. So take all the risks with your own health taht you wish -
meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to try to avoid ingesting lead.