Not sure what the difference is between these two.
It's not that every item from China is tainted, it's that the supply chain isn't as trusted and that leads to a higher rate of contaminated products.
>Because in the case of the latter it seems that pretty much everything these days is manufactured there.
Yes, it's a real pain to source alternative products. I used to love the convenience and price of Alibaba, Amazon, and the other front ends for the modern miracle that is Shenzhen. But once I started to read up more on the science of toxic chemicals behind it, it radically changed my view and it's hard to go back.
In 2014, 4.2% of kids in the U.S. (over 500,000) had levels above 5 ug/dl. I don't mean to say that lead isn't an important thing to reduce, but a few kids with relatively low lead levels in a very small part of one city isn't the story, it's the millions of kids with much higher levels right here in the U.S. The only thing that drives this story is the sensationalism of Notre Dame burning and releasing toxic fumes, not the actual impact on kids.
You can get results for san francisco tests for example. The majority of cases are from lead paint exposure which is very dangerous
Jacque Chirac (mayor of Paris at the time) famously said in 1988 "I would swim in the Seine within 3 years, with witnesses, to prove the Seine has become a clean river" to illustrate his commitment to clean the Seine.
Spoiler alert, he never swam in it.
In all seriousness, lead (much like asbestos) is a perfectly fine building material so long as you aren't trying to ingest or inhale it. Permanent waterproofing is easy with a material that melts at temperatures possible with fires even prehistoric man was capable of building (it doesn't deteriorate like tar eventually does). They only become dangerous when that's a possibility, such as when paints made from it are deteriorating, when demolition or renovation of a structure is occurring, or in the case of Notre-Dame, when the structure is on fire.
It's unlikely that the new roof on the cathedral is going to be rebuilt using these ancient techniques- but if old construction isn't broken, there's no reason to actively tear it down.
> Young children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead and can suffer profound and permanent adverse health effects, particularly affecting the development of the brain and nervous system. Lead also causes long-term harm in adults, including increased risk of high blood pressure and kidney damage. Exposure of pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight.
" the tests found lead levels up to 2.5 times the French standard for buildings hosting children"
FWIIW the value of the French limit is 6.5 micrograms per square foot. That limit in America is actually 40 micrograms per square foot, meaning the "contamination" being discussed here is ... well below acceptable US limits. It's not an ideal situation, but I'm pretty sure Munchausen by Proxy syndrome is going to hurt more kids than those temporarily elevated and ruthlessly mitigated (even according to this story) lead levels.
FWIIW the Times assertions that French authorities didn't disclose or failed to inform people is complete nonsense as well; you can find that via reading the story itself, or a simple google search:
I realize it's popular to negotiate with landlords in NYC over lead levels, but this is paranoid horse shit, probably with some dumb political angle like "hey, let's put LED screens and solar panels up in place of Notre Dame's roof."
All the kids in the fallout zone need to be tested for lead levels. Those with dangerously high levels (there is no doubt there will be many based on the environmental levels reported in the article) need to be relocated to areas with lower lead levels. Those with close to high levels need frequent retests, at least every 3 months.