|> You're assuming that
| > I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,
| > then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?
| I guess that's part of what the EPA is worried about,
| because otherwise they wouldn't care what you did with houses
| that have old lead paint on the exterior.
Yes. I don't really have a problem with the law. Any
contractor with any sense wanted to be careful about
lead exposure before the law came into effect, and they
still want to now. In general I think the law is about as
reasonable as it can be, but it is bureaucratic, and that
has its limitations.
Following the law is not necessarilly the same thing as
being careful about lead exposure.
Rather than looking at me as a contractor who's trying
to skirt the requirements, I'd invite you to look at it from
your own point of view. The job I'm on right now involves
interior painting. There could be lead underneath. I don't
know. I know there's none in the top layers because I
painted it myself, 12 years ago. The paint is in good shape
with almost no loose bits. I can stay under the 6 sq. ft. per
room limit on scraping, but not if I sand the woodwork.
I could perhaps get by without much sanding, maybe just
relying on TSP washing, since the trim is a low sheen. Or I
could use toxic methylene chloride sanding liquid and a fumy
oil-base underbody if I'm worried about adhesion. Of course,
that would also add to the cost of the job. And it's not
Now, imagine you're the customer. You've got a contractor
you like and trust. You want him to repaint the interior.
There's almost no peeling at all. He tells you, "Sorry, but
with this new law it's going to be a lot more expensive.
I have to wrap all furniture and HEPA vacuum all surfaces
every day." You and he both know that there's no risk of
actually being exposed to lead. (You might even know for
certain that the house has never had anything but latex
paint.) But none of that matters. Neither you nor your
contractor has the legal right to make a decision...
That's what most of my jobs are like. That's what I was
using the opt-out form for.
Next month I need to do repairs and restain on a deck
that I built myself. It's on a condo roof. The front half of
the condo building is 1800s. The back half, where my
customer is, was added in 1983. So I know there's no lead
in the condo or on the deck. But according to the law that
doesn't matter. The house was built before 1979. But if
I work on one of the decks in the other condo building,
(there are 2 on the property) which was entirely built in
1983, then I'm in the clear. Same condos. Same wood.
Same dates. Same builder. One is subject to deleading-type
protocols and the other isn't.
A job last month was in an old stone water pump building
that was converted to high-end condos about 5 years ago.
Every surface inside is new, but the building isn't. So, again,
I'd need to cover the whole room in plastic if I want to just,
say, change door frame moldings.
What if you were those customers? You'd be paying
extra costs pointlessly. I'm grateful this topic came up
because I need to stay legal, and I'm grateful to you for
your research, but it is a very awkward scenario for me,
and for people who want work done at a reasonable cost.
A bureaucratic solution is limited by the fact that it can
only operate by the letter of the law and doesn't allow for
In the future I may get certified for lead work or I may
just limit my jobs. I'm not sure. The certification is not a
big deal, but the deleading-style work requirements are a
pain in the neck. With many of my jobs I can probably stay
under the 6/20 sq ft of disturbed paint requirement, so I
might just try to do that.... and hire demo crews for larger
On the other hand, my back isn't getting any younger.
Maybe I should just switch to an easier, more lucrative
field, like Certified Lead Testing Technician. :)
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:39:44 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
I was never arguing how reasonable the law was, only what it
says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm
on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,
so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie
take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.
So just a week after your home gets painted. the home is sold, the new family with little kids moves in and the children get mental defects.....
upon investigation the high lead content is discovered..
your family get sued for the lead contamination....
You too? I never messed with dynamite though, just because of lack of
opportunity. Did lots with home made gun powder though (sometimes with some
steel pipe), ditto powdered magnesium and also a concoction I used to make
with iodine crystals and ammonia (VERY unstable).
I kinda miss the days when you could buy the materials for such goodies at
the corner drug store. Maybe you still can?
| > says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm
| > on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,
| > so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie
| > take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.
| So just a week after your home gets painted. the home is sold, the new
family with little kids moves in and the children get mental defects.....
| upon investigation the high lead content is discovered.
| your family get sued for the lead contamination....
You really are a fanatic about this, aren't you?
We're talking about a case where little if any lead
*could* be exposed during painting, because it's
under the layer being sanded.
And how is he going to get sued for lead contamination?
Anyone who grows a vegetable garden knows that
you should never plant it close to the house because
there is probably lead in the soil there from earlier
painting. (Not only scraping. Sixty-odd years ago
house paint was often made on-site by mixing white
lead oxide dust with linseed oil.)
There is another solution, though, that might be
worthwhile to some people. I'm thinking of checking
into it for my own work: If the house is certified
lead-free it's exempt from the new law. Alternatively,
if a contractor has obtained the required certificate to
conform with the new law, they can bypass the requirements
if they test all areas that will be worked on and find
no lead. I don't know what the cost is of lead-free
certification, but it could make sense for some people.
On the other hand, there's also a caveat with that:
Where I live, landlords can have adults without children
sign a waiver that says they don't know whether there's
lead in the house. As I understand it, if they get it tested
and find lead then they no longer "don't know", but I'm
not sure what the legal ramifications are at that point.
The whole thing is a very awkward and expensive problem.
The new lead law was actually passed decades ago, but
they apparently only got it passed by promising everyone
involved that the law wouldn't go into effect until they
were no longer affected by it. In Massachusetts, a landlord
who doesn't live in their own house of 3 units or less cannot
reject any tenant, yet if a child under 6 y.o. moves in they
must pay for the tenants to live somewhere else while the
entire unit (and up to 5 " high exterior) is deleaded. Some
landlords simply can't afford that, and the state doesn't
pay. Further, deleading usually involves ruining the woodwork
up to 5' high, so it often makes more sense to just replace
all trim, doors and windows in the unit.
What amazes me is that we never learn these lessons. Both
electricity and radiation were considered to be possible
wonder drugs when they first reached the public. As
I understand it, the Romans knew about lead poisoning.
We've known about mercury poisoning for hundreds of years,
yet new "green" fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. Many years
ago I raked blueberries as a job. The pesticide of choice was
lead arsenate. The growers would just stop applying it a few
weeks before harvest to make the crop safe! I also picked apples.
(During my itinerant hippie days.) Those received 12 different
sprays. They're considered the most toxic produce product to
this day, in terms of residue. We still don't learn. A
recent British study concluded there was no notable difference
between organic and non-organic foods! These are scientists
who should be thinking rationally. Yet they ignore the toxicity
of neuro-toxin and mutagenic residues on crops, focussing only
on vitamin content. Why? Probably because really coming to
terms with the problems of industrial farming is simply such a big
issue that the scientists can't bring themselves to think about it.
And also because there are close links between powerful
government people and big corporations like Monsanto, which
has actually patented seeds designed to withstand even more
of their toxic pesticides and herbicides ("roundup ready" seeds)
and then take non-customer farmers to court for patent
infringement when their crop gets infected with roundup ready
So what do we do? You can't stop eating. We just have to be
educated and thoughtful, and do what's reasonable to avoid
the toxins. (Hopefully you eat organic as much as possible,
don't eat factory food or imported food from 3rd-world countries,
don't use moisturizers with parabens, don't eat from cans with
BPA lining, and don't use fluorescent bulbs, while you worry about
lead paint. And of course, you *have* eliminated your aluminum
pans, right? :)
I learned when researching for planting my first full-scale vegetable
garden that spinach (don't remember what else) takes up a lot of lead if
the soil is contaminated. Dang. Favorite vegetable, but I'm not about
to test the garden for lead. Que sera.
| your main interest appears to be getting around the law with all sorts of
I'm just trying to present a balanced approach and
help to clarify the situation and the options. I never
expressed support for just ignoring lead issues. *No
one is talking about not following the law. The law
provides for fines as high as $37,000 per day for
infractions. It's no small thing to ignore the law.*
(I was always intending to follow the law and had
thoroughly researched it. I just wasn't aware that it
had been changed since it took effect. Now that I know
about the changes I will no longer use opt-out forms.)
But you consider it "making excuses" to not use deleading
protocols when a house has already been tested for
lead and found clean? How can that make sense?
And what if I get certified and test for lead on my
own jobs? You consider that to be "making excuses"?
Do you happen to be a vinyl siding salesman, by any
chance? That would explain your implication that
everyone in the US is either getting vinyl siding or
being sued into the poor house. (And how would a
homeowner get sued over a contractor who ignores the
law? I don't remember seeing any such provision. Do you
know of such a provision? It's my impression that you
haven't even read the law yourself.)
Despite your view that the neighborhood kids are
all dying from lead paint exposure, you've been silent
about the other issues I've brought up: How about
if your contractor was going to repaint your living
room and you knew that no lead would be exposed?
Would you want to pay extra for deleading protocols to
be followed, just because that's the law? What about the
real-life examples I gave of jobs where the law requires
deleading protocols, but I know for a fact that there's
no lead because the property was renovated later than
1979? How would you feel about paying an extra 20%
if you were one of those customers? And what about
all the other common health hazards? Do you not care
about those? All of the things I listed are precautions I
take myself. (Organic foods, reading labels on moisturizing
creams, avoiding BPA, etc.) I'm in no way reckless about
environmental hazards. I also run the water for a couple
of minutes in the morning before drinking it. Did you know
that one of the most common causes of lead poisoning,
aside from paint and foreign-made ceramics, is lead solder
in water delivery pipes? Do you care about that lead? If
not, why not?
On Friday, May 2, 2014 1:55:55 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
you admit using a opt out form thats no longer valid, yet you paint homes and remodel them for a living...
I HOPE you know you can get lead tests, that will show if a area is lead free. But stating home was remodeled in 1985 has no proof all the lead was removed.
You dismiss totally the following. You get the property owner to sign a opt out letter thats not valid, some later resident of the home has kids, who get very ill.
The property owner should of disclosed the hazard, but didnt because you convinced them everything was fine......
original property owner can get sued.
On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:50:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I service office machines for a living, mostly roll laminators. I have ZERO CONNECTION to any home repair industries...
My neighbor had a home with a bad sewer line. She failed to disclose this at home sale time. The new owner found out when their basement flooded:(
Because the old owner didnt disclose the issue they HAD to pay for a whole new sewer line, and yard and driveway restoration.
So a contractor doesnt follow the law, creates a lead hazard, the home is sold, the new owners kids get ill, the lead is discovered, the old owner and the contractor will both get sued....
follow the law, and sleep well at night...
the penalties are severe because mentally retarded children have troubles for a entire lifetime:(
Good for you, I wish more people had their heads screwed on straight.
Nowadays, people seem to think that the presence of
lead/mold/asbestos/tobacco smoke or other baddie du jour is an irrevocable
death sentence, too much trouble to just not eat the damn paint.
Not to mention the sizeable number who think the presence of whatever is the
drawer to a cash register, goaded, of course, by the class action shysters.
| I learned when researching for planting my first full-scale vegetable
| garden that spinach (don't remember what else) takes up a lot of lead if
| the soil is contaminated. Dang. Favorite vegetable, but I'm not about
| to test the garden for lead. Que sera.
I've heard of agricultural labs that will test it for a small
fee. I've never tried it myself. I figure that a test of soil
in one area doesn't necessarily mean the soil 4 feet away
| you admit using a opt out form thats no longer valid, yet you paint homes
and remodel them for a living...
| I HOPE you know you can get lead tests, that will show if a area is lead
free. But stating home was remodeled in 1985 has no proof all the lead was
| You dismiss totally the following. You get the property owner to sign a
opt out letter thats not valid, some later resident of the home has kids,
who get very ill.
| The property owner should of disclosed the hazard, but didnt because you
convinced them everything was fine......
| original property owner can get sued.
You're obviously not really reading what I'm writing,
but I think I've said my piece clearly enough for
others to make their own decisions, so I'll leave it
Yes, if you make nitrous triiodide, you'd better be scrupulous about wiping
the threads of the bottle cap you store it in clean. DAMHIKT - Did you go
to the Bronx High School of Science or Brooklyn Tech? (-: They made that
stuff by the ton.
Amazon. A pack of water purification tablets is all you really need from
them. The rest of the stuff you probably already have. Detailed
instructions are, of course, available on YouTube.
We used to paint the deck of the SI Ferry with NI3 and it would pop as
people walked on it. One day a huge cop walked over to us and said "Who's
gonna be brave enough to fire that cap pistol while *I* am standing here?"
We were all looking down in what he probably thought was contrition but we
were watching to see if he was going to take one more step and hit the next
patch of NI3. He lingered for what seemed like forever and then slowly
walked away. Jeez.
We used to get native sodium stored in jars of kerosene. I liked it better
than NI3 because you could make it burn in water. Very impressive magic
tricks of all kinds with it.
Thermite was even *more* fun and ridiculously easy to make if you had some
magnesium ignition wire and a file.
Then there were fireworks. I set off a 2" diameter aerial bomb once which
should have gone off with the thunderous report at about 100'. Instead,
shortly after I lit it, I heard it launch and then I heard a loud "ding"
like the bell on the strong-man hammer machine at the county fair. A second
later I heard the sound of the aerial bomb payload hitting the ground a foot
away after it had bounced off the lamp. Ka-POW! My ears rang for days. It
was a strange experience. I heard the ding and thought "that's not right"
but I didn't realize what had happened until the second sound of the payload
hitting the pavement and by then, game over dude.
It's a wonder some of us survived childhood.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.