“1.26 million” is currently being spent “to replace” mineral enriched “soil” of lead. A different light for me to look at in however with the Environmental Protection Agencies rules and regulation inspections and so forth, the EPA does not look at Lead as the mineral as it is when it deals with factory pollution and utilizes fall out.
The report mentions complaints of “poisoning” and “polluted fall out” from lead factories. Lead isn’t food. It is not to be ingested nor meant typically for ingesting unless an ingredient of a different type of lead not doing harm as a mineral would be not to harm. So while negative effects are mentioned, those negative effects are a different not necessarily existent poison referred to lead. Just calling lead a bad thing without the mineral factor and making lead something else. So it looks like it might not be lead at all and classified top secret information which is not released in the news report just to blame it what has been referred to as a geological elemented mineral, lead.
Testing the soil is testing the soil while testing the lead would as well, testing the lead. Testing the lead- Testing the soild. Or testing lead poisoning are different things.I brought up the mineral factor while the report focuses on testing of soil for negative effects of lead while calling the negative thing lead. It doesn’t appear to hide to the public report just bring forth the information of a local current event in the New Jersey area. USA today is a good report.
Response, Written by: Rosette Jones
Original Report can be found in USA Today’s issue 9.12.12 – Alison reported more in detail about the effects and the testing of lead and the housing, the factory testing and the surrounding area of New Jersey.
Also now available on rosetteIsMyName.blogspot.com
Leave a Reply