When You Consider...

...this (from The Book on Bush):

In one...case, Bush & Co. intervened at the precise moment that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was set to consider once again lowering acceptable blood-lead levels in response to new scientific evidence. The Administration rejected nominee Bruce Lanphear and dumped panel member Michael Weitzman, both of whom previously advocated lowering the legal limit. Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appointed William Banner--who had testified on behalf of lead companies in poison-related litigation--and Joyce Tsuji, who had worked for a consulting firm whose clients include a lead smelter. (She later withdrew.) Banner and another appointee, Sergio Piomelli, were first contacted about serving on the committee not by a member of the Administration but by lead-industry representatives who appeared to be recruiting favorable committee members with the blessing of HHS officials.

And add this:

Lead poisoning in children can damage the nervous system, limit IQ and cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems. At very high levels, lead can lead to coma, convulsions, even death.

And then just a touch of this:

Under the federal Clean Air Act, EPA was required to set emission standards for small [municipal waste combustors; these facilities emit significant levels of lead] that, at a minimum, matched the performance of the cleanest units now in operation. But in December 2000, EPA issued standards that flunked that test. Rather than requiring all MWC to match the performance of the best units, they gave a federal blessing to the continued operation of the dirtiest units.

Okay, okay, but maybe add a pinch of Washington D.C.'s current problem, where lead contamination in homes was found at up to 3200x (yep, thirty-two hundred times) the EPA's limit.

Then taste. Mmmm..good, but still needs a little:

The severity of lead contamination in the District's water reveals serious weaknesses in the federal testing program and raises the prospect that other cities may have similar, undiscovered problems, according to federal officials, scientists and engineers.

Now you've got a brew.

But one question: given all of the above, if you were gutting the EPA, and you were running for re-election pretending you weren't, would you call one of your new campaign ads "Lead?"