Feb. 19, 2007 - 18:37 MST

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

It seems so obvious at times, just where the monetary pressure is exerted.

Case in point is demonstrated in an article in The Rocky Mountain News of today, by Martha Mendoza of The Associated Press, quoted in full herein:

LUNCHBOX TESTING KEPT QUIET BY FEDS

Results show levels of lead that worry some researchers

In 2005 when government scientists tested 60 soft vinyl lunch boxes, they found that one in five contained amounts of lead that medical experts consider unsafe -- and several had more that 10 times hazardous levels."

"BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY TOLD THE PUBLIC

"Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released a statement it found "no instances of hazardous levels."

"AND IT REFUSED TO TO RELEASE ITS ACTUAL TEST RESULTS, citing regulations that protect manufacturers from having their information released to the public."

"The data were not made public until The Associated Press received a box of about 1,500 pages of lab reports, in-house e-mails and other records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed a year ago."

"The test results were disconcerting to experts who reviewed them for the AP."

"They found levels that we consider very high," said Alexa Engelman, a researcher at the Oakland,. Calif.-based Center for Enviromental Health, which has filed a series of legal complaints about lead in lunch boxes.

"They knew this all along, and they didn't take action on it."

"It's upsetting to me. Whey are we, as a country, protecting the companies ? We should be protecting the kids."

"I don't think in this instance they did their job."

"The documents describe two types of tests."

"One involves cutting a chunk of vinyl off the bag, dissolving it and then analyzing how much lead is in the solution."

"The second test involves swiping the surface of a bag and then determining how much lead has rubbed off."

"The results of the first type of test, looking for the actual lead content of the vinyl, showed that 20 percent of the bags had more than 600 parts per million of lead -- the federal safe level for paint and other products. The highest level was 9,600 parts per million, more than 16 times the federal standard."

But the CPSC did not use those results."

"When it comes to a lunchbox, it's carried," said CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese, "The food that you put in the lunchbox may have an outer wrapping, a baggie, so there isn't direct exposure. The direct exposure woulds be if kids were putting their lunchbox in their mouth, which isn't a common way for children to interact with their lunchbox."

"Thus, the CPSC focused exclusively on how much lead came off the surface of a lunch box when lab workers swiped them.

"For the swipe tests, the results were lower, especially after the researchers changed their testing protocol. After a handful of tests they increased the number of times they swiped each bag, again and again on the same spot, resulting in lower average results. "

"An in house e-mail from the director of the CPSC's chemistry division explains that they had been retesting with the new protocol "which gave a lower average result than the prior report . . . . .," he wrote. "This shows . . . . . that the risk is lower than our original testing would have showed, as the amount of lead dislogeable is mostly taken out with the first wipe and goes down with subsequent wipes."

"Vallese explained it this way: "THE MORE YOU WIPE, THE LESS LEAD YOU ACTUALLY FIND. WITH FEWER WIPES WE GOT A HIGHER DETECTION OF LEAD PRESENCE. WE THOUGHT MORE WIPES WAS CLOSER TO REFLECTING HOW YOU WOULD INTERACT WITH YOUR LUNCHBOX. IT WAS MORE REALISTIC."

"The test results also show that many lunchboxes were tested only on the outside, which is unlikely to have contact with the food."

"Vallese said this was because children handle their lunchboxes from the outside."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Makes me want to upchuck, it does.

Thinking just about the time delay for anyone to get anything via the Freedom of Information Act is sickening.

Gives me an idea that "Gummint" scientists work with their fingers crossed behind their back hoping for a "Kings X".

At one time I was a water analyst for a power plant. The tests I ran were to determine the various concentrations of minute amounts of minerals and chemicals in our boiler water.

At times I would retest to check and see if my first results were correct. But I did not introduce variables that might indicate something different than what really was.

CPSC's excuse might be that they were trying to think -- what a stink. Obvious to me that they didn't really care about user's safety, at least that is my point of view.

I don't have any idea of which pocket it went into, but in this direction is WHERE THE MONEY GOES . . . . . . . . .

Blog