Bruce Lanphear

It'd still be unusual unless you work in an industry.

For example, smelting batteries to recycle them.

We don't expect it to be real common.

And we're not even sure, Eric, whether we should be doing widespread screening.

If I looked at this as a population scientist, the real focus should be on identifying the sources.

We mostly know where those are here.

And radically...

Moving it down, right?

Getting rid of the lead service lines, which was such a big part of what President Biden was doing.

And it was perfect.

For every dollar invested to reduce lead exposure from those lead service lines, Ronnie Levin at Harvard said there'd be a 35-fold return in cost.

Benefits, really.

And this has always been true, that reducing lead exposure throughout the past 40 years has always been shown to be amazingly cost beneficial.

The problem is operating within a free market health system, even though there's tremendous social benefits,

that benefit isn't going to be monetized or privatized.

And so who's going to make those decisions?

We hope our government is, but that doesn't always play out.

Well, there's two different major studies that have been done, and Tony Lamas was in charge of both of them.

The first one, TACT study, it was a randomized controlled trial, not intended specifically to focus on lead, but rather it was to look at sort of this alternative therapy.

They found significant benefits, about an 18% reduction in subsequent cardiac events.