It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Toxic Lead Levels Found In Children's Library Books

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:17 AM

Toxic Lead Levels Found In Children's Library Books

SEATTLE -- Because of exclusive work done by KIRO Team 7 Investigators, we are now certain some children's books at your local library contain toxic levels of lead.

Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne reveals results of our own certified tests -- results so explosive they've already caught the attention of Congress.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related Discussion Threads:
New safety rules for children's clothes have stores in a fit

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:17 AM

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), starting this year, children's products are considered hazardous with lead levels exceeding 300 parts per million -- but even that's considered unsafe.

A new federal law says toys and children’s books with lead over 100 parts per million can't be sold or distributed two years from now.

The books we tested show respective lead levels at 546 and 456 parts per million -- over the allowable safe limits.

Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne traveled to Washington, D.C., to speak to the head of the American Library Association about its request for a blanket exemption to lead testing.

And we thought reading was good for our children. The American Library Associations' request for a blanket exemption on lead testing is irresponsible. More research is needed clearly before such a request can be considered. How many times have you seen a small child with a book in his mouth?

This is going to be a mess.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
I work in the library field. If the poli's get there way we're all out a lot of money and a lot of books. Many classics too. Nothing like wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and having a good ole book-burning at the same time.

This modern lead scare is total crap. As though generations or children werent exposed to 100 times more lead in their everyday surroundings? It can't be all that bad for you since there's is apparently a direct relation to the paranoid removal of lead in our world to the ever increasing uselessness and awake yet unalert status of children today.

The ALA is fighting the poli's desire to force a burning. I dont approve of half of what the ALA pushes for but I approve of fighting this idiocy.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:18 AM
I bet they are being sneaky! This sounds like a great way to start burning books.

If I wanted to remove questionable books, I would convince the public that they are "unhealthy" or, even better, "unhealthy for kids".

I would like to get some of these books, and see just how much lead is in them.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I guess I don't see libraries as the victims. They have already wasted billions of tax dollars by not funding themselves more effectively. Libraries had a virtual monopoly in the book business and have squandered that direct link to consumers. Why is the AMA not How simple it would have been for all libraries to offer books for sale when someone checks one out and wants to own it. How simple it would have been for them to have become the book seller of choice for book collectors and, in turn, have a for-profit resource to constantly replenish their stock of books. Rather than offer their books for sale when people read and want to own one...libraries have decided to stay almost solely on the public dole and horde their aging stock.

I am all for non-profit status - so long as we remember that it's intent is to fill a gap where the economy is not functioning. Guess what - people buy books - the economy is functioning. Libraries could figure out better budgets to maintain their free book loaning programs if they would get off their esoteric high horses and realize that selling some of their old stock on a daily basis and replacing it with new made sense. Barnes & Noble would have never had a chance if libraries would seize the carrot in front of their faces.

This aging stock problem in children's books especially never should have existed in the first place. There were answers that the libraries were too "pure" to take advantage's so much easier to use taxing authority.

Libraries are not exempt from all responsibilities....they are only exempt from taxes...and apparently...functioning in a more sustainable and profitable way.

Yes I love libraries. I only wish they weren't so stuck in the dark ages in terms of operating models. It's costly and now it's going to cost more to make them a safe place for young children who are most at risk for lead poisoning. If, as you suggest, the dangers of lead on small children is all bunk...then I guess none of us have anything to worry about. I would be interested in the information you have to prove that lead poses no risk. Perhaps you are correct.

In the meantime, think about installing a cash register at the check out might be surprised. Once you sell a book, there is a thing called just in time delivery that could re-order and replenish that old book with a new one of the same title. And, it would add black ink to the balance sheet instead of it always having to come from tax payer pockets.


[edit on 24-4-2009 by DancedWithWolves]

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:33 AM
i sent this to my mom in email, and her response:

Yes that is a problem because most all books at local "free" libraries are donated. No one questions them as to where they came from or what type of storage they were subjected to. They just say, "Thank you", and check to see if you left anything in them, glue the card holder in them, attach a dewey decimal number and put them on the shelf. For all they know you could have laced them with DDT or arsenic.

which begs the question: why dont they test the books before releasing them? all other toys and stuff for kids are tested first. why not donated items?

reminds me of razor blades in candy for halloween.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

Different libraries operate themselves differently.

In NH the libraries are all locally supported, funded and operated. They have very little interaction with a state entity and no federal interactions.

We actually do offer to purchase for our patrons. It saves them money and increases library usage.

When items are up for weeding we always sell them on AbeBooks or Allibris.

We are very much self-sustained by our reselling and middle-man pseudo bookstore policies.

Granted we're a small town library where everybody knows everyone else's first name and if the town doesnt want us doing something they say so and if they would like us to do something they say so.

I came here from a state that had a huge state library entity that ran the local libraries and there things are failing miserably and the libraries were all essentially bankrupt.

Things are run here by the townspeople. Not by some board of politicians.

I understand your complaints but outside of those libraries who slave to a larger entity we all operate differently. For instance none of your specifically stated library complaints apply to my current library though they certainly did apply to libraries I worked with in the past.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Thanks for the reply. It is heartening to hear that at least smaller libraries tend to be more creative in their operations. For the most part I see the huge mausoleum type structures that are forever getting added on to by top political funders aka architects and engineers who have found a cash-cow taxing authority to milk. There seems to always be money to rebuild but never to reinvent.

I hope readers will note that there is some controversey as to how this issue of lead in books has been handled in the past.

Both books were printed before 1983, but experts repeatedly told KIRO Team 7 Investigators, because there has not been a comprehensive study on lead in used books, they cannot identify a pattern of what kinds of books might contain toxic levels. There is a study that shows books printed after 2004 by major manufacturers of children’s books have no traceable lead levels.

Our investigation into political efforts to exempt library books from the new lead standard laws is far from over.

Halsne discovered a major "study," cited by the Library Association as proof that ordinary books don’t contain lead, is not what it appears.

We'll bring you that developing investigation as soon as we can.


Has an intentional cover-up of the facts been the AMA's protocol on this? The only difference between collaboration (or in this case political efforts) and conspiracy is the ethics applied to the means and the end. How long have they known about this problem - and denied it?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by DancedWithWolves]

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:06 AM
Are these levels of lead toxic if you touch a book?

Or are these levels of lead toxic if you eat the book?

Somehow this seems to me to be another environmental tempest in a teapot.

Our whole environment is filled with toxins if you want to view it that way.

What would happen if a child picked up a lead fishing weight? Would they instantly become a moron? Or, like any of us who have actually picked up a piece of lead, just remark on how heavy it is?

I think this may be a case of people trying to create a story rather than use any kind of thought process to determine if there really is a danger.

The bigger danger will be if you don't read to your children.

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by Wildbob77


What toddlers do with books.

Lead exposure is one of the most common preventable poisonings of childhood. Data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows that 6% of all children ages 1-2 years and 11% of black (non-Hispanic) children ages 1-5 years have blood lead levels in the toxic range. Lead is a potent poison that can affect individuals at any age. Children with developing bodies are especially vulnerable because their rapidly developing nervous systems are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead.

Almost all children in the United States are exposed to lead. Common sources include lead paint and lead contained in water and soil. Housing built before 1950 has the greatest risks of containing lead-based paint. Some children may eat or swallow chips of paint (pica) which increases their risk of exposure to lead.

Exposure to lead can have a wide range of effects on a child's development and behavior. Even when exposed to small amounts of lead levels, children may appear inattentive, hyperactive and irritable. Children with greater lead levels may also have problems with learning and reading, delayed growth and hearing loss. At high levels, lead can cause permanent brain damage and even death.

Lead Exposure in Children Affects Brain and Behavior

Yes, I still think children should read.

new topics

top topics


log in