Moodie and Evans Respond.
Sue M. Moodie is with the department of Environmental Health and Engineering, the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Emily L. Evans is with Georgetown University, Washington, DC.American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.55). 07/2012; DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300953
Despite the charges by Stifelman et al., nowhere do we claim that blood lead levels (BLLs) were used as the sole criterion for cleanup actions at Bunker Hill. Rather, we argue that insofar as BLLs were one of the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) specified in the Record of Decision (ROD), this criterion was neither protective nor proactive in reducing risk. The threshold of concern (10 μg/dL) is far too high in light of a mounting body of evidence showing the adverse effect of lead at much lower levels.(1-6) In addition, the other RAOs for environmental criteria (e.g., soil, dust, and water contaminant levels) were set at levels much higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) own standards.(7) (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 19, 2012: e1. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300953).
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.