DANGER OF LEAD PAINTS

Evening Star, Issue 18289, 31 May 1923, Page 10

DANGER OF LEAD PAINTS

DECISION AGAINST PROHIBITION. THE PROBLEM RE-EXAMINED. Tho report of tlio Departmental Committee on Industrial Paints was issued in London early in April. Tho committee was appointed in 1921 to reexamine the danger of lead paints to workers in tho painting trades and the comparative efficiency, cost, and effects on the health of workers of Jeaß and leadlcss paints, and to advise whether any modifications and recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed in 1911 have become necessary. The committee, of which Sir Henry Norman was chairman, reports that from a general review of the evidence placed hefnre.it, and in the light of tho experif once since tho previous committee reported, it feels that it cannot support the latter’s recommendation that tho use of lead paint for the painting of buildings should bo entirely prohibited. The committee was satisfied that for outside painting there is at present no efficient substitute for lead paint. "At the same lime,” tho committee states, “ the statistics of lead poisoning arising from lead paint, in its production and in its use, are unquestionably sufficiently serious to make it most desirable to limit its use as far as practicable, and where it is used to make its use subject to statutory regulations, as is already done in its production. “ Wo consider that as regards white lead, sulphate of lead, and paint bases which contain these lead compounds these needs are adequately met by the agreement reached at the Geneva Conference and subsequently embodied in the convention adopted there. Wo accordingly recommend that legislation should be passed to give effect to the principles therein contained, having regard to the accurate definition of internal and external painting, " It will be necessary to defer enforcement of the prohibition of the use of white lead and sulphate of lead for tho internal painting of* buildings till 1927, as laid down in tho convention, in order to give sufficient time for the necessary trade modifications to be introduced, but wo think that regulations to deal with the continued use of lend paint should be brought into force at the earliest possible moment, INCREASE OF COST LIKELY. " We have to point out, however, that the evidence placed before us shows that at present any prohibition of the use of lead paints for certain purposes is likely to involve an increase of cost. This conclusion is based on the consideration of the total outlay required to maintain respectively load and existing leadless paints in comparable conditions over a reasonable period of.years.” It is pointed out that the prohibition of the use of white lead «nd basic sulphate of lead is subject, in (ho Geneva Convention, to three exceptions, as follow's:—Railway stations industrial establishments, when exempted under specified conditions, a small percentage of the prohibited compounds is to be permitted in while pigments up to a maximum of 2 per cent, estimated as metallic lead, and processes of artistic painting and fine lining. Railway stations and industrial establishments can be exempted by the Government after consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organisations if it is proved that white lead or sulphate of load is necessary for the internal painting of these places. As to other industrial painting, the committee points out that as regards coach-painting there is a good deal more to be said for complete prohibition than in the case of house painting. The committee came to tho conclusion that there is not yet sufficient evidence to show that all the qualities of white lead can lie , found in its substitutes, and, provided that,

tho regulations prohibiting dry rubbing down and otherwise protecting the workers are enforced, it does not recommend prohibition. The committee recommends that the us< of lead paint in all other classes of industrial painting should be made subject to regulation, and in particular that dry rubbing down of lead paint should 1m made illegal. Power to make regulations exists under the Factory Act, and the committee thinks that stops should be taken by the Homo Office to give effect to the recommendations.

REASONS AGAINST PROHIBITION. The committee intimates that it based its conclusions against prohibition mainly on the grounds that there was at present no adequate substitute for lead paint for certain classes of painting. “We are,” they said, “by no means satisfied that the possible alternatives for lead compounds have yet been sufficiently studied or tested in this country to warrant tho expression of a final opinion. , , , Wo think, therefore, that tho time has come for the appointment of a technical commission for tho investigation of such problems connected with British paint technology as demand solution in the general interests. The need for further investigation will become the more imperative if some measure ol prohibition of white lead, such as we have suggested, is adopted. The general public should, we think, be assured of every possible assistance in connection with tne choice of substitutes. If a measure of prohibition is to be adopted in 1927, having regard to the long period necessary to obtain exposure tests on paints, wo would point out that the. initiation of authoritative investigations is a matter of great urgency.”

THE VALUE OF WHITE LEAD. Particulars are given of various public buildings, and it is stated that the quadrangle at Buckingham Palace was painted with white lead paint in 1895-96, and that the white lead was still in a remarkably good condition, and “ its protective qualities remain unimpaired.” Numerous instances are quoted where substitutes have been applied by the Office of Works on surfaces previously painted with white lead at the Admiralty, Government build- <> ings in Whitehall, Wellington House, and in most cases after exposure it was found that substitutes bad disappeared entirely, leaving the surface protected only by the white lead paint which had been previously used. In the course of the report it is stated that the dangers incidental to the use of white lead can be overcome by slight modification of method in the rubbing down of painted surfaces prior to repainting. The hygienic problems presented by the painters’ calling have been studied in detail. The removal of some of the dangers is suggested by the use of a small quantity of wafer on the surface, in order to prevent the creation of dust, and the use. of waterproof sandpaper. The committee considers that the application of such a method, in addition to the provision r/f simple washing facilities and overalls, would reduce the dangers attendant on the use of white lead paint to a minimum.

Dealing with the economic side and the question of durability, the report states: "The effect of all the new evideuce was obviously that there was a marked increase of cost involved in the maintenance of external surfaces painted with non-lead paint.” The report contains a reference to future policy in regard to tile painting of Government buildings. The opinion is expressed that if lead paint is used adequate precaution must be taken to protect the workers, and that its use should he subject to regulations such as were recently agreed to at the conference between the representatives of the Home Office and the Joint Industrial Councils of Painters and Decorators. ‘The committee Suggests the adoption, with modification, of the convention recommended at the International Labor Conference, Geneva, November, 1921.