Lead exposure risk in housing after a disaster, and how should it be mitigated?

• A. Lead exposure risk is negligible after disasters and requires no testing.
• B. Elevated risk in older homes with lead-based paint; test for lead, remediate hazards using safe methods, and employ certified renovators for disturbances.
• C. Lead exposure risk only comes from soil; handle by masking soil.
• D. Lead exposure risk is a concern only for new homes built after 2000.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that disasters can release lead hazards from older housing, especially homes built before 1978 that used lead-based paint. When a disaster damages walls, ceilings, or surrounding materials, lead paint can chip or create fine dust and soil contamination that people—especially children—may inhale or ingest. Mitigation focuses on identifying and controlling that risk through testing, safe remediation, and proper work practices during any disturbances.

Testing is essential to determine where lead hazards exist—paint, dust, and soil are the main sources. If lead is present or suspected, remediation should use safe methods designed to minimize dust and exposure, such as encapsulation or removal by licensed professionals who follow lead-safe procedures. For any renovation or disturbance in a potentially lead-contaminated area, work should be done by certified renovators trained in lead-safe practices to prevent spreading lead dust.

Context helps here: older homes tend to have the highest risk because of lead-based paint, so prioritizing them makes sense after a disaster. Newer homes built after 1978 are less likely to have lead paint, but other lead sources, such as plumbing materials, can still pose risks, so testing and appropriate safeguards remain important.

The other options imply no risk or insufficient measures, which isn’t accurate. Lead hazards after a disaster aren’t negligible; simply masking soil isn’t enough to protect health, and assuming only new homes are at risk ignores the predominant danger in older housing.