Everyone can agree that we are experiencing difficult economic times these days; billions of dollars are being spent grappling with larger economic problems and 10% unemployment is upon us. Last week, President Obama called for ideas and suggestions to brainstorm about job creation. I propose there are common sense approaches that can help, not only by producing jobs and economic stimulus today, but reducing healthcare expenses and providing additional health and social benefits.
Some ideas are based on prevention and reducing exposure to heavy metals. This can be done in several ways, blood lead prevention (specifically for children 6 and under), environmental exposure assessments, consumer product testing, inspections at ports of call and many other industries and market segments.
By utilizing a combination of advanced X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers, Lead Care II machines (mobile blood lead screening) and sophisticated analytical software, we can quickly obtain accurate and reliable information about the presence of environmental contaminants. Specifically lead in blood and a variety of heavy metals in virtually any object including; lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and may other heavy metals.
If technology is used appropriately, knowledge of environmental concerns is easy to obtain, mobile, reliable, efficient, cost effective and scientifically accurate. I believe that thousands of jobs can be created; children will be less exposed to heavy metals, which have important health, intellectual and economic benefits. Businesses can reduce expenses while preventing harm, complying with regulation and have products get to market faster, cheaper and more efficiently.
Here is one example:
Childhood lead poisoning prevention (blood lead screening and environmental assessments), is not a major problem, but costly in healthcare, social and economic expenses. In 2006, according to the CDC there were 23,485,435 children in the U.S. 72 months or younger, yet in 2006 only 3,262,866 children or were screened for lead in their blood. Lead poisoning has steadily been declining in the US, however, in 2006 39,526 were confirmed to have elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) while over 20 million children under age 6 were not screened, many living in high priority areas. In a report, “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children…Costs for Lead Poisoning” by Philip J. Landrigan July 2002, total annual costs are estimated to be $43.4 billion for lead poisoning. These costs include actual costs for medical care and economic forecasting associated with lower IQ scores and thus lower wages and reduced lifetime earning power.
At the very least medical expenses for the children found with EBLLs can easily be estimated in the one to two billion dollar range annually. I believe we can identify and reduce childhood lead poisoning by directly screening children ages 1, 3 and 6 all across the country for lead (using the mobile Lead Care II machines). This will do several things; first it should create two to four thousand jobs across the United States. Second, if a child is found with an EBLL a further investigation would be prompted and an investigator would enter the child’s home environment and provide a full assessment (using technology, specifically XRF), provide education, recommendations and follow-up monitoring and testing.
The total costs estimated to provide all of these testing services are around half a billion dollars for all children aged 1, 3 and 6 each year. The potential immediate gains are, thousands of people employed all across the country, all children get screened for blood lead levels, and those found with EBLLs will immediately receive further assistance, while billions of dollars are saved. Long term benefits include reduced strain on healthcare system, higher wages and better economic status for those directly affected as well as those employed. You could expect to find higher IQ scores and thus a rise in math and science test scores (over time) as well as reduced rates of criminal activity.
New industries can easily rise up from this project. Imagine this, a child is found with an EBLL and an investigator goes to the home, tests are preformed on the toys, ceramics, jewelry, soil, housing and other items and specific items in the child’s environment have been identified to contain lead using XRF Analyzers. The parent wants these items removed from their home, but typically would send it to the dump, a potential environmental hazard. Here is an opportunity to create an entire new industry of clean recycling to get the “lead” out and reuse the material.
Here is a second example:
What about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)? X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers are the preferred source for the HUD to detect lead in a government owned properties, why not use them for consumer product testing? As a business owner specifically related to this field, I believe that thousands of jobs can be created in every community around this nation with the use of XRF analyzers. If something isn’t done, the CPSIA is going to affect small businesses tremendously (a stay was recently issue (December 2009) which extended the date on specific certification and testing requreiements for children’s products to February 10th, 2011).
When you compare XRF technology there are three main points to look at; Accuracy, Mobility and Cost. One issue raised by the CPSC for XRF is the accuracy, more to the point, quantification of XRF. My company is specifically working on this issue. We are working on software solutions to the potential problems associated with XRF and hope to present this data to the CPSC, EPA, HUD and other agencies that are interested in our solutions.
Regardless, with lead, we have never had a false positive. If regulation calls for testing and our analyzers do not find lead while testing, I can reasonably say “No lead is present.” If lead is found, and you want to question the quantification, fine, have traditional testing done. But if no lead is found, why make a business pay for expensive destructive testing?
XRF Analyzers are mobile, non-destructive and perfect for identifying heavy metals. Compare this to the fixed site laboratory and the mobility offers opportunities in job expansion, while reducing expenses and increasing time that products can get to market.
When we compare costs of XRF (new technology) to traditional testing methods, specifically with comparison to the CPSIA we see a huge difference. Traditional testing costs can range from $75 to $300 per color, per substrate and take weeks to get results. XRF offers a low cost, immediate results platform where costs range from $2 to $7 per test, per color, per substrate.
Also, both XRF and Lead Care II have almost instantaneous results (with seconds using XRF and minutes using Lead Care II)
Here are a few opportunities to create jobs and improve the lives of people and children all across this country. To improve the health and wellbeing of people, reduce healthcare expenses, reduce business expenses and help business comply with federal regulations while putting thousands of people to work all across the country.
If you would like to contact me, please visit www.essco-safetycheck.com
We are Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation - Safety Check and we use technology to help people and businesses “know what is in their environment” these are just a few ideas of how technology can help to improve lives and create jobs.
