A lot of these cases seem to be borderline, and many times the maladies are only loosely ascribed to lead poisoning. Reading the articles, you see things like &quot;16ppb, 1ppb above the level that the CDC requires you to take action&quot;<p>And, in the linked article, the line that sz4kerto quoted &quot;In Baltimore, a two-year-old boy...can’t speak, apparently because of lead poisoning.&quot;<p>Hardly a smoking gun.<p>Many of the outrage-inducing headlines, when you read further, aren&#x27;t nearly as bad as what they seem. If 15ppb requires no action, why is 16ppb an outrage? Or even 30ppb. Usually &#x27;safe&#x27; levels of a substance are set at least an order of magnitude below the point they become a problem in most circumstances.<p>Obviously lead poisoning is a real thing, and the government cover-ups and selective testing are a problem, but I foresee an entire generation of Flint descendants that will start blaming any and all of their problems on this Flint issue, of course, looking for a $$ handout as well. It would be nice for the media(and the general public) to apply even the lowest evidence bar &quot;greater weight of the evidence&quot; -- meaning at least a 50% probability -- to the situation. It seems the current bar is &quot;a slight chance in hell.&quot;<p>A two year old, exposed to an unknown amount of lead, who can&#x27;t talk, does not seem to be a definitive victim of lead poisoning. He is, however, a great tool for the media to use to invoke the &quot;won&#x27;t you think of the children&quot; hysteria, which will surely prompt a knee-jerk reaction that will waste millions of dollars.