CJ,

With respect to only two states (CA and NH)proposing such high lead toxicity levels, I doubt that's something that you or I can really debate at any level, unless you have some subject matter expertise in toxicology or epidemiology. I certainly do not. Hey, for all we know, there are only two states that got it right.

Usually risk levels are set around the 1 in one million exposure risk.

Heavy metals are troublesome because they are cumulative (as we discussed before). Things have gotten better with the abolition of leaded paint and leaded gasoline, but I'm sure we can continue to make improvements.

I suppose the question at hand is: "Does the risk factor for people drinking from reservoirs increase substantially from all of the fishing lead in reservoirs?

I'm not sure that the people who set the risk levels really know the answer to that question. On the other hand, other states tend to lag behind CA in pollution initiatives. In other words, we shouldn't be surprised if other states begin to adopt similar risk thresholds for lead.

With respect to your perspective on attorneys' extorting the money from fishing tackle makers, are you sure any lawyers ever got rich from that? Typically, attorneys are involved in this sort of thing, but the suites tend to be directed at the regulatory agency as a policy driver mechanism. In other words, no one gets rich, no damages are awarded, but statutes or administrative code favorable to the plaintiff organization (such as the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation) end up being enacted. These organizations are typically opposed by industry trade group lawyers, not directly usually, but with each side alternately sueing the regulatory agency.

Now perhaps this situation is different, but I can't see how. I doubt that any significant portion of those funds would end up in the hands of private attorneys, but are rather used to fund clean-up and pollution prevention initiatives.