I think the real point is that detectable levels with modern instruments that are used for such measurements (≥1.0 μg/dL)* is considered bad.

*Another poster noted this level.

> If there's no science that says "one atom of lead anywhere in your body is bad", then saying "detectable" is meaningless.

It would be meaningless on that case too.

Also meaningless is saying that 2% of the kids have a high level of lead, without saying what "high" means.

> Also meaningless is saying that 2% of the kids have a high level of lead, without saying what "high" means.

Oh, that's simple - it's defined as above the 98th percentile.

(I kid, I hope...)

Actually, the CDC defines the 5ug/DL as high based on being the 97.5%ile [1] in children... so you're not kidding...

But if only 2% of children have lead levels that were originally defined based on the worst 2.5%, that's a 20% reduction, so great news!?

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/blood-lead-levels.h...

Still, I'm not sure the article uses the CDC definition. Going on with the complaint, the article is meaningless.

Did they find a problem? An improvement? Nothing? Nobody can tell by reading it alone.

Amazing.