Where you live can affect the health and well being of your children. Do you live in an industrial area, an urban area, or rural area? Each of these pose their own unique hazard to the health of your children.

Children living in urban areas may be prone to poisoning from lead paint. Or they may suffer from asthma if they live near interstate highways running through the inner city.

Children living in industrial areas may be more susceptible to smoke stack emissions or to contaminants that are released into the ground and potentially into the drinking water.

And children who reside in rural areas may be susceptible to pesticide contamination as well as water runoff contaminated by animal waste.

It seems that no matter where you live, children can be at risk. And with that in mind, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new report which is helpful in evaluating these concerns. Helpful as it may be, it still has a typically bureaucratic name -- "America's Children and the Environment: Measure of Contaminants, Body Burdens and Illnesses."

The news is mixed. Some risks seem to be getting better. Some issues continue to be a concern.

Removing lead from gasoline was a positive for children's health. Lead has been outlawed from our gasoline for many years and EPA reports a continued decrease in the amount of lead in children's blood. Anything that keeps kids away from lead is a good idea.

Lead is no longer used in residential paint. But not all that long ago, it was used. And that paint still chips. Some children like to eat those chips, or touch them and place their fingers in their mouths. The lead issue is getting better for our children, but it still exists today as a problem.

And the public drive to reduce second hand smoke has had a positive effect on the health of our children. Children are now less at risk of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. In terms of the health benefits, there are many and they are often reported.

Tobacco company settlements with the States are even paying for anti-smoking television commercials. The more we keep children away from smoking, and for that matter from indirect smoke inhalation, quite clearly the better off they are going to be.

Less spectacular, but still on the decline are children's exposure to air pollutants and contamination in the drinking water. Efforts must continue in these directions.

As to the issues in which improvement is required, asthma in children still remains a big concern. In 2001, nine percent of all children in the United States had asthma. That amounts to 6.3 million children.

Mercury is also still a problem. Eight percent of women of child bearing age have concentrations of mercury in their body at concern levels. Mercury can be found in multiple sources including food, it can be found in the soil, and it can be found in smoke stack emissions. It is difficult to keep our children away from mercury and much more in this regard is needed.

Other initiatives which are ongoing by the government to protect children include efforts to reduce the amount of diesel emissions from trucks and buses and efforts to ensure that playground equipment in the United States no longer contains wood preserved with arsenic. While Europe has gone far on the wood preservative issue, the U.S. has not gone far enough. Do we really want our children to be exposed to arsenic while they are playing around outdoor swing sets?

Advances that have cleaned our skies, soils and water are all, in the aggregate, advances that protect our children. However, efforts by the current administration that favor big business and favor large utility companies are counter productive in this regard. It is important that the federal government stop taking actions that allow for continued use of, for example, air trading devices which in effect enable large companies to "pay to pollute."

Real reform requires courage and it requires, on occasion, saying no to large scale political contributors. Only when that happens will our children be truly safe.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.