We all know that there are some things in life you just can't do much about. And early in life, we learn to accept what we have been given, and to do the best we can with what we have to work with.

But, care must be taken not to accept as inevitable those things that really are not inevitable. For example, if you are not doing well in school or in your career, you can blame it on yourself, " I am not smart enough, or talented enough, or motivated enough." Or, you might just try studying harder or working "smarter," and ultimately find that you are, indeed, capable of greater achievement.

Governments are just like regular people when it comes to confusing those things that are inevitable, with those things that can be changed. And when it comes to child lead poisoning, it appears to this writer that some government officials may be tossing in the towel way too early.

The problem is that in older cities, where there is plenty of old, lead containing, housing, lead in the water supply pipes, and often lead in the neighborhood from cars and buses, the problem is very huge. It costs a tremendous amount of money, and requires much dedication and re-allocation of limited resources, to combat childhood lead poisoning in areas where there are so many pathways for exposure." I know of one city where it appears that officials might rather not know the size of the lead poisoning problem. From its past conduct, I have come to conclude that it is at least possible that the city does not want to quantify the extent of injury and health risk because once it does, it will then have to figure out what it is going to do to address the problem. If the city remains intentionally ignorant about the scope of the problem, it will not have to find a solution.

To make matters worse, even when government does take a shot at addressing this issue, it tends to have limited success. Case in point: a just released U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report has concluded that federal health care programs are not effectively reaching children who are at risk for lead poisoning. According to the GAO, elevated blood lead levels remain a significant problem for children served by federal health care programs, such as Medicaid, WIC, and the Health Centers Program.

Federal lead screening programs are not working well either. According to the report, most children served by these programs are not being screened for lead. And when there is screening, success is hampered by an inability to provide timely follow-up services.

What should be done? The GAO recommends improved data collection, more money, and better follow up services. It is especially important that funding be made available for environmental investigations in areas where lead poisoning is suspected. The report can be reviewed on-line at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml .

It is important for community groups to monitor lead paint initiatives. It is too easy for government officials to declare that there simply are too many older houses with chipping lead paint, and too many other possible points of exposure, to win this war. But, unlike that squeaking in you car, which you might be able to ignore, lead poisoning can lead to terrible health problems, problems which in many instances may not be reversed.

For the good news, there are some promising lead developments that I can share with you. First, a New Jersey appeals court has just ruled that an insurance policy's "absolute pollution exclusion" does not bar coverage for personal injury claims relating to lead poisoning. In Amir Byrd v. Blumenreich, the plaintiffs rented an apartment with chipping lead paint from the landlord, Blumenreich. The Byrd's child suffered brain and nerve damage, allegedly caused by ingestion of paint chips.

When the plaintiffs sued the landlord, the landlord filed a claim with his liability insurance company. The insurance company refused to provide coverage, relying on a coverage exclusion called the "absolute pollution exclusion."

The appeals court ruled that the insurance company could not rely on this exclusion to avoid coverage of lead paint injury claims. This is consistent with the view taken by other courts throughout the United States. Because it means that more insurance money should now be available to address lead paint claims, it is good news for those who have suffered personal harm as a result of chipping lead paint.

Finally, I have learned of a product called Ledizolv, which has been manufactured for several years by LSZ, Inc, located in New York City. The product, which is sold through a network of distributors, is designed to reduce the amount of residual lead contamination after old paint is removed, as well as during routine cleaning. Published 1995 studies, prepared for the Canadian government, indicate that Ledizolv may actually work better than other kinds of detergents.

According to the product's developer, Neil Wilson, Ledizolv rated more favorably than other detergents in lead removal applications because "it was scientifically developed to safely dissolve lead compounds and mobilize them in solution so they can be effectively removed."

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.