"I still remain puzzled by why we haven't done it," said Dr. Herbert L. Needleman. "There are very few things that are so easy to see, to recognize and measure where the lead is. We know what it does and we know how to get rid of it. And that's what we should be doing."

The state plans to rest its case today, concluding three and a half weeks of testimony from officials at the state Health Department and many of the nation's top researchers on lead poisoning.

The paint companies plan to argue this morning for dismissal of the state lawsuit. But they are also prepared to present their first defense witness to the jury this afternoon.

The state is trying to prove that the paint made and sold years ago is creating a public nuisance by poisoning thousands of Rhode Island children each year now.

The state showed that nearly 35,000 Rhode Island children have been poisoned since the state started screening kids in 1993. It also maintained that some 30,000 housing units pose serious health risks because of lead.

Many of the state's witnesses testified that no amount of lead in children is safe.

Even though state regulations describe "lead-safe" houses where the lead hazards are minimized by good cleaning and maintenance practices, most of the state's experts said they don't think anything can be done to make lead paint permanently safe.

Needleman testified yesterday that a study he completed in 1996 found that when lead levels in children increased, attention problems, aggression and delinquency all worsened.

Another study of 195 boys who were found delinquent by courts concluded that boys with higher-than-average lead levels were four times more likely to be found delinquent.

Under cross-examination, defense attorney Donald Scott showed Needleman a copy of a book he co-authored called Raising Healthy Children in a Toxic World: 101 Smart Solutions for Every Family, published in March.

Excerpts from the book said it is possible to prevent children from being lead poisoned with good maintenance and cleaning and said those steps aren't hard to do.

"Do you agree with those statements," Scott asked.

"I don't particularly agree," Needleman said. He said telling parents there was nothing they can do to protect their children promotes defeatism, so he and the other authors tried to suggest some protective measures.

Needleman also disagreed with a section of the book that recommended doing nothing if there was no chipping or peeling of lead paint.

"I would say that's a mistake," Needleman said. The paint should be tested for lead.

He said keeping lead paint from creating a hazard takes a lot of work and the book was overly optimistic.

At another point, when Scott sought to contradict Needleman's testimony by citing comments he made during a deposition several months ago, Needleman said he didn't realize he could correct remarks he made in the deposition. He thought he was simply allowed to review it for typographical errors.

In response to a final question from Scott, Needleman testified that he charged $400 an hour for his trial testimony and $4,000 a day for giving his deposition.

In other action yesterday, the state won its battle to have photographs of "safe" and "unsafe" houses that the defendants used in their opening statement entered as evidence.

Judge Michael A. Silverstein, in line with a ruling he made last week, said the state may not introduce any evidence showing that the so-called lead-safe house actually contains a number of lead hazards -- a discovery state inspectors made weeks after the opening statements.

State lawyer Leonard Decof said witnesses have already testified there is no way you can tell a house is safe just by looking at it, and that's all he wanted to show by entering the photos.

"The defense case has come down to virtually one issue -- that maintenance is essential to safe houses," Decof said. "There should be a full and complete record for this court and an appellate court."

Previous articles? Search Journal Archives