Safe firearm storage may reduce pediatric lead exposure in households with guns

A new study led by epidemiologists at Brown University found that among firearm owners, less safe storage was associated with higher blood lead levels in children

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Brown UniversityFacebook

X

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — In homes with guns, proper storage is important in preventing injuries and deaths. Now, researchers have found a secondary benefit: Gun owners may be able to minimize children’s exposure to lead, an environmental toxin, by safely storing their firearms and ammunition.

“Keeping guns away from children is an important factor in reducing the amount of lead those children are exposed to,” said lead study author Christian Hoover, a pre-doctoral fellow in epidemiology at Brown University’s School of Public Health.

The findings were published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

Hoover’s research has focused on how firearm-related lead can contribute to increased blood lead levels in children in the United States. Firearms use lead-based ammunition and primers, he explained, so discharging a firearm releases lead particles that can be inhaled or inadvertently transported into the home on contaminated clothing or gear.

To examine the relationship between firearm storage and children’s blood lead levels, Hoover collaborated with Joseph Braun, a professor of epidemiology at Brown who studies the health effects of environmental pollutant exposures on babies, children and adolescents. Their previous research found an association between household firearm ownership and elevated lead levels in children’s blood in 44 states, and in this study, they wanted to focus on individuals.

The research team analyzed data from the longitudinal HOME Study, which was developed to assess the effects of environmental toxicant exposures on various health outcomes. The study, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, enrolled over 400 pregnant women from 2003 to 2006 and is following them and their babies over time.

In the HOME Study, blood lead levels were measured at ages 12, 24 and 36 months and floor dust lead levels from first measurement, at 12 and at 24 months. Caregivers reported firearm ownership, number of firearms and storage practices during pregnancy.

The team’s analysis found that in homes where firearms were not stored or locked, there was 29% to 84% higher dust lead from first measurement through when the child was 24 months of age, and children had approximately 20% higher blood lead levels at ages 12 to 36 months.

“Lead is a known neurotoxicant, and there is no safe level of exposure for young children,” said Braun, who directs the Center for Climate, Environment and Health at Brown. “Early lead exposure can increase the risk of cognitive and behavior problems in childhood, and potentially criminal behavior in adulthood.”

Young children are particularly vulnerable to lead because they spend more time on the floor, where dust collects, and tend to put lead-contaminated objects (or their hands) in their mouths. 

“These data show that it is important to consider multiple sources of environmental lead exposure to protect children’s rapidly developing and sensitive brains,” Braun said.

Hoover added that working alongside gun owners is essential as researchers continue to study the connections between firearm use and pediatric lead exposure.

“Most gun owners are safety oriented and thoughtfully engaged in determining how to prevent firearm-related harms, and these findings present an actionable way to address lead exposure,” Hoover said.

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (F31 ES036867, P01 ES011261, R01 ES014575).

---

Journal

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology

DOI

10.1038/s41370-026-00928-w 

Method of Research

Meta-analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Firearms, storage practices, and child blood lead levels and household dust lead loadings: findings from the HOME study.

Article Publication Date

30-May-2026

COI Statement

JMB served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in litigation related to PFAS contaminated drinking water.

When ICE Ramped up Enforcement, US‑Born Workers Didn’t See Any Economic Gains

Chloe N. East

June 3, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to strengthen the labor market. His immigration platform – including a pledge to conduct the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history – was central to that promise.

“For too long, Washington ignored how mass illegal immigration artificially suppressed wages, hurting working-class Americans – especially young men,” wrote Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on X in July 2025. “But under President Trump, we now have a secure border, a blue-collar wage boom, and major investments from trade deals.”

The labor market tells a different story. In the first year of Trump’s second term, unemployment rose, hiring slowed and wage growth stagnated. The construction sector was hit particularly hard.

We’re scholars of labor markets, immigration and public environmental policy who have examined how these economic trends can be traced to the mass deportation campaign of Trump’s second term. Notably, while areas with heavier ICE enforcement saw a drop in employment among immigrants, there was no increase in either employment or wages among U.S. citizens.

A chilling effect on immigrant workers

Using data from October 2023 through November 2025, we looked at employment rates and wages for immigrant and U.S.-born workers in places that experienced sudden spikes in ICE arrests and compared them to places that did not.

In the regions where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ramped up its activity, we found a significant drop in the employment rate among likely undocumented immigrants who were neither detained nor deported. This was especially notable in sectors where such workers are heavily represented – such as agriculture, construction, manufacturing and wholesale markets – where we found a 4% drop in the employment rate.

These immigrants appeared to be staying home out of fear, a concern that’s widespread. In a Pew Research survey from summer 2025, 43% of foreign-born respondents said they feared deportation for themselves or someone close to them. We call this a chilling effect, since these people aren’t physically removed from the labor market. Instead, they changed their behavior because of ICE.

The chilling effect on employment in Trump’s second term is roughly double of what we found in prior work on mass deportations, when we looked at a program in President Barack Obama’s first term called Secure Communities. As we wrote in a companion paper co-authored with sociologist Caitlin Patler, a likely explanation is that ICE arrests during Trump’s second term have been far more indiscriminate and visible: The average number of daily ICE arrests was higher than any time in the past 10 years. The percentage of arrests conducted in public spaces – streets, workplaces, courthouses and school parking lots – more than doubled, rising from 19% to nearly 50% of all apprehensions. As a result, the intimidation effect was likely more widespread.

The broader effects

Trump pledged during his 2024 presidential campaign to focus ICE enforcement on criminals, especially violent offenders. In fact, we found the share of immigrants arrested by ICE who had a criminal conviction fell to a nearly record low in this time period, from roughly 60% in January 2025 to under 30% by the end of the year.

The economic effects have extended beyond immigrant workers. More broadly, many consumers have pulled back.

Other researchers have found that in cities with expanded ICE raids in 2025, consumer spending and economic activity fell. In February 2026, for example, Minneapolis officials estimated that the city’s economy lost US$203 million due to falling restaurant, hotel and retail revenues, as well as lost wages. Another analysis found that states with enhanced ICE enforcement saw aggregate credit- and debit-card spending drop by 1.7 percentage points compared with those that did not.

Scholars have found similar effects with foot traffic, which dropped sharply in areas where ICE expanded its activities. A Wharton study released in May 2026, for instance, estimated that foot traffic in areas heavily impacted by ICE operations dropped by 2.7%, with spending down by 6.2%, per week.

What happened to US-born workers?

Trump’s core political promise was that deportations would open up jobs for American workers. But we found the opposite: Employment among U.S.-born workers also declined in areas with heightened ICE activity. And employers didn’t respond by raising wages to attract more Americans to their workplace. Their demand for workers contracted instead.

At issue is the premise that foreign-born and U.S.-born workers directly compete for the same jobs. But the example of Trump 2.0 underscores a different dynamic. As we and other economists have documented, the labor market is not zero-sum. Immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to fill complementary jobs rather than compete for identical ones.

Construction is a clear example. Fewer undocumented laborers on a job site means less work for the electricians, roofers and supervisors – roles more commonly held by U.S.-born workers who depend on those projects moving forward.

The broader stagnation of employment in the construction industry in 2025 fits this pattern. It also mirrors earlier findings that Obama-era deportations reduced homebuilding and pushed up new-home prices.

Immigration crackdowns are, of course, nothing new in U.S. history. In the early 1930s, President Herbert Hoover expelled 400,000 Mexican workers, which lifted neither wages nor employment of U.S.-born workers. Obama’s Secure Communities program in the 2010s had similar results.

And as our most recent research shows, mass deportations don’t create new job opportunities for American citizens. Presidents seeking to strengthen the labor market will need to look elsewhere.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Carney pitches US on closer ties in autos, aluminum and minerals

Bloomberg News | May 28, 2026

Mark Carney speaking to the Economic Club of New York. Credit: Economic Club of New York | X

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney used a speech in New York to make the case to the Trump administration for closer cooperation on aluminum, auto manufacturing and critical minerals.

The trip comes as pressure builds on Carney to show Canada is still engaged with the US on trade. American and Mexican negotiators began formal talks this week on potential changes to the continental trade pact known as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, but Canada is not at that table and there is no schedule yet for its own bilateral discussions.

Carney has lately begun pushing a “Fortress North America” message in his public remarks, including in another recent speech which he said Canada is “open to deeper integration” with the US.

“Let’s be absolutely clear, Canada Strong will help make America great again,” Carney told the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, combining slogans both leaders use for their own countries.

“Examples of where that’s true are legion, where we should work together and compete with the world together. And to those ends, we have made specific practical proposals to the US administration.”

It’s a more conciliatory tone compared to earlier this year, when he declared that Canada’s close integration with American supply chains was once a strength but has become a weakness.

On Thursday, Carney said aluminum is one clear example where it makes sense for the longstanding allies to cooperate, given the huge amount of production in Quebec using relatively cheap hydro electricity.

Canadian exports of aluminum to the US “are the energy equivalent of 10 Hoover Dams,” Carney said. “With America’s growing energy needs because of the incredible transformation here, does it make sense to build the gigawatts here needed to replace Canada?”

On autos, he noted that Canada is the biggest customer of American-built cars, and said an integrated North American market is still the best way to compete with the automotive sectors in other regions.

The auto sector is expected to be a difficult element of trade discussions with the US, as Trump imposed tariffs of 25% on Canadian-built cars, with an exemption for the percentage of US-made parts inside the car.

Carney has sought to alleviate this with counter-tariffs on US cars and a remission scheme for companies that build cars in Canada.

More controversially, he’s also slashed tariffs on a limited number of Chinese-made electric vehicles, a change from Canada’s previous policy of fully matching the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs that the US has in place.

Carney defended that move, noting the tariff break for Chinese EVs is initially capped at 49,000 annually, a small portion of the 1.8 million cars sold in Canada each year. He told the New York crowd that over time a broad range of cheaper Chinese cars are expected to come in under that system, “but in a controlled way.”

Meanwhile, Canada’s reserves of potash, nickel, copper and uranium can also be a major economic advantage for the US, Carney said. “Canada can be the most reliable supplier that America needs to put affordable food on the table, strengthen its national defense and meet the exploding demand to power AI.”

Much of Carney’s speech was spent outlining his government’s efforts to grow Canada’s energy exports and rapidly expand its military capabilities.

He ended by urging the US to forge a closer partnership with what he described as “a different Canada, a stronger Canada, a more confident Canada.”

(By Brian Platt)

Aluminum facts - Natural Resources Canada