Debunking the Misinformation: The Truth About Handheld Lead Paint Analyzers

Recently, a document made the rounds in the industry under the guise of an official safety alert. While styled like a technical paper, its true nature leans far closer to promotional propaganda. It levels serious – and frankly unfounded – allegations about the safety and accuracy of tube-based L-shell XRF analyzers for lead paint testing. Let’s set the record straight.

Misrepresenting Data to Discredit the Competition

The so-called “alert” asserts that tube-based L-shell analyzers are incapable of accurately testing at the HUD-defined 0.5 mg/cm² level and dangerously unreliable. Ironically, the very device referenced in the critique is notorious for its own sensitivity limitations, which is why it requires longer testing durations to achieve acceptable statistical certainty.

The document claims “Viken stopped PCS testing at 0.5 mg/cm² and accepted an "inconclusive" result at 0.5 mg/cm² due to clear PCS test limitations.” This statement suggests the instrument manufacturers have control over the PCS results. They do not. All instruments seeking a PCS are tested by the same company, and the results are not known until the document is ready for publication. Manufacturers have no choice but to accept the results.  Their instrument has the same inconclusive range at the 0.7 mg/cm2 action level.

Casting Doubt on Labs and Regulations

The document goes a step further by casting suspicion on laboratory testing, implying that discrepancies between their results and lab reports stem solely from laboratory error. This assertion is deeply problematic. Laboratories accredited by the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) must meet strict EPA-mandated proficiency requirements – often quarterly or even monthly.

To discredit these labs while failing to specify whether the lab in question was accredited is not only disingenuous, it suggests a dangerous willingness to undermine established regulatory frameworks in the name of self-promotion.

Licensing Loopholes and Financial Motivations

The paper touts the lack of a licensing requirement for their analyzer as a major safety win. The truth? This exemption was granted because they use a much weaker Co-57 source. While that may avoid certain regulations, it comes at a cost to users – longer test times and more frequent source replacements. With a replacement cost of around $4,000, users are essentially re-buying the device every five years. That’s not innovation; that’s planned obsolescence dressed up as regulatory compliance.

These scare tactics are purely used to lock you into years of costly Co-57 source replacements—great for their profits, not for your bottom line.

Questionable Safety Practices

The document features imagery of someone placing their hands near the business end of an analyzer – a basic x-ray safety violation. This alone calls into question the training and expertise of the individuals making these sweeping safety claims. Safety, after all, is about practice as much as product.

Rumors and Fear-Mongering

Perhaps most troubling is the attempt to stir fear through rumor. The claim that housing authorities in New York were planning to ban the use of a specific analyzer was found to be baseless. According to a source in the Lead Hazard Control Division, there has been no discussion of such a ban with vendors, and no complaints have been received since a previously identified issue was resolved.

There has also been no word from HUD regarding any such move– yet this false narrative continues to be spread. Why? Because when you don’t have the technology to compete, misinformation becomes your marketing strategy.

If a competitor’s business strategy requires casting doubt on science, regulation, and safety standards while spreading unfounded rumors, it’s worth asking: What are they really afraid of?

Standing Behind the Science

The reality is this: tube-based XRF analyzers, like the SciAps X-550 Pb, continue to be validated by regulators and relied upon in the field by professionals across the country. When used correctly and safely, they offer fast, reliable, and precise lead paint detection without the drawbacks of isotopic sources.

Here's a comparison of the current lead paint analyzers from RAECO Rents: Today's Best Choice for Lead Paint Testing.