chemical, or other substance that irritates or contaminates the human body. See Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 1037, 1043 (7th Cir.1992) (“The terms ‘irritant’ and ‘contaminant,’ when viewed in isolation, are virtually boundless, for ‘there is virtually no substance or chemical in existence that would not irritate or damage some person or property.’ ”) (citation omitted). On that all-inclusive reading, lead paint, which irritates the body by causing, inter alia, brain damage, developmental disorders, kidney and liver disease, and which contaminates the body by injecting impurities into the blood stream, qualifies as a “pollutant.” Several courts and commentators have embraced that broad reading of the term. See, e.g., Bourbeau, 49 F.3d at 788-89 (<HOLDING>); Oates, 597 N.Y.S.2d at 553-54 (observing the
holding that absent solid support in the record that a fear is objectively reasonable a claim of future persecution is speculative at best holding that an applicants fear was not objectively reasonable because it lacked solid support in the record and was merely speculative at best holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks solid support in the record and is merely speculative at best holding that an objectively reasonable person would consider lead paint chips to be a solid contaminant a toxic chemical and waste holding that a fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable if it lacks solid support in the record and is merely speculative at best