Look, I am not trying to be condescending, although on reflection I can see that it certainly came off that way. But continuing to put out inaccurate information helps no one.

Lead paint was a big deal in the 1970s. That's why the federal government outlawed lead in paint as of 1975ish, and there is still a federal lead disclosure required for any home built in full or in part before 1978. But most people who suffered lead poisoning did so when lead paint was easily accessible and peeling off surfaces, and children were eating the lead paint. That rarely happens now. If you buy a house built before 1978 I can almost guarantee there is lead paint in the house. However, it is "encapsulated," meaning it has been painted over so many times the lead paint is not accessible. Now, if you are sanding down wood trim or other surfaces in a pre-1978 home, yes, you need to take precautions because you don't want anyone to breathe or eat lead paint dust. But just the fact that there is lead paint in a home does not automatically make that home dangerous.

Asbestos is similar. Asbestos is dangerous when the fibers are "friable," floating around in the air. If you do not make the fibers friable, there is limited to no risk of asbestos injury. Most asbestos in old houses was insulation around pipes, sometimes mastic in tile adhesive, sometimes asbestos tile. If you leave it alone, the fibers don't become friable. If you want it abated, you can pay to have that happen.

I just don't think implying old houses are inherently dangerous is helpful to anyone.