Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is not a pollutant. See, e.g., McFadden, 595 N.E.2d at 764 (finding that an insured could reasonably understand the pollution exclusion to “exclude coverage for injury caused by certain forms of industrial pollution, but not coverage for injury allegedly caused by the presence of leaded materials in a private residence.”). Accordingly, it is at least plausible that the pollution exclusion was not meant to and does not apply to lead exposure claims. There are several lower state court cases, cited by both plaintiff and defendant that interpret the pollution exclusion, as applied to lead poisoning and other injuries, in seemingly incongruous ways. The relevant Appellate Division cases are: American Heritage Realty Partnership v. La Voy, 209 A.D.2d 749, 618 N.Y.S.2d 125 (3d Dep’t 1994) ; Miano v. Hehn, 206 A.D.2d 957, 614 N.Y.S.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion
B. holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered
C. holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause
D. holding that removal of insulation that released asbestos  a thermal irritant  into an apartment was covered by the pollution exclusion
E. holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.