blood lead level

[noylj]

Per news from CDC:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering lowering its threshold for elevated childhood blood lead levels by 30 percent, a shift that could help health practitioners identify more children afflicted by the heavy metal.
Since 2012, the CDC, which sets public health standards for exposure to lead, has used a blood lead threshold of 5 micrograms per deciliter for children under age 6. While no level of lead exposure is safe for children, those who test at or above that level warrant a public health response, the agency says.
Based on new data from a national health survey, the CDC may lower its reference level to 3.5 micrograms per deciliter in the coming months, according to six people briefed by the agency. The measure will come up for discussion at a CDC meeting January 17 in Atlanta.
But the step, which has been under consideration for months, could prove controversial. One concern: Lowering the threshold could drain sparse resources from the public health response to children who need the most help - those with far higher lead levels.
The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.
Exposure to lead - typically in peeling old paint, tainted water or contaminated soil - can cause cognitive impairment and other irreversible health impacts.
The CDC adjusts its threshold periodically as nationwide average levels drop. The threshold value is meant to identify children whose blood lead levels put them among the 2.5 percent of those with the heaviest exposure.

This means there is NO scientific reason to lower the limit, other than a desire to regulate us to death. Just a random 2.5%. So, as the level goes down, they will continue to lower the limit until someday soon it will be 0.001 micrograms per deciliter, with huge costs to society and absolutely NO health impact.
Why regulatory agencies need to be controlled.

[Scharfschuetze]

This means there is NO scientific reason to lower the limit, other than a desire to regulate us to death.

Couldn't have said it better.

[sutherpride59]

I'm sure they will change it once they realize that everyone is exposed to some Ammon t of lead through the old water pipes.

[Scharfschuetze]

I'm sure they will change it once they realize that everyone is exposed to some Ammon t of lead through the old water pipes.

Ha, ha! Yes, is isn't it a city Michigan that is currently the poster child for lead poisoning from poor water management?

[sutherpride59]

I do believe you are correct, no matter what they can't get rid of all the lead pipes it would cost a fortune. A little lead literally never killed anyone, a lot will.

[JWT]

How's this new threshold level compare to 1975? Kids today have vanishingly small amounts of lead in their systems compared to previous generations. And the current generation of children has far higher occurrences of ADD, ADHD, Autism, and severe food allergies. The CDC should be focused on the causes of these problems, not addressing something that isn't causing issues in large portions of the population.

[RogerDat]

oh come on! For children under 6 there is no "safe" level. So guideline level is set to locate the child population that is in the top few percent of the general population. It is a limit. One that says unless your exposure is in the top few percent action is not required. Since no lead in children under 6 is desired level it makes sense that they would lower the numerical value of the limit to reflect a set percentage at the high end of the general population.

It is assumed mistakenly that the limits will continually drop forever. When in fact the lowering limits will yield an ever smaller group to be concerned with as the population lead levels continue to drop. Eventually the regulation will find no one exceeding the limits. Won't be soon because as some have pointed out there is a lot of old lead infrastructure. But as less lead infrastructure remains the number of people exposed to that infrastructure will continue to decline. Thus regulation will impact fewer people even as the level is reduced.

[woodbutcher]

[smilie=1: My take on the initials CDC is this.Center for Dimwit Control.Way too many people there that have their own personal agenda that they want to push.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Scharfschuetze]

The biggest threat of lead poisoning to people in general was the old leaded gasoline used from the 30s up until its demise a few decades ago. One ingested it with every breath in the larger cities or confined areas with an engine running.

No 2 on the hit list, and one that affected children the most, was the old leaded paint used in housing over probably the same period as the leaded gas. When children chewed on paint chips (never understood why they did that) they ingested the lead along with its pigments.

Legislation to correct the above issues was really well done and addressed the problem and had very positive results.

Now, as we've seen in Flint, Michigan (I think that's the city) improper water treatment or lack of it quickly erodes the lead pipes and bingo, lead is ingested by everyone again. Everyone is pointing the finger at everyone there, but the bottom line is that a government bureaucracy is responsible for that mess. They did it to save money in a cash strapped community and once again demonstrated the "Law of Unintended Consequences." How do you legislate or regulate against bad decisions taken in good faith?

On one of my Army assignments, I helped to manage an indoor shooting range. The other senior NCO on the unit's staff and I shot just about every day when we were not deployed. We ran the range for police units as well as military units. We mined the bullet traps once or so a year (still have a bit of that lead) and smelted it right in the range with the vent system turned on. Due to our exposure to lead in the range, we had to have our blood tested for lead every year. Guess what? Both of us were always well below the national average (very low) for lead in our blood thanks to the well vented range.

As shooters and casters, we are probably exposed to more lead than 99% of the population. Other than eating after casting without washing your hands or shooting in an unvented indoor range, We are already very well protected from lead poisoning.

[noylj]

The point is, we are already well below the levels that cause ANY discoverable harm and it just doesn't matter.
It is the DOSE that makes the POISON, and even if all the lead pipes were to disappear and magically be replaced, there would STILL be some level of lead in everyone. It is in nature. It is not some man-made chemical that could, theoretically, be eliminated.
Then, no matter what the level is, there will ALWAYS be a bell curve and 2.5% with higher reading to be regulated. Since we can NEVER get to zero, it is a continuing source of increased regulations and funding for CDC.