General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe children of Flint are permanently damaged
I think I read that somewhere.
If this report is true, they may end up as intellectually stunted as - me.
"Even after Flints disaster, the citys children have far less lead in their blood than their parents or grandparents did at the same age."
...
"In the late 1970s, 88% of Americans ages 1 to 5 had at least 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in their blood, or twice as much as today's level of concern.
By the early 1990s, only 4.4% of children were exposed to so much lead. And year by year since then, according to more than 31 million blood tests compiled by the CDC just since 2005, lead has been steadily disappearing from American kids blood."
...
"In closing, we want to note another point by Mastio. Near the end of his piece he says this: "What happened in Flint starting in 2013 needlessly risked the health of thousands of people...Of this, there is no question. But it also true that the health threat in Flint is being exaggerated."
Is that true? Without any question, exaggeration is the lifeblood of our culture's successor to "news." But is this matter being overstated? We can't exactly tell you."
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/01/supplemental-flints-poisoned-children.html
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Those of us who grew up in that era were exposed to a lot of lead.
randys1
(16,286 posts)problem and on the other hand we have something called daily howler
hunter
(38,317 posts)My primary source of animal protein as a kid was fish my dad caught in Santa Monica Bay.
There was that, and the leaded gasoline...
I do all right (so far) although I was 5 in 1967. Had some problems with anemia though when I was younger. Not sure why that went away when I was older, but it seems to not be a problem now.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...caused the steep decline in violent crime rates as the kids born after leaded gasoline was banned entered their teens in the mid 90s. So in a sense all of your generation WAS severely poisoned by lead, it made you guys a much more impulsive, violent generation than we Millennials.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)when I was 29. It was lower in 1985 than it was in 1998.
Even at its peak in 1991 it was only 758.1 per 100,000. Meaning the non-violent crime rate was 99,241 per 100,000. Most of us, in spite of the lead were not THAT violent.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Kids that would have been raised in bad environments to parents that didn't want them or could take care of them, well, just weren't born.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Absorption of lead is affected by Vitamin C levels and, as I recall, iron levels.
So children in poverty could be more at risk than healthy middle class children exposed to the same levels of lead in the water.
Also, lead was not the only contaminant in the water, just the most discussed.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)lead was NOT a "contaminant in the water". The lead is coming from old pipes in certain houses. The new water being more corrosive was leaching lead out of those pipes.
Regardless of their nutrition, a person with 10 micrograms/liter in their blood has absorbed more lead than a person with only 5. That article said that 88% of kids in the 1970s had a level of 10. Probably similar percentages applied in the 1960s.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)from the blood to the bones, where it can be stored -- like calcium is stored. (So someone with past exposure might have low blood levels but still have lead stored in their bones.)
Nutrition can affect how much leaves the body without getting absorbed . So two children with the same elevated blood lead level of 10, for example, might have different long term lead storage in their bodies; one might excrete more and one might absorb more into their bones and tissues. The malnourished child is more at risk of the lead not being excreted.
Also, this means that if exposure to lead stops, children with elevated blood levels should have blood lead levels that return to normal. They may still have lead stored in their bones, however. And there could be circumstances in their future that send the lead back out of their bones and into their blood.
From the CDC:
BLL= blood lead level
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=7&po=9
Although the blood generally carries only a small fraction of total lead body burden, it does serve as the initial receptacle of absorbed lead and distributes lead throughout the body, making it available to other tissues (or for excretion).
The half-life of lead in adult human blood has been estimated to be from 28 days (Griffin et al. 1975 as cited in ATSDR 2005) to 36 days. (Rabinowitz et al. 1976 as cited in ATSDR 2005)
(SNIP)
Blood lead is also important because the BLL is the most widely used measure of lead exposure.
These tests, however, do not measure total body burdenthey are more reflective of recent or ongoing exposures.
(SNIP)
The bones and teeth of adults contain about 94% of their total lead body burden; in children, the figure is approximately 73% (Barry 1975 as cited in ATSDR 2005). Lead in mineralizing tissues is not uniformly distributed. It tends to accumulate in bone regions undergoing the most active calcification at the time of exposure.
(SNIP)
Because lead from past exposures can accumulate in the bones (endogenous source), symptoms or health effects can also appear in the absence of significant current exposure.
In most cases, toxic BLLs reflect a mixture of current exposure to lead and endogenous contribution from previous exposure.
An acute high exposure to lead can lead to high short-term BLLs and cause symptoms of lead poisoning.
It is important that primary care physicians evaluate a patient with potential lead poisoning, examine potential current and past lead exposures and look for other factors that affect the biokinetics of lead (such as pregnancy or poor nutrition).
https://www.lead.org.au/fs/Fact_sheet-Nutrients_that_reduce_lead_poisoning_June_2010.pdf
REDUCING LEAD ABSORPTION
For reducing lead absorption the key nutrients appear to be vitamin C, calcium, iron and, to
a lesser degree, zinc and phosphorus. Dietary deficiencies in any of these can increase lead
absorption, though supplementation of individuals with already high levels of these
nutrients in their diet may not have much impact on lead absorption. Further, since these
minerals compete with, or alter lead absorption during digestion, taking concentrated
supplements at one point of time, unless you are deficient in that particular nutrient, may
not affect continuing lead absorption, once the supplements have been processed through a
particular stage of digestion.
Vitamin D and folate (vitamin B9) can actually increase lead absorption, but have offsetting
advantages: vitamin D can play a role in decreasing the quantity of lead stored in the bone,
while folate seems to increases excretion more than it increases absorption.
INCREASING LEAD EXCRETION
For increasing lead excretion, two low toxicity B group vitamins have had widely
demonstrated impacts in animal studies: B1 (thiamine or thiamin), which specifically
increases excretion from the brain, and B9 (folate or folic acid); both are now compulsory
additives in nonorganic bread inside Australia.
Vitamin B6 can increase lead excretion in animals,