Lead poisoning refers to the accumulation of toxic amounts of lead in the body as a result of repeated exposure to substances containing lead. Humans are most often exposed to lead through lead-based paints and drinking water that has been sourced through lead pipes (Britannica 2016). Young children are especially at risk for lead poisoning due to their tendency to put things directly into their mouths, with the most common hazard being paint chips and peelings from older establishments. In 1978, the federal government banned the use of lead paint on toys and furniture in an attempt to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in children who may eat paint chips (CPSC 1977). Prior to this ban, 80% of homes were painted using lead-based paint. The paint often still remains on these buildings, and the older the building, the stronger the toxins are likely to be (Smith and Wells 2011). Lead may also be found in soil that has been exposed to lead paint or lead gasoline, household dust, ceramic glazes, cosmetics, bullets, and imported food cans. Individuals who work with batteries, renovate homes, or work in car shops are also often at higher risk of exposure to unsafe amounts of lead.
Of the body’s organ systems, the nervous system is likely to experience the most detrimental effects. Children are particularly prone to neurological and behavioral damage, as the brain has not fully developed and is particularly vulnerable. Children exposed to lead have been found to have reduced IQ scores, deficient pruning of brain synapses that impedes normal developmental processes, decreased visual motor integration skills, reduced task-perseverance, and decreased serial learning skills (Goyer 1996). Adults exposed to very high levels of lead (approximately 460 µg/dl) are also susceptible to brain damage, and exposure to lower levels (less than 40 µg/dl) can have a number of side effects ranging from lower reaction time to increased irritability (Kehoe 1961). It is important to note that many individuals are asymptomatic and toxic levels may go undetected, thus increasing the likelihood of more serious and long-term effects as toxins continue to build. Exposure to lead has also been associated with kidney damage, two types of anemia, reduced vitamin D levels, hypertension, reduced sperm count and fertility, impeded bone growth, and a range of other negative diseases and complications (ATSDR 2007). Lead is also an endocrine disruptor and, therefore, as adverse hormonal affects on the body, such as reduced sperm count and fertility (Rogers 2016: 1).
In 1955 two cases of lead poisoning and its effects on the kidney in children were examined at Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital (Marsden 1955: 324). During this time, lead poisoning was not a rare disease. Infants are particularly at risk because their central nervous systems are not developed, however, symptoms are not shows as clearly as they are in adults and it is, therefore harder to diagnosis this. One of the children was not diagnosed until he was 4 years old and showing severe symptoms such as anemia, constipation, and abdominal pain (Marsden 1955: 324). The other child was not diagnosed with lead poisoning until after death. Upon a post-mortem examination of the first child it was discovered that the main physiological changes were in the liver, kidney, and bones (Marsden 1955: 325). Fatty vacuolation, the abnormal retention of lipids in a cell, was found in the liver. There was also extensive damage of the kidney and there was erosion at the bone-cartilage junction. Examination of the second child correlated these findings (Marsden 1955: 325). For both cases, neither child was diagnosed in time to save the life. Lead poisoning is extremely harmful to children, as they do not have the system to fight the infections.
This is a photo showing the adverse effects of lead poisoning on the body.
Lead has been mined and used for thousands of years and some of the earliest accounts of lead poisoning can be traced back to Egyptian scrolls, where lead was noted as being used most often for homicides. Lead poisoning reached epidemic status during the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries when it was used for everything from sweetening beverages to book printing. Sir George Baker was a pioneer in the advances of understanding lead poisoning in 1767 by proving that Devonshire colic was a result of lead contamination in apple cider and not stardust or eastern wind as popularly believed. However, it was not until the 19thcentury that further advances were made and clinical descriptions began appearing in the literature. Significant progress was made in understanding lead palsy—a type of paralysis associated with high levels of lead consumption—and brain damage caused by toxic levels of lead. Due to the epidemic levels of lead poisoning during the industrial revolution, an increasing emphasis on the importance of preventative measures started to emerge around the 20th century. In the early 1920s, several countries banned lead paints, including Switzerland, Sweden, Poland, Finland, Norway, and Czechoslovakia, but the U.S. lagged behind in these endeavors. Some interesting prevention strategies were implemented but were later debunked as being ineffective. One such strategy was the consumption of milk among workers under the assumption that the calcium in milk would negate the effects of lead. As the effects of lead poisoning have become better understood over the past few decades, there have been more effective preventative measures for the developed world. However, this isn’t necessarily the case in developing countries, and the situation of lead toxicity has been relocated from developed to developing countries by moving high-risk industries such as ship breaking and battery manufacturers to developing countries such as Bangladesh (Hernberg 2000).
The improvement of lead poisoning prevention strategies has been questioned with the recent crisis in Flint, Michigan, where hundreds of individuals were exposed to dangerous levels of lead in their tap water after a governmental attempt to save money by switching the city’s water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River in 2014. Flint residents very quickly began complaining about the quality of the water, but city and state officials ignored their complaints for months before addressing the issue. By the time officials started paying more attention to what the residents were reporting, the pipes had become corroded and were leaching lead into the water system. Although the city did switch back to its original water source, the damage to the pipes had become irreversible, subjecting many residents to the harmful effects of lead exposure (Kennedy 2016). The crisis in Flint explicitly relates lead poisoning to the politics of health by drawing to light the powerful influence of infrastructure on health and the controversy around who is responsible for it. Infrastructure is a political matter due to its direct impact on social systems. In terms of water system infrastructure, there is a lack of clarity over whether it is a public responsibility or a private one. Historically, water purity has been a local responsibility, but an increasing involvement of environmental action and safety groups such as the EPA has led to the inclusion of the federal government in the oversight of water quality. The government establishes quality levels that must be met, but local officials are expected to monitor and test these methods (Rosner 2016). Some officials may be more qualified and cautious than others in testing water quality, which may result in inconsistent water systems and infrastructures across the nation due to a lack of regularity and consistency. Such an inconsistent system design hinders public safety initiatives, especially around issues such as lead poisoning. Further, lead poisoning disproportionately affects low-income and minority populations in the U.S. and reduces IQ levels, thus contributing to the reinforcement of poverty cycles (Grossman 2013).
The largest source of debate for public health policy in regards to lead poisoning is how to best go about protecting children from lead exposure after lead-containing sources have been identified. On the scientific side of the debate is the question of what counts as a disease and what the public health response should be to an environmental toxin. On the ethical side of the debate is the question of who should be responsible for removing hazardous sources and how treatment programs should be implemented. Currently, the U.S. federal law does not require that schools be certified free of lead-paint and lead-plumbing, meaning school children can legally attend class in an older establishment that has lead-paint. The costs associated with lead exposure are extremely high, but the cost of removing lead paint, lead piping, and other sources of lead proves to be an equally immense obstacle. To make matters worse, lead manufactures are not required to contribute to the removal of lead or participate in lead treatment programs, leaving individual households and taxpayers responsible for the financial expenses (Grossman 2013). These issues further emphasize the politics of industrial pollution and highlight the long and complicated road to effectively addressing the presence of lead in modern societies and infrastructures.
Bibliography
ATSDR. “Lead Toxicity: What Are the Physiologic Effects of Lead Exposure?” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 20, 2007. Accessed February 25, 2017. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=7&po=10.
Britannica Academic, s.v. “Lead poisoning,” accessed February 26, 2017, http://academic.eb.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/levels/collegiate/article/lead-poisoning/47494.
CPSC. Rep. No. Consumer Product Safety Commission-Release # 77-096 (1977).
Goyer, Robert A. “Results of Lead Research: Prenatal Exposure and Neurological Consequences.” Environmental Health Perspectives 104, no. 10 (October 1996): 1050-054. Accessed February 25, 2017. doi:10.2307/3433116.
Grossman, Elizabeth. “Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children.” Review. Journal of Public Health Policy, November 2013, 565-70. Accessed February 26, 2017. ProQuest Central.
Hernberg, Sven. “Lead poisoning in a historical perspective.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 38, no. 3 (February 20, 2000): 244-54. Accessed February 25, 2017. doi:10.1002/1097-0274(200009)38:3<244::aid-ajim3>3.3.co;2-6.
Kehoe, Robert A. “The Metabolism of Lead in Man in Health and Disease.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 2, no. 4 (1961): 418-22. Accessed February 27, 2017. doi:10.1080/00039896.1961.10662875.
Kennedy, Merrit. “Lead-Laced Water In Flint: A Step-By-Step Look At The Makings Of A Crisis.” NPR. April 20, 2016. Accessed February 26, 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/lead-laced-water-in-flint-a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis.
Markowitz, Gerald E., and David Rosner. Lead wars: the politics of science and the fate of America’s children. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014.
Marsden, H. Lead Poisoning in Children. BR Med J (1955) 4909: 324-325. accessed April 1, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2060893/?page=3
Rogers, Kara. “Endocrine Disruptor”. Britannica Academic (2016): 1, accessed March 1, 2017. http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/endocrine- disruptor/623998.
Rosner, David. “A Lead Poisoning Crisis Enters Its Second Century.” Health Affairs 35, no. 5 (May 01, 2016): 756-59. Accessed February 25, 2017. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0362.
Smith, Linda Wasmer, and Ken R. Wells. “Lead Poisoning.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. 4th ed.
« Back to Glossary Index