Lead

Maternal exposure to metals and time-to-pregnancy: The MIREC cohort study

Posted by

0


Abstract

Objective

To study the association between maternal exposure to arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese and mercury, time-to-pregnancy (TTP) and infertility.

Design

Pregnancy-based retrospective TTP cohort study.

Setting

Hospitals and clinics from ten cities across Canada.

Population

A total of 1784 pregnant women.

Methods

Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese and mercury were measured in maternal whole blood during the first trimester of pregnancy as a proxy of preconception exposure. Discrete-time Cox proportional hazards models generated fecundability odds ratios (FOR) for the association between metals and TTP. Logistic regression generated odds ratios (OR) for the association between metals and infertility. Models were adjusted for maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, education, income, recruitment site and plasma lipids.

Main Outcome Measures

TTP was self-reported as the number of months of unprotected intercourse to become pregnant. Infertility was defined as TTP longer than 12 months.

Results

A total of 1784 women were eligible for the analysis. Mean ± SD maternal age and gestational age at interview were 32.2 ± 5.0 years, and 11.6 ± 1.6 weeks, respectively. Exposure to arsenic, cadmium, manganese or mercury was not associated with TTP or infertility. Increments of one standard deviation of lead concentrations resulted in a shorter TTP (adjusted FOR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.16); however, the association was not linear when exposure was modelled in tertiles.

Conclusion

Blood concentrations of metals at typical levels of exposure among Canadian pregnant women were not associated with TTP or infertility. Further studies are needed to assess the role of lead, if any, on TTP.

1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental exposure to metals is a public health concern given their wide dispersion in the environment and potential endocrine disruptive properties.1–3 An endocrine endpoint of interest in reproductive and environmental epidemiology is human fecundity given the increased rates of gynaecological conditions associated with impaired fecundity and possible association with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.4–7 There is evidence linking metals like arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury to impaired ovarian function through oxidative stress.1, 2 In contrast, other metals like manganese, an essential trace element, may prevent oocyte damage through antioxidant properties.8–10

Although several environmental chemicals have been associated with decreased fecundability or a longer time-to-pregnancy (TTP),11–15 the impact of metals on TTP and infertility needs further investigation. The effect of lead is of particular interest, given its high toxicity at high levels of exposure in almost every organ. At current environmental levels of exposure, the most notable and strongest association observed with lead exposure is its detrimental effect on children’s neurological function.16, 17 The existing body of research exploring the relationship between female fecundity and lead exposure is limited, and the findings are inconclusive.18–21 Further investigation is warranted to provide a clearer understanding of a potential association.

Two previous cohort studies have investigated the effect of metals on TTP. The New York Angler Cohort, a prospective cohort study including 80 women, reported that higher pre-pregnancy levels of magnesium were associated with a shorter TTP and zinc exposure was associated with a longer TTP, but there was no association for arsenic, cadmium or lead.20 The Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment (LIFE) study assessed the effects of environmental chemicals and human fecundity among 501 couples in Michigan and Texas.21 Male lead and female cadmium concentrations were associated with reduced fecundability. When jointly modelling couples’ exposures, only male lead concentration significantly reduced fecundability.21 The few studies that have assessed the impact of environmental metals exposure on infertility (i.e. inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse) have reported associations with infertility at increased levels of cadmium or lead.22–24

This study aims to evaluate the association between selected metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese and mercury), TTP and infertility in participants from the Maternal–Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study, a Canadian pregnancy and birth cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1784 participants from the MIREC study met our eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The distribution of demographic and lifestyle characteristics of the study population and their association with TTP are presented in Table 1. Mean maternal age at interview was 32.2 ± 5.0 years and mean gestational age at the time of the blood sample was 11.6 ± 1.6 weeks (± SD). Participants in this study were mostly White, born in Canada, lifelong non cigarette smokers and had a normal pre-pregnancy BMI. Almost two-thirds had an undergraduate degree or higher, more than one-third reported a household income greater than Can$ 100 000, and over half had one previous pregnancy with a live birth.

Details are in the caption following the image
FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Cohort selection of MIREC study participants.

TABLE 1. Characteristics of 1784 women from the MIREC study, 2008–2011, and association with time-to-pregnancy.

n (%)Time-to-pregnancy (months)Crude FOR (95% CI)
Mean ± SDMedian (IQR)
Maternal age (years)
≤29524 (29.4)3.8 ± 6.91 (1–4)1.00
30–34650 (36.4)4.6 ± 7.42 (1–4)0.81 (0.70–0.94)
35+610 (34.2)7.0 ± 12.82 (1–6)0.62 (0.54–0.72)
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)
<24.91052 (59.0)4.8 ± 8.61 (1–4)1.00
25–29.9362 (20.3)5.2 ± 10.71 (1–4)1.03 (0.89–1.21)
>30245 (13.7)6.6 ± 11.11 (1–7)0.76 (0.64–0.91)
Missing125 (7.0)5.2 ± 10.61 (1–4)1.03 (0.82–1.31)
Education
Some college or less281 (15.8)5.1 ± 9.81 (1–5)1.00
College diploma378 (21.2)5.7 ± 10.22 (1–6)0.88 (0.73–1.08)
Undergraduate655 (36.7)5.5 ± 10.82 (1–5)0.96 (0.81–1.15)
Graduate (MSc, PhD)470 (26.3)4.4 ± 6.62 (1–4)1.02 (0.84–1.23)
Income (Can$)
<Can$ 60 000374 (21.0)4.0 ± 6.91 (1–4)1.00
Can$ 60 001–Can $ 100 000624 (35.0)5.4 ± 10.12 (1–5)0.81 (0.69–0.96)
>Can$ 100 000702 (39.3)5.6 ± 10.22 (1–5)0.77 (0.66–0.91)
Missing84 (4.7)5.0 ± 10.72 (1–4)0.90 (0.66–1.22)
Country of birth
Foreign336 (18.8)5.0 ± 8.02 (1–6)1.00
Canada1448 (81.2)5.2 ± 9.92 (1–5)1.04 (0.90–1.21)
Race and ethnicity
White1487 (83.4)5.1 ± 9.72 (1–5)1.00
Not White297 (16.6)5.4 ± 8.92 (1–6)0.93 (0.79–1.08)
Maternal cigarette smoking
Never1087 (60.9)5.1 ± 8.82 (1–5)1.00
Former491 (27.5)5.3 ± 10.82 (1–4)1.06 (0.92–1.21)
Current206 (11.5)5.1 ± 10.22 (1–4)1.09 (0.90–1.32)
Parity
Nulliparous850 (47.6)6.1 ± 11.32 (1–6)1.00
Parous934 (52.4)4.4 ± 7.62 (1–4)1.19 (1.06–1.34)
Total plasma lipids (g/L)
<5.60537 (30.1)4.2 ± 7.82 (1–4)1.00
5.60–6.60613 (34.4)5.0 ± 8.92 (1–5)0.86 (0.74–1.00)
>6.60619 (34.7)6.2 ± 11.42 (1–6)0.75 (0.65–0.87)
Missing15 (0.8)6.5 ± 9.72 (1–6)0.62 (0.32–1.20)
  • Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; FOR, fecundity odds ratio; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation.

The cumulative conception rate was 44.8% at 1 month, 81.9% at 6 months and 90.8% at 12 months. Hence, the rate of infertility (TTP > 12 months) in this cohort was 9.2%. Maternal age, pre-pregnancy BMI, income, parity and total plasma lipids were associated with TTP (Table 1). Older women, with higher BMI, higher income or increased plasma lipids had decreased fecundability (longer TTP). Parous women had a shorter TTP. Education, country of birth, race and ethnicity, and cigarette smoking status were not associated with TTP (Table 1).

Most participants had detectable blood levels of all five metals (Table 2). Geometric means for arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese and mercury were 0.73 μg/L, 0.21 μg/L, 0.62 μg/dL, 8.79 μg/L and 0.61 μg/L, respectively. TABLE 2. Whole blood concentrations of metals, MIREC study 2008–2011.

LODn (%) < LODMedianMinimumMaximumGM (95% CI)
Arsenic (μg/L)0.23136 (7.62)0.83<LOD34.590.73 (0.71–0.76)
Cadmium (μg/L)0.0447 (2.63)0.20<LOD5.50.21 (0.20–0.22)
Lead (μg/dL)0.100 (0)0.630.165.210.63 (0.61–0.64)
Manganese (μg/L)0.55173 (9.70)8.792.0329.128.80 (8.67–8.93)
Mercury (μg/L)0.12153 (9.74)0.70<LOD10.030.61 (0.58–0.64)
  • Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; GM, geometric mean; LOD, limit of detection.

In relation to TTP, increments of one SD increase in blood concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, manganese or mercury were not associated with TTP (Table 3). In the adjusted model, increments of one SD of lead concentrations resulted in a shorter TTP (adjusted FOR [aFOR] 1.09; 95% CI 1.02–1.16). When exposure was modelled as tertiles, no relationship was observed between arsenic, cadmium, manganese or mercury and TTP. For lead, relative to the first tertile, the second (aFOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.14–1.54) and third (aFOR 1.28; 95% CI 1.10–1.50) tertiles were associated with a shorter TTP (Table 3). TABLE 3. Fecundability odds ratios for the association between metals and time-to-pregnancy, MIREC study 2008–2011.

MetalsLevelsnCrude FOR (95% CI)Adjusted FORa (95% CI)
Arsenic (μg/L)log2As/SD17840.99 (0.94–1.05)1.02 (0.95–1.08)
<0.606001.001.00
0.60–1.055960.93 (0.80–1.07)0.94 (0.81–1.10)
>1.055880.96 (0.83–1.11)0.99 (0.85–1.17)
Cadmium (μg/L)log2Cd/SD17841.02 (0.97–1.09)1.04 (0.97–1.12)
<0.155681.001.00
0.15–0.285901.06 (0.92–1.23)1.10 (0.94–1.27)
>0.286261.06 (0.91–1.22)1.07 (0.91–1.26)
Lead (μg/dL)log2Pb/SD17841.06 (1.00–1.13)1.09 (1.02–1.16)
<0.505751.001.00
0.50–0.775781.27 (1.10–1.48)1.33 (1.14–1.54)
>0.776311.24 (1.04–1.43)1.28 (1.10–1.50)
Manganese (μg/L)log2Mn/SD17841.02 (0.96–1.08)1.04 (0.98–1.10)
<7.696401.001.00
7.69–10.445761.10 (0.96–1.28)1.12 (0.96–1.29)
>10.445681.11 (0.96–1.28)1.17 (1.01–1.35)
Mercury (μg/L)log2Hg/SD17840.94 (0.89–1.00)0.98 (0.92–1.05)
<0.425941.001.00
0.42–1.045860.87 (0.75–1.00)0.92 (0.79–1.07)
>1.046040.87 (0.75–1.01)0.95 (0.81–1.11)
  • Note: FOR derived from Cox proportional hazards model modified for discrete time data with multiple imputation (m = 20) for missing covariate information.
  • Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FOR, fecundity odds ratio.
  • a Adjusted for maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, education, income, country of birth, race and ethnicity, maternal cigarette smoking, plasma lipids and recruitment site.

In relation to infertility (TTP > 12 months), increments of one SD increase of blood concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese or mercury were not associated with infertility (Table 4). When modelled as tertiles, exposures to arsenic, cadmium or mercury were not associated with infertility. For lead, relative to the first tertile, the second tertile was associated with decreased odds of infertility (aOR 0.57; 95% CI 0.37–0.87), but not the third tertile (Table 4). For manganese, relative to the first tertile, no association was observed with the second tertile, but the third tertile was associated with decreased odds of infertility (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42–0.96) (Table 4). TABLE 4. Odds ratios for the association between blood metals and infertility, MIREC study 2008–2011.

MetalsLevelsnCrude OR (95% CI)Adjusted ORa (95% CI)
Arsenic, μg/Llog2As/SD17841.14 (0.96–1.34)1.13 (0.95–1.35)
<0.606001.001.00
0.60–1.055961.32 (0.88–1.98)1.32 (0.86–2.00)
>1.055881.29 (0.86–1.94)1.27 (0.82–1.97)
Cadmium, μg/Llog2Cd/SD17840.99 (0.84–1.17)0.95 (0.77–1.17)
<0.155681.001.00
0.15–0.285900.98 (0.66–1.46)0.89 (0.56–1.35)
>0.286260.99 (0.67–1.47)0.94 (0.60–1.47)
Lead, μg/dLlog2Pb/SD17840.91 (0.77–1.07)0.87 (0.73–1.04)
<0.505751.001.00
0.50–0.775780.61 (0.40–0.92)0.57 (0.37–0.87)
>0.776310.79 (0.54–1.16)0.73 (0.48–1.10)
Manganese, μg/Llog2Mn/SD17840.91 (0.78–1.07)0.86 (0.72–1.02)
<7.696401.001.00
7.69–10.445760.75 (0.51–1.11)0.74 (0.50–1.10)
>10.445680.71 (0.48–1.06)0.64 (0.42–0.96)
Mercury, μg/Llog2Hg/SD17841.20 (1.01–1.42)1.09 (0.90–1.33)
<0.425941.001.00
0.42–1.045861.41 (0.93–2.13)1.20 (0.78–1.85)
>1.046041.44 (0.96–2.16)1.16 (0.74–1.83)
  • Note: Odds ratios derived from multiple logistic regression analysis with multiple imputation (m = 20) for missing covariate information.
  • Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
  • a Adjusted for maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, education, income, country of birth, race and ethnicity, maternal cigarette smoking, plasma lipids and recruitment site.

In the sensitivity analysis stratified by parity (Table S1), the association between lead and shorter TTP remained among nulliparous (aFOR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01–1.21), and parous (aFOR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00–1.19) women. When including parity in the adjusted model (Table S2), results were similar to the main analysis presented in Table 3. The sensitivity analysis stratified by manganese levels yielded similar results in terms of FOR, except for lead where a slight attenuation in the 95% CI occurred in those with manganese concentration above the median (Table S3).

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Main findings

In this pregnancy-based retrospective TTP cohort study in participants from the Canadian MIREC study, environmental exposure to arsenic, cadmium, manganese and mercury measured during the first trimester were not associated with TTP or infertility. Exposure to lead was associated with a shorter TTP, but the pattern of effect was not consistent with a dose–response relationship.

4.2 Strengths and limitations

The major strengths of this study include its large sample size and the use of biomarkers as an objective measure of total metal exposure. The limitations of this research are related to the retrospective assessment of exposure and outcome, residual confounding and an underlying cohort of women who became pregnant, and therefore excluded those with infertility who did not access fertility treatment or were not successful after treatment.

The measurement of exposure was taken during the first trimester of pregnancy as a proxy for pre-conception exposure. The accuracy of this measure is impacted by the stability of participant’s behaviour in relation to metal exposures, and by physiological changes during pregnancy. Both sources of error would contribute to non-differential exposure measurement error in this study and would tend to bias effect estimates towards the null, given that the measurement of exposure was collected during the first trimester of pregnancy in all participants independent of TTP. Furthermore, most of the metals included have a relatively long half-life (3–4 months for cadmium,34 90 days for lead,35 2–5 weeks for manganese36–38 and 44–80 days for mercury39–41), except for arsenic, which has a half-life of only several hours.42 However, with continuous exposure, concentrations may reach a steady state.33 Concerning the outcome, TTP was collected by questionnaire and relies on subject recall. However, the collection of retrospective TTP is a reliable method when data are collected in the short term, as was the case in the MIREC study.43

There is also the potential for residual confounding, due to the unavailability of some data in the MIREC study, such as menstrual cycle regularity, associated gynaecological conditions and coital frequency. The absence of sociodemographic and biomonitoring data for the male partner in the MIREC study is another limitation. For example, the LIFE study reported that male partners’ metal concentrations were more often associated with reduced couple fecundability compared with female partners’ concentrations.44

In addition, the study population was restricted to women who have had a birth and/or became pregnant, inherently conditioning on fertility. This introduces the potential for collider bias, which occurs when exposure and outcome each influence a common third variable, and that variable is conditioned on in the design or analysis.45 In the MIREC study, participants are restricted to those who have had a birth. Both the exposure (lead) and outcome influence fertility status and could therefore produce a collider bias because the study population has been restricted to those able to conceive.46, 47 However, biologically, there is a wide range of reproductive capacity, even among couples who achieve pregnancy. This heterogeneity is expressed in the gradual decrease in conception rates during successive months of trying,47, 48 which is not a true time effect, but evidence of sorting among individuals who are heterogeneous in their capacity to conceive.48 Heterogeneity among couples raises the possibility that some of this variation may be explained by identifiable factors, supporting the rationale of our study. Finally, as the MIREC cohort consists mainly of healthy mothers of moderate to high socioeconomic status, and Caucasian race and ethnicity,25 metal concentrations and other factors associated with TTP might differ from other populations, limiting the external generalisability of our results.49

4.3 Interpretation

Two studies have evaluated the relationship between metals and TTP, and both were prospective cohort studies of pre-conception couples. The LIFE Study observed a reduction in couple fecundity with higher exposure to cadmium and lead. When assessing individual partner exposure, female cadmium exposure (aFOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63–0.97) and male lead exposure (aFOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73–0.98) were associated with a longer TTP. No association was observed with mercury. Except for mercury, geometric mean concentrations of blood metals in MIREC participants (0.21 μg/L for cadmium, 0.62 μg/dL for lead and 0.61 μg/L for mercury) were similar to those reported in the LIFE study (0.21 μg/L for cadmium, 0.66 μg/dL for lead and 0.98 μg/L for mercury).21 The prospective design of the LIFE study, and the difference in sociodemographic characteristics compared with the MIREC study could explain the differences in our results. On the other hand, consistent with our results, the prospective cohort study using preconception enrolment of women from the New York Angler Cohort did not find evidence to support the association between low-level exposure to toxic metals and fecundity, even though the concentrations of metals in the Angler Cohort were higher than in MIREC (4.27 μg/L for arsenic, 1.63 μg/L for cadmium, 1.55 μg/dL for lead).20 However, the small number of participants included in this cohort (n = 80) may have made it underpowered to detect any association.

We remain uncertain about the observed association between lead exposure and a shorter TTP. To our knowledge, no other study has reported a similar finding. The absence of a dose–response when the exposure is modelled as tertiles or restricted cubic splines, suggests a spurious association, which could be a result of the above-mentioned limitations of our study. To further explore this association, we investigated the potential impact of gestational age at the time of sample collection on the association between lead exposure and TTP. This exploration was motivated by the understanding that blood lead concentrations encompass both ongoing exposure and lead stores in bone.50 During pregnancy, heightened calcium demands induce increased bone turnover, leading to the release of lead from bone and subsequent increase in blood lead levels.50–52 Our hypothesis posited a reduced fecundability (longer TTP) for metals in women’s samples collected after 10 weeks of gestation. However, we were not able to demonstrate this, as lead continued to be associated with a shorter TTP independent from the gestational age at the time of interview.

Regarding infertility, authors of an analysis among 124 participants of the 2013–2014 and 2015–2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) reported an association between log-transformed blood lead (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.05–6.41) and cadmium (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.07–3.15) and self-reported infertility.22 The geometric mean of blood lead was lower in this study (0.50 μg/dL) compared with MIREC; however, the geometric mean of blood cadmium (0.26 μg/L) was similar. Another study including a larger sample of 838 participants from the 2013–2018 NHANES reported no association between blood concentrations of cadmium or mercury and self-reported infertility.23 Lead concentrations were associated with infertility in some categories but with no overall dose–response pattern.23 Compared with MIREC, mean concentrations of cadmium and mercury in NHANES were higher (0.45 μg/L for cadmium, 1.15 μg/L for mercury); however, concentrations of lead were the same (0.70 μg/dL). We found a decreased odds of infertility in the second tertile (0.50–0.77 μg/dL) of exposure for lead (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33–0.84), but not in those in the highest tertile (>0.77 μg/dL) or when the exposure was modelled as a continuous variable.

5 CONCLUSION

Our study supports the theory that at current environmental levels of exposure, which are low relative to levels seen in other populations, metals are not associated with decreased fecundability or infertility. Further studies are needed to assess the role of lead, if any, on TTP and infertility.

New research links dietary heavy metal exposure and cancer

Posted by

0


It’s unsettling to realize that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits trace amounts of insects, rodent hair, and feces in our food supply.  Equally alarming is the revelation that federal regulations allow food producers to incorporate heavy metals into our meals.

Recent research draws attention to the dangerous levels of heavy metals in food, posing exceptionally high risks to children.  Both this study and another investigation confirm that ingesting these heavy metals through food can lead to cancer and other severe health complications.

From baby spoons to big plates: How heavy metals contaminate our food supply

The issue of metal contamination in our food is deeply concerning, with a spotlight on its presence in baby food drawing heightened attention from health experts.  Just a couple of years ago, a U.S. Congressional Report exposed alarming levels of metals in baby food, prompting their removal from store shelves.  More recently, similar levels of concern have been detected in fruit purees targeted at children.

The studies above shed light on the concerning connection between heavy metal exposure through infant food consumption and increased cancer risk.

So, how do these heavy metals infiltrate our food chain?  Crops can absorb these contaminants from polluted groundwater, tainted soil, and airborne particles.  Detailed examinations of food components have unveiled trace amounts of toxic heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, and lead, not only in baby food but also in certain adult food products.

Cadmium in crops: Silent threat lurking in our favorite foods

The heavy metal cadmium seeps into produce through emissions from factories and fertilizers.  Cadmium is toxic, yet trace amounts are commonly found in the following foods:

  • Leafy green veggies
  • Grain used in cereal
  • Potatoes
  • Nuts

Cadmium toxicity causes a moderate-to-high risk for endometrial, pancreatic, bladder, breast, and prostate cancer.  The same elevated risk level holds true for non-cancer health issues such as neurological, immunological, and reproductive problems.

It is the most vulnerable among us who are likely to consume cadmium.  Researchers determined babies and youngsters between six months and five years of age are exposed to this heavy metal more frequently than other age cohorts.

American babies and youngsters who consume wheat, oats, spinach, rice, and potatoes surpass the maximum acceptable intake amounts established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency created to help reduce the human health risks caused by exposure to harmful substances.

Heavy metals are also present in a wide variety of adult foods

While the medical community is chiefly alarmed by the presence of detrimental heavy metals in infant foods, it’s crucial to recognize that adults are not exempt from this risk.  Heavy metals can be detected in various foods, from spinach to rice.  Prolonged exposure to these contaminants, especially inorganic arsenic, is believed to play a role in the development of cancer.

The study linked above reveals the presence of lead in foods such as beets and other root vegetables spurs a moderate-to-high risk for the following cancers:

  • Brain
  • Lung
  • Bladder
  • Kidney
  • Stomach

The analysis also revealed the same moderate-to-high scores for risks aside from cancer, ranging from respiratory issues to reproductive problems, neurological challenges, and poor renal health.

Simple ways to reduce your heavy metal exposure

In an era of rising concerns about heavy metal exposure, taking proactive steps to safeguard your health is paramount.  Here are some straightforward strategies to minimize your intake of these harmful contaminants:

Avoid processed foods:  The foremost step to shield yourself from the threats of heavy metals is to eliminate processed foods from your diet.  If you’re looking to feed your family healthy foods … buy organic ingredients and make the food yourself.

Opt for organic:  Replace processed items with organic fruits and vegetables.  Seek out produce from local farmers’ markets or the organic section of your nearby grocery store.  Foods rich in fiber, such as bran, grains, and certain fruits, can help reduce the absorption of heavy metals in the body.

Use a sauna:  Consider incorporating sessions in a far infrared sauna – several times per week.  The sweat generated inside a sauna will help you to remove heavy metals plus many other unwanted toxins.

Stay hydrated:  Even if you’re not consuming processed foods, consider boosting your hydration levels.  Water aids in flushing out toxins from the body.  Aim to drink an 8 oz glass of water every waking hour or two to promote detoxification.

Lead and Cadmium Could Be in Your Dark Chocolate

Posted by

0


Consumer Reports found dangerous heavy metals in chocolate from Hershey’s, Theo, Trader Joe’s and other popular brands. Here are the ones that had the most, and some that are safer.

Lead and Cadmium element symbols on pieces of dark chocolate.

December 15, 2022

By Kevin Loria

Data visualizations by Andy Bergmann

  •  shares of the article

For many of us, chocolate is more than just a tasty treat. It’s a mood lifter, an energy booster, a reward after a tough day, a favorite holiday gift. 

People also choose dark chocolate in particular for its potential health benefits, thanks to studies that suggest its rich supply of antioxidants may improve heart health and other conditions, and for its relatively low levels of sugar. In fact, more than half of people in a recent survey from the National Confectioners Association described dark chocolate as a “better for you” candy.

But there’s a dark side to this “healthier” chocolate. Research has found that some dark chocolate bars contain cadmium and lead—two heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in children and adults. 

The chocolate industry has been grappling with ways to lower those levels. To see how much of a risk these favorite treats pose, Consumer Reports scientists recently measured the amount of heavy metals in 28 dark chocolate bars. They detected cadmium and lead in all of them.

Heavy Metals in Dark Chocolate

CR tested a mix of brands, including smaller ones, such as Alter Eco and Mast, and more familiar ones, like Dove and Ghirardelli. 

For 23 of the bars, eating just an ounce a day would put an adult over a level that public health authorities and CR’s experts say may be harmful for at least one of those heavy metals. Five of the bars were above those levels for both cadmium and lead.

That’s risky stuff: Consistent, long-term exposure to even small amounts of heavy metals can lead to a variety of health problems. The danger is greatest for pregnant people and young children because the metals can cause developmental problems, affect brain development, and lead to lower IQ, says Tunde Akinleye, the CR food safety researcher who led this testing project. 

“But there are risks for people of any age,” he says. Frequent exposure to lead in adults, for example, can lead to nervous system problems, hypertension, immune system suppression, kidney damage, and reproductive issues. While most people don’t eat chocolate every day, 15 percent do, according to the market research firm Mintel. Even if you aren’t a frequent consumer of chocolate, lead and cadmium can still be a concern. It can be found in many other foods—such as sweet potatoes, spinach, and carrots—and small amounts from multiple sources can add up to dangerous levels. That’s why it’s important to limit exposure when you can.

Still, you don’t need to swear off chocolate entirely, Akinleye says. He adds that while most of the chocolate bars in CR’s tests had concerning levels of lead, cadmium, or both, five of them were relatively low in both. “That shows it’s possible for companies to make products with lower amounts of heavy metals—and for consumers to find safer products that they enjoy,” he says.

And in addition to choosing your dark chocolates wisely, there are a number of other steps you can take to continue enjoying chocolate safely.

People Aren’t as Safe From Lead as Thought: Study

Posted by

0


Long-term, low-level lead exposure may be linked with more than 256,000 premature deaths from heart disease in middle-aged and older Americans each year, according to a new study.

The researchers analyzed data from 14,300 people in the United States, covering nearly 20 years. All participants had a medical exam and a blood test for lead at the start of the study.

The findings revealed a link between low-level exposure and increased risk of premature death. Lead exposure has been associated with hardened arteries, high blood pressure and coronary heart disease, according to the researchers.

“Our study estimates the impact of historical lead exposure on adults currently aged 44 years old or over in the USA, whose exposure to lead occurred in the years before the study began,” said study lead author Dr. Bruce Lanphear. He’s a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.

Historical exposure occurs from lead present in the environment because of past use in fuel, paint and plumbing. There’s also ongoing exposure from foods, emissions from industrial sources and contamination from lead smelting sites and lead batteries, the researchers explained.

“Today, lead exposure is much lower because of regulations banning the use of lead in petrol, paints and other consumer products so the number of deaths from lead exposure will be lower in younger generations,” Lanphear said.

But efforts to reduce environmental lead exposure is still vital, he said.

“Our study calls into question the assumption that specific toxicants, like lead, have ‘safe levels,'” Lanphear said. Rather, he said, it “suggests that low-level environmental lead exposure is a leading risk factor for premature death in the USA, particularly from cardiovascular disease.”

The findings were published online March 12 in The Lancet Public Health journal.

Stemming the risk requires a range of public health measures, Lanphear said in a journal news release, such as “abating older housing, phasing out lead-containing jet fuels, replacing lead-plumbing lines and reducing emissions from smelters and lead battery facilities.”

Dr. Philip Landrigan, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, wrote an editorial published with the study.

“A recurrent theme in lead poisoning research has been the realization that lead has toxic effects on multiple organ systems at relatively low levels of exposure previously thought to be safe,” Landrigan wrote. “A key conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that lead has a much greater impact on cardiovascular mortality than previously recognized.”

Lead Is Far Worse Than We Know

Posted by

0


Story at-a-glance

  • Nearly 535,000 children have blood lead levels high enough to damage their health; 24 million homes still have lead-based paint and contaminated house dust; and nearly 5,300 water systems in the U.S. are in violation of lead and copper rules
  • Researchers analyzed 20 years of data from a nationally representative sample of over 14,000 people, finding a strong correlation between blood lead levels and cardiovascular disease and premature death
  • Adults and children experience negative health effects from lead exposure leading to neurological damage, endothelial dysfunction and cardiovascular disease
  • Reduce your exposure and monitor your health by having lead-based paint professionally eliminated, having your home water tested and your and your children’s blood lead levels measured

By Dr. Mercola

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)1 nearly 535,000 children between 1 and 5 years of age, have blood lead levels high enough to damage their health; 24 million homes contain lead-based paint and elevated levels of contaminated house dust. Costs to the community for lead poisoning in children include up to $53 billion in additional health care costs, tax revenue losses up to $35 billion, special education costs up to $146 million and the direct cost of crime, estimated at $1.7 billion.2

According to the CDC, there is no known identified safe blood lead level for children or adults.3 Children exposed to lead have an increased risk of damage to their nervous system, brain and cognitive development, slowed growth and development and hearing and speech problems.

Although lead is a well-recognized neurotoxin, the U.S. has not paid close attention to exposure over the years. In fact, in 1923 the country introduced leaded gasoline, which triggered near unfathomable repercussions for the global community. Recent research published in the Lancet Public Health Journal found lead levels in adults are strongly correlated with a higher risk of death from cardiovascular complications.4

Study Demonstrates Lead Is a Serious Threat to Children and Adults

Researchers gathered 20 years of data using a nationally representative sample of over 14,000 adults enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994.5 Each of the participants underwent medical testing, including quantifying lead levels in their blood. After analyzing the data, researchers discovered a link between low-level exposure to lead and increased risk of premature death.6

In the past, lead exposure had been associated with high blood pressure, coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis. Researchers point out historical exposure to lead is based on past use of lead-based gasoline, paint and plumbing. Ongoing exposure from food, industrial emissions and water toxicity may also affect blood lead levels in younger children. Lead author of the study, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada, commented:7

“Our study estimates the impact of historical lead exposure on adults currently aged 44 years old or over in the USA, whose exposure to lead occurred in the years before the study began … Today, lead exposure is much lower because of regulations banning the use of lead in petrol, paints and other consumer products so the number of deaths from lead exposure will be lower in younger generations.”

Although scientists have known the toxic effects of lead exposure for centuries, the number of people affected by the cardiovascular effects were surprising, even to the researchers. In the initial 14,000 respondents, 4,400 had died by 2011. From this the researchers calculated approximately 18 percent of deaths could have been prevented by reducing blood lead concentrations to 1.0 micrograms per deciliter.

The researchers extrapolated from the data more than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. every year could be linked lead exposure from all sources.8 Nearly 250,000 of those are the result of cardiovascular disease and 185,000 are related to coronary artery disease. These numbers are nearly 10 times greater than the current estimates of deaths related to lead in adults. Lanphear goes on to say:9

“Nobody had even tried to estimate the number of deaths caused by lead exposure using a nationally representative sample of adults. But if we’re underestimating the impact of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality and other important outcomes beyond IQ, then it might have a big impact on the way we make investments in preventing lead poisoning exposure …

When you start looking at the risk across the entire range of people exposed, all of a sudden the number of affected people balloons. Mostly it’s a numbers thing — there are so many people in the low- to moderate-risk groups that, as long as there are some risks with low-level exposure, many more people are going to die or develop heart disease.”

Brain Cells and Blood Vessels

The scientists included deaths from multiple causes and not just those from heart disease. They found higher blood lead levels were tied to more than 410,000 deaths in the U.S. annually, which was 10 times more than was previously estimated and close to the 480,000 smokers who die every year.10 While smoking, lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet are contributors to cardiovascular disease, environmental factors may also have an impact on increasing your risk of heart problems.11

Although the most recent study has identified an unexpected number of people affected by lead poisoning and cardiovascular changes, previous research has demonstrated the effect lead has on endothelial cells and in crossing the blood-brain barrier. The cellular effect of lead in the brain occurs as it disrupts the blood-brain barrier and triggers encephalopathy and edema, primarily in the cerebellum.12

Infants are at greatest risk for developing cognitive impairments, but adults are also at risk of lead intoxication with higher blood lead levels. Lead-induced hypertension and cardiovascular disease is the result of several disruptions to the endothelial system. Chronic lead exposure promotes oxidative stress and limits nitric oxide availability, which in turn reduces flexibility of the endothelial wall.

Each of the following factors raises the risk for hypertension, endothelial dysfunction, arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. As these changes also occur in the endothelium within the brain, they may possibly have an impact on cognition and risks for dementia in the elderly. Other research has demonstrated that lead:13,14

Generates superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, which in turn reacts with nitric oxide and produces peroxynitrites Stimulates vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and phenotypic transformation
Disturbs vascular smooth muscle calcium signaling Modifies vascular response to vasoactive antagonists
Raises plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 production Suppresses proteoglycan production
Causes endothelial injury Impedes endothelial repair
Inhibits angiogenesis Promotes inflammation

Your Water Supply May Increase Your Risk of Contamination to Multiple Poisons

In a study gathering data from over 30 years, researchers found nearly 8 percent of Americans were drinking water that violates health standards.15 The study was the first to assess nationwide violations in drinking water quality, looking at violations in 17,900 community water systems. In any given year from 1982 to 2015, when data was collected, between 9 and 45 million people were affected.

More than 600,000 observations were made over the life of the study and were more likely to occur in low-income areas using public-owned water systems. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates water quality, but each state has different reporting mandates. Erik Olson, health program director at Natural Resources Defense Council, which analyzed the EPA’s data for its report, characterized the effect of the report:16

“Imagine a cop sitting, watching people run stop signs, and speed at 90 miles per hour in small communities and still doing absolutely nothing about it — knowing the people who are violating the law. And doing nothing. That’s unfortunately what we have now.”

According to the report, more than 5,300 water systems are in violation of lead and copper rules, yet states took action on only 817 cases and the EPA took action in just 88 cases.17 Even worse, the report revealed the EPA was aware many municipalities used loopholes to avoid detecting high lead levels, which means many more communities may be exposing their residents to potentially dangerous levels of lead.

Following an effort to save money, in August 2015, Virginia Tech scientists discovered Flint, Michigan’s, tap water was contaminated with lead at dangerously high levels. One woman reported her water tested 104 parts per billion (ppb) of lead, nearly seven times greater than the EPA’s limit of 15 ppb.18

Between 2014 and 2015, 87 people in Genesee County, Michigan, where Flint is located, contracted Legionnaires’ and 10 died. It was considered one of the worst outbreaks of Legionnaires’ in U.S. history.19 According to the county health director Jim Henry, state officials had blocked the CDC from investigating the outbreak.

Henry suspected Flint River water right from the start, but CDC protocols require an invitation from state officials. County officials requested help from the CDC, but they never showed up because state officials never issued the prerequisite invitation. Such extreme problems with water quality are not exclusive to Flint, as the EPA has not made their water testing and treatment standards into enforceable regulations.

This has left cities and states to police themselves. Yanna Lambrinidou, assistant professor in the science and technology studies department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, who advised the EPA on changes to federal water standards, commented on the possibility of another emergency, such as Flint, Michigan:20 “Do I expect more Flints to happen? I think it’s very, very possible. I worry tremendously about water in other cities.”

Leaded Gasoline Poisoned the Public

In this short video you’ll discover the history of how lead came to be added to gasoline, despite being one of the best known poisons from as early as 2,000 years ago until occupational poisonings occurred during the industrial revolution. For nearly 80 years, lead was used in gasoline, polluting the air children and adults breathed.

Although other less toxic solutions to an engine knock problem were available, lead was chosen as an additive to gasoline since it was the most profitable, and allowed the oil industry to control both the product and their profits. The push to remove lead from gasoline began with the work of the late Clair Patterson, Ph.D, a former geochemist for the California Institute of Technology.

He worked on the Manhattan Project, but is best known for his pioneering work in 1963 to establish the age of the Earth as 4.5 billion years old. He accomplished this by analyzing certain isotopes of lead. However, he struggled with conflicting results in his research until he realized the problem was caused by environmental lead pollution. It wasn’t until he analyzed an ancient pristine ice core sample taken from Greenland that he found the source of the problem.

He was able to determine ice layers corresponding to specific eras in time, such as the Roman era, the Industrial Revolution and the advent of leaded gasoline in the mid-1920s. In the core sample beginning in the 1920s he noted a major spike in lead concentrations. He was the first who fully appreciated lead gasoline had polluted every last corner of the globe. As a result, people worldwide were exposed to lead pollution with very serious health consequences.

Despite massive efforts to discredit him, Patterson pursued the elimination of lead from gasoline. The first hurdle was cleared in 1975 when the U.S. mandated the use of unleaded gasoline to protect catalytic converters. However, it was another 11 years before his persistence caused the complete removal of lead from all gasoline in the U.S As a result, blood lead levels in Americans dropped by nearly 80 percent by the late 1990s.

Strategies to Avoid Lead Exposure

Lead in the blood is typically measured using micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL) or ppb. In the past, the CDC used levels of 40 mcg/dL as acceptable concentrations.21 This was reduced to 10 mcg/dL in the early 1990s, and then 5 mcg/dL in the mid 2010s. However, despite creating thresholds, the CDC cautions no safe level of lead has ever been identified.22 Lanphear commented on the necessity to remove lead contamination completely, saying:23

“Our study calls into question the assumption that specific toxicants, like lead, have ‘safe levels.’ [Rather it] suggests that low-level environmental lead exposure is a leading risk factor for premature death in the USA, particularly from cardiovascular disease.”

The issue of preventing lead poisoning is a pressing matter, whether you have young children in your home or not. Adults are also adversely affected by lead contamination, including neurological dysfunction and cardiovascular damage. Harvard Medical School offers the following suggestions to protect yourself and your family against lead exposure:24

  • Was your home built before 1978? If so, get it inspected to determine whether it has any lead paint
  • Lead paint removal should be done by a certified professional to ensure safety. The dust is highly toxic. For more information on this, see the EPA’s “Lead-Based Paint Activities Professionals” page25
  • Get your water tested for lead
  • Be mindful of the fact certain household objects may also contain lead. For information about lead-containing products and recalls, see the Consumer Products Safety Commission’s website26
  • Get your child and yourself tested for lead. Ideally, all children should be tested at ages 1 and 2, and again at ages 3 and 4 if you live in an older home. It’s also recommended to test your child’s level whenever there’s concern about exposure. A level of 5 mcg/dL or higher is considered dangerous

Your tap water contains fluoride, aluminum, lead, chloride, chlorine and lithium. Use cilantro to purify water

Posted by

0


By using natural cilantro, however, you can purify your water to make it safe to drink in a 100% natural way.

Many people use plastic water filters to to remove undesirable things from tap wtaer, but using cilantro is a more natural, purer way in which to do this.

Tap water has been known to include chlorine, fluoride, and different amounts of dissolved minerals such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, chlorides, sulfates as well as the metals iron, manganese, copper, aluminum, nitrates, insecticides and herbicides.

Scarier still, some tested tap water has shown traces of pharmaceutical drugs such as antibiotics and mood stabilizers, proving you never really know what could be in your water each time you turn on the tap.

Although found only in traces, heavy metal accumulate in your body if not flushed out, and can lead to serious health problems further down the line. Accumulative heavy metals have been linked to Parkinson’s disease and even Alzheimer’s.

Cilantro is so effective at removing these toxins because chemicals bind to cilantro, extracting themselves out of the water when they come into contact with it. It’s like nature’s own water filter.

Douglas Schauer from Ivy Tech Community College in Lafayette, Indiana has been studying the effects of cilantro as a water purifier.

He said “The organic toxins we can take care of pretty easily with a number of different methods, but the only way to really get rid of those heavy metals is to treat them with filtering agents like activated charcoal, but those types of materials are kind of expensive. They are a little expensive for us to use, but they are very expensive for the people living in that region.”

Use a hanful of cilantro into about every 2 litres of water you wish to use to ensure cleaner, better water.

Mechanism identified through which lead may harm neural cells, children’s neurodevelopment.

Posted by

0


Researchers have identified a potential molecular mechanism through which lead, a pervasive environmental toxin, may harm neural stem cells and neurodevelopment in children. The study, from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, suggests that lead exposure can lead to oxidative stress—a process that can change cell behavior and has been linked with health problems—among certain proteins within neural stem cells.

The study—one of the first to integrate genetic analysis in the lab with genomic data from participants in an epidemiological study—will be published online August 26, 2016 inEnvironmental Health Perspectives.

child drinking water

“It is known that lead particularly affects the early stages of neurodevelopment, but the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Our study identified one such key mechanism and has potential implications for therapeutics to treat the neurotoxicity associated with lead exposure,” said Quan Lu, associate professor of environmental genetics and pathophysiology and senior author of the study.

Numerous studies have suggested that lead exposure can be particularly dangerous for children, with the potential to harm their cognitive, language, and psychomotor development and to increase antisocial and delinquent behavior. Although limits on the use of the lead have helped reduce blood lead levels in U.S. children, there are still half a million children aged 1-5 with blood lead levels twice as high as those deemed safe by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Recent incidences of lead contamination in drinking water in Flint, MI, and several U.S. cities highlight the continued threat. And, outside the U.S., lead levels in the environment remain high in many countries where lead has not, or has only recently, been phased out from gasoline, paint, and other materials.

In the new study, researchers explored molecular mechanisms through which exposure to lead may impact neural stem cells, which are cells that can differentiate to form other kinds of cells in the central nervous system and play a key role in shaping the developing brain.

They found that lead exposure induced an oxidative stress response in the cells, and they identified two proteins involved in the process: SPP1, or osteopontin, and NRF2.

Researchers also conducted genetic analyses on blood samples from a group of infants who were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico and NeuroToxicology (ELEMENT) prospective birth cohort—a study aimed at assessing the roles of environmental and social factors in birth outcomes and in infant and child development. They found that genetic variants in SPP1 in some samples were linked with cognition development in the children, whose neurodevelopmental progress was followed through age 2.

Other Harvard Chan School researchers involved in the study included Peter Wagner, PhD ’16, who led the study while a doctoral student at the School; Hae-Ryung Park; Zhaoxi Wang; Rory Kirchner; Yongyue Wei; Li Su; and David Christiani.

Funding for the study came from the Harvard Superfund Research Program

(P42ES16454), NIEHS R01 grants (ES015533, ES022230, and ES006189), and the Harvard NIEHS Center grant (P30ES000002). Wagner was supported by the Joseph D. Brain and Jere Meade Fellowships as well as the NIH Training grant on Interdisciplinary Pulmonary Sciences (5T32HL007118).

“In Vitro Effects of Lead on Gene Expression in Neural Stem Cells and Associations between Upregulated Genes and Cognitive Scores in Children,” Peter J. Wagner, Hae-Ryung Park, Zhaoxi Wang, Rory Kirchner, Yongyue Wei, Li Su, Kirstie Stanfield, Tomas R. Guilarte, Robert O. Wright, David C. Christiani, and Quan Lu, Environmental Health Perspectives, online August 26, 2016, doi: 10.1289/EHP265.

 

Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with lead, uranium and other heavy metals

Posted by

0


Image: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with lead, uranium and other heavy metals

A recent investigation conducted by the Natural News Forensic Food Lab has revealed that the fluoride used in water supplies across the United States is contaminated with an array of toxic heavy metals.

Lead, tungsten and aluminum are just a few of the unsavory elements discovered in sodium fluoride samples. Some of the samples even contained strontium and uranium. The presence of these toxic elements in what were supposed to be “pure” samples of sodium fluoride leads to even more questions about what it is we are really consuming if and when we drink tap water.

The results of the analysis were obtained with the very same ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation that is used by the FDA and even some universities. The analysis was conducted by none other than Mike Adams , director of the lab, and leading researcher in the field of heavy metal food contamination.

The research began by procuring samples of “pure” sodium fluoride from six Chinese manufacturers who export the product for use in municipal water supplies. After preparing each sample for analysis and following strict quality control procedures to ensure accuracy, Adams  was able to run each product through the ICP-MS to be analyzed.

Here are the results from the analysis, as reported by  Natural News :

MAX aluminum: 283,218 ppb
MAX arsenic: 137 ppb
MAX strontium: 9417 ppb
MAX lead: 988 ppb
MAX uranium: 1415 ppb
MAX tungsten: presence confirmed in 2 of 6 samples but quantitative analysis not conducted on tungsten

AVG aluminum: 69364 ppb
AVG arsenic: 70 ppb
AVG strontium: 1751 ppb
AVG lead: 299 ppb
AVG uranium: 239 ppb

The presence of these toxins simply cannot be refuted. Fluoride itself is dangerous enough, without the addition of heavy metals and potentially radioactive isotopes like strontium and uranium. One of the best things you can do for yourself is to start filtering your own water. 

HPV vaccine alert: Lead developer warns that it is all a big scam

Posted by

0


At the 4th International Conference on Vaccination in Reston, Virginia, Dr. Diane Harper, the leading expert responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies which secured the approval of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil™ and Cervarix™, used her speech time to not only make note that cervical cancer is extremely rare in the U.S and 70% of cases resolve themselves naturally without treatment, but also bluntly came clean about the documented and often downplayed side effects directly associated with the vaccine.

Since coming forward with the truth about the devastating consequences of the HPV vaccine, Dr. Harper has been the victim of a relentless campaign, attempting to discredit the validity of her claims. But she has not backed down, and even further clarified her point that, “If we vaccinate 11 year old’s and the protection doesn’t last … we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit. The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.”

Toxic Taps: Lead is Still the Problem.

Posted by

0


lead-pipesLead is one of the most well characterized toxins known to harm and damage your brain and nervous system. It is so toxic that it has been banned in gasoline and children’s toys, and lead paint hasn’t been in use since 1978.

If you purchase a home that contains lead paint, the seller is required to disclose this because of the serious risks it can pose to your family’s health if lead-containing paint chips or paint dust are inhaled or ingested…

You may think we have already legislated this problem away, but millions of water pipes known as service lines are still made from lead, and could be carrying contaminated water into your home on a daily basis.

While the government has attempted to remedy this problem with replacements, the solution has backfired; in addition to not removing all of the lead pipes, the replacement process may actually increase the health risks…

Your Water May Enter Your Home Via Lead Pipes

When your water leaves a treatment plant, it is transported into large pipes, or mains, that run under your city’s streets. These are typically made of cast iron or concrete. The problem occurs when the water flows into smaller pipes known as service lines, which carry the water directly to your home.

An estimated 3.3 to 6.4 million service lines in the United States are made out of lead, and while they are found across the country, they’re especially common in older neighborhoods in the Midwest and Northeast. This, of course, makes it very likely that your home’s tap water is being contaminated by this poison virtually 24/7.

According to Investigative Reporting Workshop:1

“…fragments of corroded lead [from lead service lines] can chip off and be swept into tap water. Additional lead can also get in as the water runs across lead-soldered joints or comes into contact with brass or bronze fixtures. Until recently, such hardware was allowed to be advertised as ‘lead-free,’ even if it contained up to 8 percent lead. A federal law reducing the acceptable amount of lead in these plumbing fixtures to .25 percent will take effect in 2014, although Vermont and California have already adopted such rules.”

So Why Aren’t These Lead Pipes Being Replaced?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did initially require water utility companies to test homes for lead, and if the levels were elevated they would then have to reduce the lead contamination or replace a percentage of their lead service lines each year until the lead levels fell into acceptable ranges.

This was in 1991 (known as the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule). But the water companies fought back, and were able to derail the plan. The EPA amended the rule in 2000 to allow water companies to perform partial pipe replacements, which basically would replace the pipe running from the water main to a home’s property line. If the rest of the line were to be replaced, it would be on the property owner’s own dime.

Partial Pipe Replacements May Raise the Amount of Lead in Your Water – With No Warning

There have been at least 38,000 partial pipe replacements completed or planned in the United States (which would impact about 1.4 million people). There are many more voluntary replacements that are also completed during maintenance or emergency repairs. This may sound like a good thing, but the technique appears to be increasing – not decreasing — water lead levels, at least initially. Investigative Reporting Workshop explained:

“Partial pipe replacements can physically shake loose lead fragments that have built up and laid dormant inside the pipe, pushing them into the homeowners’ water, and spiking the lead levels, even where they previously were not high.

In addition, the type of partial replacement that joins old lead pipes to new copper ones, using brass fittings, ‘spurs galvanic corrosion that can dramatically increase the amount of lead released into drinking water supplies,’ according to research from Washington University. Similar findings have been published by researchers at the Virginia Tech and elsewhere.”

You may or may not receive warning that a partial pipe replacement in your area could temporarily increase your water’s lead levels; while utilities are supposed to let you know, an Investigative Reporting Workshop survey found that only one-third of notifications actually mentioned the potential for lead increase or health risks. As noted by the featured article1:

“…the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention completed a study in 2010 noting that children living in houses in Washington, D.C., where partial pipe replacements were carried out were three times as likely to have elevated levels of lead in their blood as children living in houses in which the old lead service lines remained undisturbed, or were not made of lead.”

Are Water Utilities “Gaming the System”?

You probably assume that if your water contains dangerous levels of lead, you’ll be notified immediately, but this is not always the case. Investigations by Marc Edwards, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, have revealed some water utilities may be “gaming the system” by cherry-picking which houses it tests in order to keep any lead problems hidden. In another tactic, water companies are “gifting” lead service lines to homeowners, and saying they no longer have any responsibility for the pipes. Replacing lead service lines on your property can cost thousands of dollars, and may increase lead levels during, and after, the replacement.

The Health Risks of Lead

Lead is dangerous to both children and adults, and is linked to the following health problems:

For Pregnant Women:

  1. Miscarriages
  2. Premature births or low birth weight
  3. Brain damage, decreased mental abilities and learning difficulties
  4. Reduced growth in young children

For Children:

Damage to the brain and nervous system Behavior and learning problems, such as hyperactivity Slowed growth Hearing problems
Headaches Anemia Seizures Coma and even death

 

For Adults:

Hearing and vision impairment Reproductive problems (in both men and women) High blood pressure and hypertension Nerve disorders
Memory and concentration problems Poor muscle coordination Muscle and joint pain  

Mercury Also Continues to be Spewed Into Great Lakes

Just as you probably assumed lead had long been removed from water supplies, you might also be unaware that mercury – a known poison to your brain, just like lead – is still being released into the environment. A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council revealed that in the Great Lakes region alone, 144 coal-fired power plants pump more than 13,000 pounds of mercury into the air every year,2 contributing to dangerous air pollution and contaminated seafood. The report noted:

“In humans, [mercury] can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. Young children and developing fetuses are most at risk from the effects of mercury, which can damage their brains.”

The EPA recently introduced a standard that would require power plants to cut mercury emissions by 90 percent,3 a move they say will “avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks every year.”4 Unfortunately, no such rule has yet been established for the ongoing problem of lead in drinking water.

Water Purification Chemicals Pose Health Risks, Too

A new study in the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology5 found that pesticides and chemicals used to chlorinate water are associated with allergies. Higher levels of dichlorophenols in your body, as measured in your urine, correlate with increased risk of food allergies.6, 7 Dichlorophenols are chlorine-containing chemicals present in insect and weed control products, as well as being used by water chlorination plants.

Food allergies are on the rise, the most common being milk, eggs, peanuts, wheat, tree nuts, soy, fish and shellfish. Symptoms can range from a mild rash to life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. According to the CDC, food allergy rates increased by 18 percent between 1997 and 20076.

Tap water isn’t the only source of dichlorophenol exposure. You are also exposed to this chemical by consuming pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables. Just remember that your exposure is cumulative, so the more sources of chemical exposure you have, the higher your risk of adverse effects.

What Can You Do About Lead in Your Drinking Water?

You cannot control the municipal service pipes that carry your water, and you may not have the resources to replace lead pipes on your property. Further, the current technique for removal will make the problem worse before it gets better, and you may not be notified if these partial pipe replacements are taking place in your area. So what are your options? Ideally it would be best to get the majority of your water from a private well. Obviously this isn’t an option for many, depending on where you live.

Fortunately Daniel Vitalis has done a great service and created a phenomenal web site, FindaSpring.com, where you can identify local springs that are close to you. There is certainly a hassle factor involved, but if you get the water from a spring, the charge is quite minimal and the only costs are your time and gas to go to and back from the spring. This is clearly the best choice if you have a local spring and the time.

Your safest and most economical choice if you don’t have access to a clean spring or private well is to make sure your water is filtered when it comes out of your tap, or, alternatively, when it comes into your home. Many people will have carbon water filters on their taps even if they have a whole house filter, and this is indeed a good idea. The reason for this is because the internal house pipes could release lead even after being filtered through the whole house, so ideally, you may want to have both. Large carbon filters and a whole house water filtration system will remove dangerous levels of lead, along with the host of other contaminants, including over 500 toxic disinfectant by-products, that are often present in drinking water. In addition, if you know you have lead pipes, and especially if you haven’t installed a filter, the EPA8 also recommends you:

  • Use cold water for drinking or cooking. Never cook or mix infant formula using hot water from the tap.
  • Make it a practice to run the water at each tap before use.
  • Do not consume water that has sat in your home’s plumbing for more than six hours. First, make sure to run the water until you feel the temperature change before cooking, drinking, or brushing your teeth, unless otherwise instructed by your utility.
  • If you use a filter, be sure you get one that is certified to remove lead by the NSF International.

Source: Dr. Mercola