Sunday, October 21, 2018
M9.4 Heavy Metals
I am curious about CDC's thought process of setting the acceptable blood lead level of 60 μg/dl during the 1970s. If there were no significant meta-analysis studies that proved at which blood lead level was dangerous, how did CDC decide on that blood lead level? Then when newer studies were published, and CDC decided to drop that level to 10 μg/dl, I am still confused on why they chose that level. Since there are studies showing the serious health effects lead exposure, I would assume CDC to put out a statement to inform the public that even if there is no safe level established, due to findings of negative health effects, any type of exposure to lead should be taken seriously. I feel that just by lowering the acceptable blood lead level is not a preventative measure to protect public health.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Sandy,
ReplyDeleteYes, you're right, it seems like the CDC just pulled those numbers out of nowhere, then when there some studies done on the subject, they dropped it dramatically. I mean, the original limit 500% higher than the newer one of 10 μg/dl, so what about all the people that had been exposed to higher levels of lead than should really been permitted throughout that time before the fix?
Hi Sandy
ReplyDeleteI feel like most things we learn as we go. That's the same for large companies and the CDC. The thought they had the level right and as technology advanced and testing got better over the years they determined a level that was safer. I hope the CDC does this for BPA and the like. Dan