Key statement: But based on this more comprehensive view of the data, we are forced to admit that the furor over this issue seems way out of proportion to the actual dangers to the children from lead exposure.
Two researchers who first warned about higher levels of lead in the water supply of Flint, Michigan concluded that Flint's children were not poisoned. Dr. Hernan Gomez and Dr. Kim Dietrich said in a column published on July 22 in the right-wing New York Times:
Words are toxic, too. Labeling Flint’s children as “poisoned,” as many journalists and activists have done since the city’s water was found to be contaminated with lead in 2014, unjustly stigmatizes their generation....
But there is no reason to expect that what happened for a year and a half in Flint will inevitably lead to such effects. The casual use of the word “poisoned,” which suggests that the affected children are irreparably brain-damaged, is grossly inaccurate. In a city that already battles high poverty and crime rates, this is particularly problematic....
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now considers a blood lead level in children of 5 micrograms per deciliter and higher to be a “reference level.” This measure is intended to identify children at higher risk and set off communitywide prevention activities.
It does not suggest that a child needs medical treatment. In fact, the C.D.C. recommends medical treatment only for blood lead levels at or above 45 micrograms per deciliter. Not a single child in Flint tested this high. This was a surprise for several visiting celebrities, who requested a visit to the “lead ward” of Hurley Children’s Hospital.....
Nonetheless, the reference level has been misinterpreted by laypeople — and even public health officials — as a poisoning threshold.After Flint’s water was switched from Detroit’s municipal system to the Flint River, the annual percentage of Flint children whose blood lead levels surpassed the reference level did increase — but only from 2.2 percent to 3.7 percent. One of us, Dr. Gómez, along with fellow researchers, reported these findings in a study in the June issue of The Journal of Pediatrics, which raised questions about how risks and statistics have been communicated regarding this issue.
Moving from evaluating percentages to examining actual blood lead levels in children, we found that levels did increase after the water switched over in 2014, but only by a modest 0.11 micrograms per deciliter. A similar increase of 0.12 micrograms per deciliter occurred randomly in 2010-11. It is not possible, statistically speaking, to distinguish the increase that occurred at the height of the contamination crisis from other random variations over the previous decade.For comparison, consider the fact that just 20 years ago, nearly 45 percent of young children in Michigan had blood lead levels above the current reference level. If we are to be consistent in the labeling of Flint children as “poisoned,” what are we to make of the average American who was a child in the 1970s or earlier? Answer: He has been poisoned and is brain-damaged. And poisoned with lead levels far above, and for a greater period, than those observed in Flint.People were understandably dismayed by the government’s apparent failure to act quickly to switch back the water once concerns were raised in Flint. But based on this more comprehensive view of the data, we are forced to admit that the furor over this issue seems way out of proportion to the actual dangers to the children from lead exposure....In the case of Flint, even when taking into account the change in the water supply, the decrease in blood lead levels over the last 11 years has actually been a public health success. The Journal of Pediatrics study found that between 2006 and 2015, the percentage of Flint children testing above the reference level decreased substantially, to 3.7 percent from 11.8 percent.It is therefore unfair and inaccurate to point a finger at Flint and repeatedly use the word “poisoned.” All it does is terrify the parents and community members here who truly believe there may be a “generation lost” in this city, when there is no scientific evidence to support this conclusion.... Rest of column.
Credentials? Here are their credentials:
Hernán Gómez, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, emergency medicine pediatrician and medical toxicologist at Hurley Medical Center, was the lead author of the study “Blood Lead Levels of Children in Flint, Michigan: 2006-2016.” Kim Dietrich, a professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, is the principal investigator of the Cincinnati Lead Study.
This is going to make more than a few heads explode. How many people will be more upset that their narratives were crushed than are happy that the kids were not poisoned?
13 comments:
I’m sure CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/NYT/ will all run the updated story
/sarc
I’m not sure what your point is KF. That people concerned about environmental hazards to public health are hypochondriacs? To me, this is like bragging about a cold day in December to a global warming advocate. I think the real danger here is trying to find an anecdote to discredit environmentalism.
That's wonderful news! Most do not need medical treatment for sepsis.
But, no one knew that until all the children were tested.
When any lead shows up, what you should do is remove the source of exposure.
Please check CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics on lead exposure and developmental risks.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue where facts are nit picked for political purpose.
Pump that Flint water into Madison and see whose heads explode then...
Unfortunately, feel good stories like kids drinking water fine, no lead, doesn’t make for good headlines. However, kids poisoned, lead dripping from faucets AND the sky is falling does. I don’t need no stinking facts, I have already made my mind up!
Your facts, however interesting, are irrelevant to those who would sow panic and hysteria in their efforts to blame Republicans for this disaster.
I bet the two researchers wouldn’t let their family members drink Flint’s “contaminated” water. Fix the problem and stop wasting money to save face.
@10:23am. We don’t need Flint’s H2o in Madison. We have Bear Creek in a city that is not run by Democrats.
11:39
Just like conservatives to conserve all the clean water for themselves. Drain the Bear Creek swamp.
@9:56 - please FO check CDC recommendations. They clearly state that levels below .5 need only be MONITORED. Therefore, levels between .2-.3 are obvioulsy NOT “poisoning”...as our much loved media would like us to believe.
@12:13pm. Your comment reminds me of the saying, you can’t fix stupid. Good luck.
"2016- FLINT, MI - The U.S. Senate approved a package earlier Saturday morning by a 78-21 vote that's expected to provide Flint up to $170 million to aid in the city's water crisis.
A portion of the $10 billion Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act includes a package that would make Flint the only community eligible for $100 million in new federal drinking water state revolving funds after a federal emergency was declared by President Obama in January 2016."
Federal bailout for local government after it mismanaged and squandered all of the local tax dollars and borrowed money received.
This is EXACTLY what Lumumba is hoping for, but it's not going to happen. All this manufactured hysteria is only driving more businesses and taxpayers away from the city that CLAIMS (falsely) the water is contaminated. Idiots!
I'm glad the percentage of toxic levels decreased from 11% to 3% but the percentage should be 0%.
Parents should have been informed immediately of the unacceptable levels so that they could buy filters or bottled water.
It's amazing to me that conservatives want the government to make health decisions for children without informing the parents a risk exists.
I also think there's a difference between hysteria and being angry to not have been informed!
Post a Comment