Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a urine test recently, and it shows that my lead levels are a bit high. 2.3 mcg; rec is less than 1.1. Far from the 80-100 I would need to have true lead poisoning, but I am still wondering why the elevated levels. I have yet to speak with my doctor, but in the meantime...
I had my water tested, right out of the tap, and the PPM is 0.002 - that's almost nothing. Then I tested a bunch of samples, from my Berkey filter, to my thermos, to my shower water, to my stock pot I use to make bone broth, and several others, and they all came back ND (none detected).
My house was built in 1984; I doubt the paint is the issue. Anyone have any ideas as to where the lead might be coming from, and where I should look?
One thing I do know is that lead can accumulate and persist in the body for many years and can take a long time to dissipate. Your high exposure might have occurred a long time ago, not recently. Your hobbies, previous jobs or profession might have exposed you. One source people don't consider is surrounding soil...consider if you're a gardener and grow your own produce?
Last edited by Parnassia; 05-17-2024 at 05:09 PM..
To have a consistently detectable Pb level in urine, you'd have to have had a very high exposure in the past or a consistently continuous exposure...,less likely now than prior to the mid-70s when they took Pb out of house pant and fuel. Prior to thatt most larger cities had measurable Pb levels in the air.
Pb exposure now gets more hype in he press than it deserves. Pb pipes quickly develop an inner film of bacteria, so water doesn't actually touch the Pb....The "safe level" of Pb is just a bureaucratic guess made to make it look like the bureaucrats deserve their pay....There is simply no clinical data to support the regs. The only data we have is from one episode in Iraq where people were gassed and those who showed up in the ER with identifiable symptoms had levels many orders of magnitude higher than the "safe levels."
A simple examination of your blood under the microscope would reveal basophyllic stippling if your Pb exposure is significant.
A simple examination of your blood under the microscope would reveal basophyllic stippling if your Pb exposure is significant.
It isn't set up that way anymore. Cost cutting means to decrease labor costs and that means blood smears are not going to get looked at without abnormalities being present in the CBC. Today the way the CBCs are performed is that the operator loads the instrument with a rack of specimens and the instrument runs all the tests through and if the results are normal based on all parameters set then the results are sent off to the computer by the instrument and autoverified which means the operator does not review the data at all and places all samples in the done rack and on to the next. If a sample has abnormalities in numbers then a review of all of the data by the operator is done and a blood smear evaluation might be required. That is when one looks at all of the microscopic findings in all cells.
Although basophilic stippling is not common in the general population the form of stippling said to be associated with lead poisoning is. It is said to be coarse basophilic stippling as opposed to fine basophilic stippling. Coarse basophilic stippling is very rare. I can only think of a handful of cases that I have encountered. The last one I did see I referred the smear to the pathologist for review and was hoping he would comment on it but not all pathologists are hematopathologists and they specialize among the pathologists as to what they are good at. He ignored my comment. One can lead a horse to water but they can't make them drink.
Basophilic stippling is not specific for lead poisoning. Still, it is associated with ineffective hematopoiesis more often seen in conditions like thalassemia, siderosis iron handling alcohol, dysplasia, and lead poisoning as the most serious conditions.
One thing I do know is that lead can accumulate and persist in the body for many years and can take a long time to dissipate. Your high exposure might have occurred a long time ago, not recently. Your hobbies, previous jobs or profession might have exposed you. One source people don't consider is surrounding soil...consider if you're a gardener and grow your own produce?
I don't see where I would have had a high exposure, tho. Prev job - no, I don't do gardening, I go to the firing range rather infrequently. Your assumption is sound, I just don't know where it could have come from.
I had a urine test recently, and it shows that my lead levels are a bit high. 2.3 mcg; rec is less than 1.1. Far from the 80-100 I would need to have true lead poisoning, but I am still wondering why the elevated levels. I have yet to speak with my doctor, but in the meantime...
I had my water tested, right out of the tap, and the PPM is 0.002 - that's almost nothing. Then I tested a bunch of samples, from my Berkey filter, to my thermos, to my shower water, to my stock pot I use to make bone broth, and several others, and they all came back ND (none detected).
My house was built in 1984; I doubt the paint is the issue. Anyone have any ideas as to where the lead might be coming from, and where I should look?
Thanks in advance.
As someone who has sent thousands and thousands of various types of samples to labs, there is variability in the results (even for good labs). First thing I would do is retest yourself and your water. With the water you should collect the water the same way you use it for consumption. As in, when you fill a glass of water or your coffee pot, do you turn on the faucet and start filling it right away or do you let it run a bit? That can make a difference on lead levels.
Other things to consider, are you near a small airport, your work environment, and consider testing the paint in your house for lead even though being built in1984 should be ok.
Do you fish? Many of us crimped lead shot onto the line with our teeth. I use pliers now but was common back when to just bite down on it.
Food. There have been a number of instances where food sourced from other countries had high lead concentrations.
It should be noted that despite Draconian EPA regs instituted in the 70s that have resulted in complete elimination of Pb in the air and nearly complete elimination of Pb in house dust, there is no measurable improvement in anyone's health and kids' average IQ scores have actually fallen a little.....How worried should anyone be about exposure to Pb in normal, everyday activities?
..and why did the OP have a urine level test in the first place? Did they check for urine porceline while they were at it?
People are going overboard with testing. All containers that are used to collect blood and urine should be acid washed to eliminate Pb as much as possible.
I agree that it is suspicious one tested a urine sample and not a blood sample.
"Blood lead concentrations for healthy adult suburbanites is 7 to 22 μg/100 g whole blood [2]. Urine has a wider range, 4 to 270 μg/g creatinine, for the same population; however, most normal values should be near 16 to 60 μg/g creatinine [4].
Blood lead values are commonly used for biological monitoring. A blood lead value above 40 μg/100 g is indicative of excess exposure and one above 60 μg/100 g requires removal from exposure [8]."
"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 2015 designated 5 µg/dl of whole blood, in a venous blood sample, as the reference BLL for adults. A BLL ≥5 µg/dL is considered abnormal. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Lead Standards require workers to be removed from lead exposure when BLLs are equal or greater than 50 µg/dL (construction industry) or 60 µg/dL (general industry) and allow workers to return to work when the BLL is less than 40 µg/dL."
"A free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) level may be useful in demonstrating the degree of biological abnormalities that exist."
Some functional doctors out there will use the increase excretion of urinary lead after chelation therapy as indicators of lead toxicity. One needs to also do a creatinine level on the urine and look at the urine lead to creatinine ratio rather than simply the lead level as hydration status can cause vast concentration differences based on hydration status.
In short a CBC looking for microcytic anemia with basophilic stippling along with a blood lead level and a FEP test is the typical way to address questions about lead toxicity.
It brings into question as to what is going on. Why the test was done and who ordered the test and why. There is no proper clinical context presented for the testing.
People are going overboard with testing. All containers that are used to collect blood and urine should be acid washed to eliminate Pb as much as possible.
I agree that it is suspicious one tested a urine sample and not a blood sample.
"Blood lead concentrations for healthy adult suburbanites is 7 to 22 μg/100 g whole blood [2]. Urine has a wider range, 4 to 270 μg/g creatinine, for the same population; however, most normal values should be near 16 to 60 μg/g creatinine [4].
Blood lead values are commonly used for biological monitoring. A blood lead value above 40 μg/100 g is indicative of excess exposure and one above 60 μg/100 g requires removal from exposure [8]."
"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 2015 designated 5 µg/dl of whole blood, in a venous blood sample, as the reference BLL for adults. A BLL ≥5 µg/dL is considered abnormal. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Lead Standards require workers to be removed from lead exposure when BLLs are equal or greater than 50 µg/dL (construction industry) or 60 µg/dL (general industry) and allow workers to return to work when the BLL is less than 40 µg/dL."
"A free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) level may be useful in demonstrating the degree of biological abnormalities that exist."
Some functional doctors out there will use the increase excretion of urinary lead after chelation therapy as indicators of lead toxicity. One needs to also do a creatinine level on the urine and look at the urine lead to creatinine ratio rather than simply the lead level as hydration status can cause vast concentration differences based on hydration status.
In short a CBC looking for microcytic anemia with basophilic stippling along with a blood lead level and a FEP test is the typical way to address questions about lead toxicity.
It brings into question as to what is going on. Why the test was done and who ordered the test and why. There is no proper clinical context presented for the testing.
For my edification and to distill it all down, you are saying he should have a blood test done, not a urine test?
As far as the reason, maybe the OP just wanted to know or maybe it was work related. I had annual testing for decades because I worked on contaminated sites and lead was included in the blood tests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
