Two-thirds of young children in Chicago are exposed to dangerous lead levels in water, study finds
Anika
Link to the news article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/health/lead-contaminated-water-chicago-children/index.html
Link to the peer-reviewed article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2815850#google_vignette
Lead is a hazardous metal that has been widely used, resulting in significant environmental pollution and health issues across various regions globally. 1,2 Lead exposure continues to be a significant public health concern due to its serious adverse effects. Lead is a cumulative toxicant, and its exposure can impact various body systems which include neurological, cardiovascular, chronic kidney diseases, gastrointestinal, and hematological. 3,4 Lead stored in the bones can be released into the bloodstream during pregnancy, posing a risk to the developing fetus.
Human exposure to lead is evaluated by measuring its concentration in the blood. There is no known threshold of lead exposure that is considered safe, as any amount can have harmful effects. While lead exposure from common sources like gasoline and paint has decreased in the U.S., lead contamination in drinking water remains a significant public health issue. Household plumbing systems that include lead pipes, solders, and fittings pose a risk of lead contamination in water.1 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes may contain lead compounds that can leach into the water supply.
In the study published in May 2024 in the journal JAMA Pediatrics1, Huynh et al. examined the extent of lead contamination in drinking water in Chicago and modeled its potential impact on children under the age of six. This cross-sectional study analyzed household lead test data from January 2016 to September 2023, with 38,385 tests conducted (Figure 1). About 68% of Chicago children under six (roughly 129,000 children) are exposed to lead-contaminated water, with 19% using unfiltered tap water as their primary source. Their models show that extended exposure to contaminated water could lead to a notable rise in blood lead levels (BLLs), with an estimated rise of 103% after 150 days of exposure. In their machine learning model, they chose 1 ppb as the threshold because it reflects the detection limit of lead tests and aligns with the fact that no amount of lead in drinking water is considered safe.
Figure 1. Estimated Lead Exposure and Relative BLL Increase Attributable to Lead-Contaminated Drinking Water Among Children Younger Than 6 Years, Stratified by Race1
Huynh et al. in their study highlighted that neighborhoods with primarily Black and Hispanic populations were much less likely to undergo lead testing, while simultaneously experiencing greater exposure to contaminated drinking water. These results underscore racial disparities in both the frequency of testing and the levels of exposure. The study pointed out that the city's south and west sides are characterized by high risk levels and low testing rates which are the result of the historical legacy of segregation and economic neglect (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Census Tract–Level Maps of Chicago, Illinois, With Indicators of Lead Exposure and Screening1
In a recent article from CNN news, Mira Cheng summarizes key findings from a JAMA Pediatrics paper, highlighting that 75% of residential blocks in Chicago were affected by lead-contaminated water. She also includes quotes from Dr. Benjamin Huynh, the lead author of the JAMA Pediatrics paper, who emphasizes the disheartening reality of seeing such widespread lead exposure in 2024. She also highlighted why researchers chose 1 ppb as the cutoff to measure lead concentration. The news article also explains how lead accumulates in the body, primarily in the teeth and bones, where it can build up over time. It highlights that lead is particularly dangerous for children under six, as their developing bodies absorb more lead than adults, and their brains and nervous systems are more vulnerable to its toxic effects. A majority of the article dives into the many implications of the scientific paper's findings, exploring the various sources of lead contamination in drinking water. It also draws attention to the fact that many cities across the U.S. continue to rely on lead pipes installed before the EPA's ban, contributing to ongoing exposure risks. In the news article, Mira Cheng also references the Flint water crisis to underscore that lead-contaminated drinking water remains a critical issue, emphasizing the need for stronger policies to address the problem. The article also stresses the importance of having children tested for lead exposure and educates the public on where to access these tests.
Overall, I believe Cheng did an outstanding job of distilling the key points from the JAMA Pediatrics article and presenting them clearly to the public. I especially appreciate how she began the article by referencing the relevant scientific study, providing a strong foundation for the discussion. What stood out to me was her use of quotes from the lead author, which added both depth and credibility to the article, offering readers expert insights directly from the source of the research. I found the ending of the article particularly powerful, especially the line, "Lead cannot be seen, tasted, or smelled, so testing is the only way to know the quantities of lead in drinking water." This serves as a reminder of the hidden dangers of lead contamination and encourages readers to take proactive steps—like testing their water and using proper filtration—to protect their health, making it a timely call to action for increased awareness and prevention.
However, the article does have its shortcomings. While the research also addresses environmental racism, this aspect isn't explored in much depth in the news article. I believe the article could have benefited from a deeper focus on the efforts required to address environmental racism, especially in terms of enhancing outreach and providing better support to the communities most affected by it. Additionally, I believe including a map from the study would have been a valuable visual tool to help the public better understand which areas of Chicago are most affected by high risk levels.
Despite these limitations, I think Cheng did a great job summarizing the study, and the news article is presented in a way that is both clear and engaging for the readers. So, I would rate it 8.5 out of 10.
References:
(1) Huynh, B. Q.; Chin, E. T.; Kiang, M. V. Estimated Childhood Lead Exposure From Drinking Water in Chicago. JAMA Pediatr. 2024, 178 (5), 473. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0133.
(2) Tong, S. Environmental Lead Exposure: A Public Health Problem of Global Dimensions.
(3) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
Great analysis! This is a very important, but somewhat disheartening research topic. Having an accurate picture of lead exposure and clearly understanding the exposure sources is critical for ensuring public safety, especially for children. You did a great job summarizing why lead exposure, in particular, is a very hazardous. I agree that it was critical for Cheng to explain why the 1 ppb cutoff was chosen. This fact alone highlights the severity and the bioaccumulative nature of lead exposure. I wish that Cheng would have further explained the magnitude of this number, as it is hardly comprehensible to me (a person actively pursuing a science education), it likely loses meaning when being conveyed to the general audience. It might have been interesting to give some reference or explanation for the difference between the 1 ppb and the 15 ppb used by the EPA as this seems like an obvious area for regulatory action.
ReplyDeleteI also strongly agree with you that Cheng probably should have prioritized the discussion of environmental racism more, as the results of the study very clearly lay out this conclusion.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Hannah! Yes, You're right. Mira Cheng is a medical student and the current Global Health Media Fellow at Stanford University (https://journalism.stanford.edu/people/mira-cheng), and she’s doing some impactful work in global health.
DeleteI completely agree with your point about the need for more clarity on the significance of the 15 ppb lead level, especially since that number can be difficult to fully grasp. While I appreciate that Cheng references the EPA’s action level for lead contamination, I think it would be helpful to better explain the difference between the 1 ppb threshold and the 15 ppb action level used by the EPA. To better explain this to the readers, I think it could also be useful to provide more context around the range of lead levels found in the study. For example, eFigure 1(C) on page 7 of the supplemental info shows the density plot of lead levels in Chicago drinking water, which could have been used to provide a clearer visual representation of the range of contamination and help make the 15 ppb number more tangible.
I also agree that the issue of environmental racism is central to the study’s findings, and I think a deeper exploration of this topic would have strengthened the overall impact of the article. Thanks again for sharing your valuable insights!
You did a great job with your article summary, and I agree with your rating! Cheng accurately stated where the lead test data came from, and I appreciated her brief explanation of the machine learning methodology in the study. I think it may have been worth noting in the news article that the data on Chicago's demography came from other sources, like the 2020 Census and the Chicago Department of Public Health. An important limitation to the study that the authors note is that they do not have representative data on baseline blood lead levels in Chicago, so their estimates on health outcomes are not the most accurate. Even though this limitation wasn't mentioned in the CNN article, there was no mention of a definite way in which children could be affected. Instead, Cheng discussed conditions that have been linked to lead exposure. She didn't say anything extreme or inaccurate like "all children in Chicago under the age of 6 will have impaired function of blood cells."
ReplyDeleteOne thing that seemed a little strange to me was the parallel drawn between Chicago's lead problem and the lead contamination in Flint, Michigan. This is a really interesting comparison, but it was the one thing that made the CNN article feel disjointed to me. Flint was introduced through a quote from Dr. Monna Hanna-Attisha, whose research had exposed the crisis. The wording of it made it seem like Dr. Monna Hanna-Attisha was not an expert on lead poisoning in Chicago because she wasn't involved in the study at Johns Hopkins. In my opinion, the quote didn't seem specific to the situation in Chicago. I assume the quote was from this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if she had spoken about environmental racism when the pollution in Flint was first exposed in 2015. Flint and Chicago definitely have similar problems, but it's likely that more people know about lead pollution in Flint than they do lead pollution in Chicago. I think Cheng was trying to bring awareness to lead in Chicago's water by comparing it to water in Flint, but I think she should have talked about it in a standalone paragraph and not just through quotes from Dr. Monna Hanna-Attisha.
Hi Genevieve, thank you for pointing out the external data sources and methodology used in the study. I agree with you that in addition to the American Community Survey and 2020 Census, the researchers also incorporated data from the Chicago Health Atlas, which provides health metrics at the neighborhood level, and building footprint data from the City of Chicago. They also included survey responses from the Healthy Chicago Survey (2021-2022) on residents' primary sources of drinking water. Since many households did not test their water for lead, the researchers used machine learning techniques to extrapolate the risk of lead contamination across different neighborhoods. By combining the partial test results with these additional data sources, they were able to estimate the likely risk of lead contamination on a block-by-block basis, which helped fill in the gaps where direct water test data was missing. However, the study also mentioned the limitations of this in great detail.
DeleteI totally agree with your insights about limitations, even though they were not there in the CNN article, but Cheng was careful in her reporting, focusing on conditions linked to lead exposure without making any definitive claims about children's health.
I also appreciate your thoughts on the Flint comparison. I completely agree that the reference to Dr. Hanna-Attisha could have been framed more carefully. It’s important to avoid giving the impression that she wasn’t an expert on lead poisoning, especially since she played such a key role in exposing the Flint water crisis. Clear language would help make that connection more accurate.
Great post! I think the is a great article that accurately described the data from the publications and how are these values obtained. I agree with your rating and see the benefit of discussing environmental racism, but also see that it could have been expanded to another entirely new article. I also agree that some sort of map should have been included. I also find the supplementary citations on other data around this topic (budget of the Biden administration, ) very helpful, giving directions to the discussion as well as helpful resources to the audiences. For example, the lead-testing link would be extremely helpful if I was a parent who clicked on the post because of the key word "children".
ReplyDeleteThanks, Richard! I completely agree with your insights. I really like your point about environmental racism—it is such an important issue that could easily be expanded into its own article. I actually came across a medical news article that focuses entirely on how lead poisoning disproportionately affects Black communities, and it was eye-opening.
DeleteOn the subject of citations, I think you’re absolutely spot-on. Mira Cheng did a fantastic job gathering a variety of credible sources, from the JAMA Pediatrics journal article to the Johns Hopkins news release. The EPA citations were especially helpful, covering everything from basics information on lead poisoning to action levels and how to check if lead is in your drinking water. One reference I found particularly useful was from the CDC, which focuses on Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning. I think the article not only raises awareness about the issue but also provides practical resources and guidelines for readers to take steps in preventing exposure, which I really appreciated. Cheng did a great job including these resources, making the article both informative and actionable for those directly affected.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—your comment really added to the discussion and helped me reflect on some of the key points in the article!
This was a great critique! Cheng did a great job pulling relevant quotes and referencing experts and agencies. I think this is a good example of an article that is appropriately political as it references EPA proposals, Biden's funding plan, and an implicit call to action for local governments and parents. I might have misunderstood this while reading the scientific article but they mention that the study is in agreement with previous findings that Black and Hispanic households disproportionately drink bottled water as opposed to White households, who predominantly drink tap water. Given this, can you elaborate how Black and Hispanic households disproportionately exposed to contaminated drinking water? I did some quick math using the table that you included and it seems that there's a higher percentage of White children affected from using unfiltered tap water relative to the children population compared to Black or Hispanic children. I understand the racial disparities relating to testing but I'm a bit confused on the racial disparities when it comes to exposure given that the scientific article mentions that Black and Hispanic responses report the lowest rate of unfiltered tap water use compared to their White counterparts.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Terasa! I totally agree with your point on citations. Cheng indeed did an excellent job. Given her background as a medical student, it makes perfect sense to me that she understands the importance of providing accurate information to the public, along with practical resources to help prevent exposure.
DeleteI can see how the numbers around racial disparities might be a bit confusing at first. I had to take a closer look too, but once you look at the data in terms of percentages, it clears things up. Table 3 in the article should help with that. Here’s a breakdown of information from Table 3:
For lead exposure, when the percentage of Black or Hispanic people in a block increases, the level of lead exposure tends to go up as well. For example, a 10% increase in the Black population results in 4.44% increase in lead exposure, and a 10% increase in the Hispanic population results 11.21% increase. This suggests that as these communities grow in size, more people in those areas are likely to be exposed to lead. This could be due to factors like older housing, bad water quality, or poorer infrastructure. The negative numbers for White populations indicate a decrease in lead exposure, which likely reflects better access to resources and better-maintenance of infrastructure.
Similarly, racial disparities were scene in lead screening as well: As the percentage of Black or Hispanic people in a block increases, fewer people are being tested for lead exposure, which implies that these communities are being screened less for lead poisoning.
I hope this explanation helps clear up any confusion!
Great job on the analysis Anika! I agree that the CNN article was very well written. Everything they wrote was factually accurate and had a source or quote to support the information. I really appreciated the context that Mira brought to the article. I think it is really important for the public to realize this study has implications across the country not just Chicago. By mentioning lead lined pipes and bioaccumulation of lead in the body it helps the reader feel like this has importance to them too. I was a little unsure how I felt about their reference to the Flint crisis. On one hand it is a water crisis that most people know about and brings relevance to this article. But on the other hand it isn't really tied to the JAMA article at all besides the fact they both are about contaminated water sources. What is your opinion on the inclusion of the Flint water crisis in the CNN article?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your inputs, Emily! I understand your perspective on the reference to the Flint water crisis. I agree that the Flint situation isn’t directly related to the JAMA study, and it may seem like an unrelated comparison at first glance. But I can see why Cheng might have included it in the article. By referencing Flint, I think she tried to emphasize the urgency of the issue in Chicago and raise awareness about the broader risks. Flint crisis serves as a clear-cut reminder of how bad things could get if steps aren’t taken to address lead contamination in Chicago’s water system.
DeleteAdditionally, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha (the pediatrician) highlighted rising lead levels in children’s blood to expose the Flint crisis, which ties into the JAMA study’s focus on childhood lead exposure. I think the focus on children and lead makes the comparison relevant, even though the Flint crisis had many other issues besides lead contamination. And I believe that’s why Cheng specifically highlighted Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha’s name while talking about flint crisis in CNN article.
Hi Anika great review! This is one of the best news articles that we have looked at so far in this class in my opinion. It does a really great job of using the data from the research article to inform and discuss the problem. The call to action also is clear, and it drives the importance of efforts to address this problem without adding too much despair. I think that the article did address the issues of inequality and racism, it's hard to go too much in depth with these types of issues when you don't have enough space to really go in depth. Maybe she should have addressed it one last time in the last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI looked up the writer of the article because she writes science well and wasn't surprised to see that she is/was a part of the journalism program at Stanford University, but also is/was a medical student.
Yes Kayleigh, the article indeed did a great job in presenting the data from various resources to clearly discuss the problem. It was well balanced in that way. Yeah, you are right, bringing up the issue of racial disparities again at the end would have helped tie everything together, giving a clearer picture from JAMA pediatrics article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
DeleteGreat work Anika! I feel like this article went above and beyond in its representation of the article, doing additional research to help put the results into context. Talking about how Chicago falls just short of being required to replace their pipes, regulations about leading, advisements what to do to keep yourself safe from lead, and much more. However, I feel like their focus on the research itself was a bit shallow. It feels weird when they say that the papers methodology was AI with algorithms, which feels a bit reductive and evokes the idea of generative AI in the minds of uniformed readers, which is not what was used in the research. They also don't mention some of the more complicated details as to why the amount of lead exposure is roughly the same based on race but also effects minority neighborhoods more, such as minorities preferring bottled water in comparison to white households drinking tap water. I overall agree with your assessment that this is 8.5/10.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Leo! About the mention of machine learning and AI, it looks like the CNN article may have pulled that directly from the Johns Hopkins press release about the JAMA Pediatrics paper. While it makes sense for scientific press releases to include all the details about the methods and resources used in a study, bringing up AI in a general news article like CNN might be a bit misleading for a broader audience, especially since it doesn't fully explain how the technology was applied in the research (and of course there's no need to dive into that kind of detail in a news piece— as that could distract readers from the main issue.)
DeleteI also agree with you that the CNN article missed an important piece of the story- the racial disparities highlighted in the study. The focus was mainly on lead exposure in children, but it didn't address the racial disparities that were a key part of the findings.