Lead in the blood increases women's mortality

April 2, 2009,

Lead concentrations in the blood are associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart diseases (CHD). A study of 533 American women, published in BioMed Central's open access journal Environmental Health, has shown that those with blood lead concentrations above 8μg/dL were three times more likely to die of CHD.

Naila Khalil worked with a team of researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maryland to study the effects of lead on the mortality of a group of 65-87 year old who had joined an earlier study between 1986 and 1988. These women have been followed ever since and their causes of death recorded. Khalil said, "Despite population-wide declines in blood lead concentrations during the past 30 years, environmental lead exposure continues to be a public concern. Lead is a toxic metal, and our results add to the existing evidence of adverse affects of lead on health as seen in an older cohort who experienced greater historic environmental lead exposure".

The average population blood lead concentration in the most recent US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2001-2002) had declined to 1.45μg/dL. The women studied in Dr. Khalil's research, however, were alive while lead was still used in paints, water systems and as a gasoline additive. They had an average blood concentration of 5.3μg/dL, with some women showing levels as high as 21μg/dL. According to Khalil, "Women with a blood lead concentration above 8μg/dL had a 73% increased risk of dying. In particular, blood lead was associated with almost three-fold risk in CHD mortality".

This study shows that environmental toxicants, such as lead, may account for some of the burden of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. It kills nearly half a million women in the United States every year, more than the next five causes of death combined and nearly twice as many as all forms of cancer, including breast cancer. The authors conclude, "While the damage may already have been done for some older people, it is important that we recognize the harm that environmental exposure to lead can cause. We must remain vigilant and ensure that lead pollution is minimized for the sake of future generations' health".

Source: BioMed Central (news : web)

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all

February 21, 2018
Is the next generation better or worse off because of smartphones? The answer is complex and research shows it largely depends on their lives offline.

Lead and other toxic metals found in e-cigarette 'vapors': study

February 21, 2018
Significant amounts of toxic metals, including lead, leak from some e-cigarette heating coils and are present in the aerosols inhaled by users, according to a study from scientists at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public ...

Tackling health problems in the young is crucial for their children's future

February 21, 2018
A child's growth and development is affected by the health and lifestyles of their parents before pregnancy - even going back to adolescence - according to a new study by researchers at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, ...

Why teens need up to 10 hours' sleep

February 21, 2018
Technology, other distractions and staying up late make is difficult, but researchers say teenagers need to make time for 8-10 hours of sleep a night to optimise their performance and maintain good health and wellbeing.

Electronic health records don't reduce administrative costs

February 21, 2018
The federal government thought that adopting certified electronic health record systems (EHR) would reduce administrative costs for physicians in a variety of specialties. However, a major new study conducted by researchers ...

Low-fat or low-carb? It's a draw, study finds

February 20, 2018
New evidence from a study at the Stanford University School of Medicine might dismay those who have chosen sides in the low-fat versus low-carb diet debate.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jcummins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2009
I truly enjoy physorg.com, but dislike the non-scientific terms such CAN and MAY used in this article to justify the claim that LEAD is the culprit for deteriorating heath in these women.

Why does this science oriented dotcom tollerate such nonsense?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.