By Rukia Henry
In part I of the Eagleton Science and Politics Workshop, we were privileged to learn about lead contamination in the United States, as discussed by Duke University professor of environmental politics, Dr. Megan Mulin. In her presentation, she reviewed how drinking water governance and supply in the United States is managed, and later examined the disparities in the availability of clean drinking water supplied to families. Her presentation reminded us that the issue of lead contamination is still a prevailing issue, whether the water supply is privately or publicly sourced.
The second part of the Eagleton workshop delved more into the Politics of Water and Lead, with a presentation given by Senior Director of Environmental Health at Isles Environmental Health Initiative, Ms. Elyse Pivnick. In Ms. Pivnick’s introduction, she was referred to as “New Jersey’s north star on her work on lead and its impact on personal and public health.” Throughout her presentation, Ms. Pivnick helped the audience to look critically at government standards for water quality, gain better insight into the lead and copper rule, and examine Newark’s water crisis with the aim of educating us on how we can make a difference in this crisis.
Ms. Pivnick began her presentation with an emphasis on the seriousness of lead poisoning. She shared a very profound quote from Dr. Hanna Attisha, a physician in Flint, MI, who noted: “If you were going to put something in a population to keep them down for generations to come, it would be lead.” Dr. Hanna-Attisha is a physician who has studied the effect of lead exposure, for which there is no cure. Necessarily, her words speak to the serious health implications that lead can have on our population. After driving this point, Ms. Pivnick went on to discuss the issue of lead exposure in the context of racial disparities, positing that poor housing quality, an aspect of adverse community environments and social determinants of health, is a disparity that disproportionately affects communities of color. This inequality is a well-recognized fact, especially when considering the words of Dr. Robert Sampson of Harvard University who stated, “Lead toxicity is a pathway through which racial inequality literally gets into the body.” Thus, not only is lead contaminated water an issue, but it is an issue predominant in poor, economically disadvantaged communities of color.
Ms. Pivnick continued her presentation by discussing the general implications of lead exposure and how lead levels are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lead exposure is cumulative, coming from water sources, old buildings, and even the soil. She explained that lead accumulates over our lifetime and is the primary environmental threat to the health of Americans of all ages. The lifetime risk can affect the heart, kidneys, and even the brain, having implications in dementia. To that end, Ms. Pivnick mentioned that there is no safe level of lead in our bodies, according to the CDC. Any amount that you are exposed to is potentially dangerous, however, the CDC primarily characterizes high levels based off of the 2.5% of children with the highest blood lead levels. One of the effects of this characterization is that those with lower levels do not receive services to help with exposure, creating a level of inconsistency and confusion in this matter.
Delving more into the prevalence of lead-contaminated water, Ms. Pivnick shared a study by Virginia Tech and Healthy Babies/Bright Futures where researchers tested tap water from 343 cities in 46 states and found that 79% of homes had high levels of lead in their water supply, with 40% having levels above the level recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children (1parts per billion). To this end, infants who are bottle-fed have more than 10 times the amount of water than adults relative to their body weight, and as such, get 10 times more lead exposure. Researchers have posited that 26% of black babies are exclusively bottle-fed, thus leaving black babies at higher risk. Mistakes in the treatment of water and failure to replace lead pipes can result in changes in water chemistry, and are thus, some of the reasons for increased lead exposure cases in Flint, MI and Newark, NJ Pivnick postulated.
Ms. Pivnick next acquainted attendees with some regulations enforced at the national level which have impacted water-servicing measures, including the Lead and Copper Rule. Under the Lead and Copper Rule introduced in 1986, Congress banned the use of new lead line services but allowed those in the ground to remain. This is due to the fact that lead pipes are expensive to replace, resulting in homes that are still serviced by decades-old lead pipes that are leaking into the water supply. Although the EPA has implemented new rules to help change and treat water supply, scientists have posited that some national rules do nothing to address all the deficiencies that have prevailed in the past years. The unfortunate reality is that the National Drinking Water Advisory Council appointed an ad hoc advisory board to implement new water supply rules, but they excluded EPA researchers and others with scientific background out of concern that more stringent regulations would force cities to replace more pipes than they could afford.
Workers replacing lead pipes in Newark, NJ. Source:https://www.app.com/story/news/2020/01/28/nj-moves-fix-lead-tainted-pipes-and-water-bills-may-get-bigger/4588821002/
In the state of New Jersey, the NJ DEP Chief of Staff, Shan LaTourette, has stated that his staff are “working on creating a state specific version on the Lead and Copper Rule to protect residents beyond federal standard.” Ms. Pivnick noted that when she tried to reach out to gain clarity on what the standard was, she had been unsuccessful. However, she hopes that it includes better water testing, different standards for billing water, and possible pipe replacement. The water crisis of lead-contaminated water in Newark was notably mentioned, because it began with dangerous levels of lead in the water. This led to funding from multiple sources including the state, Essex County bond issues, port authority, and others, all attempting to address the issue. The immense support helped to create a national model of response. For example, laws were passed that allowed lead service lines to be replaced without owner permission, which resulted in the systematic replacement of 18,000 service lines in a record time.
Importantly, in her presentation Ms. Pivnick also brought to radar the fact that there are additional sources of lead poisoning outside of water pipelines. She noted that although a primary source of lead poisoning is from water sources, children and adults are also exposed to lead from premium paint. This exposure is dominant in old buildings that have not been repainted for decades, and again, speaks to the continued disparity in lead exposure in low-income communities, where residents may not be able to renovate old buildings, such as schools and churches. Under new laws, however, residents can now hold landlords accountable for the removal of lead paint.
So what can you do to effect change in this issue? Ms. Pivnick encouraged everyone to consider themselves activists and to advocate for change. She stated that it is important to understand that we can be part of the ecosystem for change, helping to establish a culture of lead poisoning prevention in whichever community we live or work. Furthermore, bringing together health care providers, home inspectors, and other state and local elected officials to work together can effect change. Ultimately, lead poisoning cannot be solved by only one silo.
This workshop on the politics of water and lead was information-packed, highlighting the prevalence of lead-water as well as the underlying racial and economic disparities in lead-water exposure and servicing. However, it was also a reminder about the importance that scientists play in politics and shaping policy. Those with knowledge on a particular environmental, or even health issue, can lend their expertise in informing policy that is evidence-based. Without the proper evidence and guidance from experts, making political decisions on issues like this can be dangerous. So, in exploring the critical issue of lead-water contamination, this workshop greatly demonstrated how science can inform policy when addressing important issues in our communities.
This article was edited by Junior Editor Gina Sanchez and Senior Editor Brianna Alexander.