# Did you decline 12 month bloodwork?



## DklovesMkandJK (Jun 18, 2007)

Jack's Pedi (who was mine pedi and more like family than anything else, I feel is a pretty reasonable guy - understanding of AP and very supportive of us leaving J intact) advised us to get 12 month bloodwork for Jack.

He said it was to check for lead and anemia. I was on the fence about it until he said that it was only two vials and he would only have to be held down for a minute. I'm a pretty big fan of minimizing any pain and just couldn't put him through it considering it was a 'just to check' thing versus something he really needed. (so far he is up to date on vaxes and Pedi feels really strongly about that - I am starting to do research)

Anyway....long story short - did anyone else decline the bloodwork? Did you do it and are glad you did?

(It's only coming up now because our next well baby check is coming up soon and I have the sneaking suspicion it's going to come up!)


----------



## momuveight2B (Mar 17, 2006)

I decline it but only because I am aware of the risk factors for lead based paint exposure and we do not have any exposure. I am also not worried about anemia. A finger stick is relatively painfree and will give you some info on anemia, if it seems low then you could do the bloodwork. My children were breastfed at that age and getting other sources of iron so I didn't feel any concern. Sometimes the docs will try to tell you that breastmilk doesn't have enough iron but LLL and Kellymom have info on that. While breastmilk is lower in iron than formula or milk it is more available and better used by the child's body.

Drawing blood on a small child is not painless and I feel it is traumatic. I worked in hospitals and had to help hold down children and I won't put my own through that unless there is a medical emergency or need for surgery.


----------



## Trillian (Nov 21, 2006)

I would not decline the bloodwork. Yes, it is "just to check" but for some non-negligible percentage of children the results do come back abnormal. And I would want to find out that way, even if it involves a small amount of pain, instead of waiting until the effects of high lead or low iron became pronounced enough to notice without the test.


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

I would decline it. If you're really worried about anemia, you can prick the finger to see. If that's abnormal, then do the blood testing.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Please get lead tested. Lucy's lead poisoning was caught at that 12-month blood test. Her lead was so high that she had to be admitted to the pediatric unit in the hospital that day and began a 19-day oral chelation protocol (outpatient). It was horrible. Lead poisoning is serious stuff, and if you think that you're immune because your kid isn't chewing on windowsills, think again.

Sorry to be so strident, but I feel really strongly about this. The blood test caught her lead poisoning early, and the chelation reduced her levels immensely, and hopefully she won't have any residual developmental issues. Chances are your son will test out fine, but I vote "better safe than sorry" on this one.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

I had it done, and feel very strongly that I made the right decision. Even at low levels, lead can cause irreversible damage to a growing child's brain. The cost-benefit ratio really made sense to me.

My daughter was not greatly distressed by the blood draw. She just made one little distressed sound, and then it was over and she was fine. You can ask for a little EMLA cream if you're worried - it's a topical anesthetic that numbs the skin.

One thing that really seems to help for blood draws and shots is if my husband and I hold our daughter ourselves, rather than having a nurse or technician hold her down. I sit her on my lap, tuck her feet between my knees, and one hand while her father holds the other hand and looks into her eyes. We explain what is going to happen in a calm voice and using simple terms. Minimizing fear in this way really helps to minimize pain - procedures hurt much more when children are tense and scared.


----------



## elmh23 (Jul 1, 2004)

they didn't offer, but i would decline it unless you feel he has either.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

We have it done (lead test)...it's only a finger prick at our practice, but the arm draw is more accurate. You can request a topical numbing agent if that would help (my little hates being forced to hold still...it's not the pain that bugs her, it's the "not moving"). But as the news stories show...lead can trun anywhere. Dust in the house, dirt on the street near traffic or an old home, in the water, paint, soft plastic products (like extension cords or holiday lights), crayons, etc.

Lead poisoning is treatable if caught early, and that's worth a yearly finger prick or arm draw.


----------



## ecoteat (Mar 3, 2006)

We haven't done it, but that's mostly because we just haven't gotten around to it. The ped brought it up at our last appt and said to just drop by the lab when it was convenient. She also said none of her kids have had it done; she hasn't gotten around to it either. I guess if it isn't that important to her, I'm not going to get too worried about it.


----------



## *guest (Oct 7, 2005)

I did not decline it. They did an arm draw with a butterfly needle, and she didn't flinch. Did not like holding still, however. She sat in my lap, and it was over in seconds. The lab tech told me that a finger prick can be more painful due to the squeezing that sometimes has to happen to get enough blood out. I found out we have to work on her iron better with diet, so I'm not sorry we did it. I thought we were doing well (breastfed, ate variety of food), but guess not as well as I thought. Lead is also not just about old paint. There are a lot of environmental factors at work. I was also surprised at our lead level, and we live in a new house!


----------



## meisterfrau (Sep 24, 2005)

I declined it at first, then ended up having it done later. I was terrified to have it done because of how traumatized she would be. I took her to a children's hospital to have the blood drawn. It took forever to get her in (we waited a REALLY long time in the waiting room), but I think it was worth it. They were VERY good at getting blood from such a young child.

They had these reclining seats that they had me sit in and hold her, so that it wasn't like we were holding her down on a table. She was much more relaxed that way, I think. My DD is terrified of any kind of medical person, and she started crying as soon as she saw the woman in her scrubs, and started squirming and crying when she tried to touch her...but she didn't cry any harder or differently when she actually had the blood drawn, which tells me it didn't hurt her very much, or she'd have been screaming. As soon as it was over, they gave her a sticker and she calmed right down.


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

We had it done with the fingerstick method. Really, it wasn't a big deal. (And, I'm BIG on minimizing tests, delaying vaxes etc...)

She wasn't thrilled about it, but recovered once we left the office.

I agree with PP about the lead issue. Catch it early or really suffer the consequences.


----------



## DklovesMkandJK (Jun 18, 2007)

I'll make sure to ask at our next appointment about the finger prick. I am totally open to that and I think it is a great idea! Thanks!


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DklovesMkandJK* 

Anyway....long story short - did anyone else decline the bloodwork? Did you do it and are glad you did?


I had no idea that this was even done. We stopped taking Little Guy to well baby visits at six months when we realized the only reason to take him was for vaccinations (which we're delaying and being selective). Baby Girl was born at home and besides FIL has never been seen by a doctor.

I'll have to look at the symptons of lead poisoning.


----------



## DandeCobb (Jul 20, 2006)

another baby with high lead levels here, i would also encourage you to get it done, both of these can be done with a finger prick but in my opinion, one blood draw done by someone with expereince is MUCH less traumatic then a finger prick for 2 tests (the lead test by finger prick requires a decent amount of blood so it can take awhile and involve lots of pulling and pushing on the finger to get as much as you need) we do lead levels every month, we use EMLA (lidocaine topical numbing cream) DS sits in my lap and i hold out his arm and it just takes a minute, he is fine by the time we are out of the room. good luck with your decision.


----------



## snomnky (Jul 9, 2006)

wow, ds's ped gave us a lead questioner, but never had him tested, maybe i should...


----------



## DandeCobb (Jul 20, 2006)

mosts peds use one of those, and most of the questions are to assess your risk of exposure to lead paint/water/soil in and around your home. But, the FDA and whoever else 'THEY' are, are finding lots of lead in lots of stuff made in china, painted toys, vinyl material and cheap metal and painted plastic jewelry. so, yeah, a lead test wouldn't be inappropriate for anyone!


----------



## mandolyn (Nov 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momuveight2B* 
My children were breastfed at that age and getting other sources of iron so I didn't feel any concern. Sometimes the docs will try to tell you that breastmilk doesn't have enough iron but LLL and Kellymom have info on that. While breastmilk is lower in iron than formula or milk it is more available and better used by the child's body.

A quick comment on this... after DD came back with borderline anemia results, I read a lot on the subject. She was exclusively breastfed for 7.5 months, and I thought this would protect her. Turns out, the minute they have any food other than BM, it becomes more difficult for their bodies to absorb the iron and more important that they get it from other sources in their diets.

Mandy


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

I would definitely decline. I've never heard of routine bloodwork for a 12-month-old. We try to avoid medical procedures all together unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

I would most certainly recommend 12-month bloodwork. As others have noted, there are many sources of lead besides lead paint, and it is virtually impossible to be certain that your child has no level of exposure. Mine had elevated levels despite having no lead paint in our apartment whatsoever.

Please be aware that lead exposure is not simply a matter of having "lead poisoning" or not. Lead exposure is a spectrum and the higher the levels, the more severe and noticeable the effects. However, cognitive deficits have been found even at very low levels of exposure. For this reason, the federal government has for years been lowering the threshold at which lead levels are considered safe; in the years ahead it will probably be lowered even further, from 10 to 5.

Please also be aware that high lead levels are not something you can "sense" or "feel" through motherly intuition. Your child may not evince any overt symptoms of lead poisoning, and yet may be carrying high levels of lead in his/her blood which will subtly affect his/her cognitive functioning for life.

There are virtually no risks to this procedure, and many find that a blood draw (the more accurate test) is less painful than the fingerprick. My daughter shed not a tear at either of her draws.


----------



## BrooklynDoula (Oct 23, 2002)

lead testing is REALLY important and any one who thinks their child has no risk for exposure should start looking at the huge lists of toys being recalled and all the seemingly safe products that we now know might be posioning them. I would NEVER decline the 12 month lead test and really can not fathom why anyone would.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

I declined the blood draw for lead, but I did do the finger prick for iron levels. If I had it to do over again, I would have declined the iron check too.


----------



## quirkylayne (Sep 15, 2005)

I swear I replied to this.

Anyway, there is no need to hold your baby down for this. He can sit on your lap and you hold him tightly. A good nurse/tech will have it done quickly and you will be on your way.


----------



## dawn1221 (Sep 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Imany find that a blood draw (the more accurate test) is less painful than the fingerprick.


We found this to be true for our DD. We had a terrible lab TRY to get the lead test and RAST done and they did a finger prick. Little did we know the RAST test required I think 2-3 LARGE vials. The guy didn't take enough blood for either test but he milked the blood out of DD for what felt like an eternity. She was hysterical the whole time. I felt awful. Plus her finger kept opening and bleeding all day.

When we found out we had to repeat it, we put it off for months. But the thing is we NEEDED to do the test. DH is a locksmith and we cosleep so I figure we have a pretty good chance of exposure. Plus she was reacting to food.

We went to the childrens hospital to have the test done. We held DD ourselves. It was done in half the time of the first test and DD barely cried. She didn't even flinch when the inserted the needle (I looked).


----------



## BrooklynDoula (Oct 23, 2002)

My son did not cry or squirm or anything - he watched, no pain, and really liked the bandaid he had been shown that he would get when it was over. The tech, a big guy from the islands, sang him thhis funny song and he was smiling.


----------



## slsurface (May 8, 2007)

Hmm...My son just had his twelve month check up today and they never mentioned any bloodwork. Here are my thoughts if they had...If your bfing there should be no worriers about anemia (trust me!) . And lead poisoning is only a concern if you live in a building old enough to have lead pipes or paint. Only you know what's best for your little one.

Best Wishes


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Lead isn't "just" in old paint or pipes! It can show up in all sorts of odd places...

http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/...lead/lead.html
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/leadsafe/products.htm
http://www.health.state.ny.us/enviro...ad_sources.htm

Some highlights:
batteries
car seat covers
holiday lights
flexible plastics (like the cord to your vacuum or computer)
plastic miniblinds
pvc products (including "safety bumpers" for furniture)
VDU and TV screens
crayons and chalk
food packaging, plastic wrappers, color printed cardboard boxes
colored ink from printers
soil exposed to current lead sources (renovation or remodeling upwind, manufacturing upwind) OR to gas fumes in the 70s (the lead simply collects so if the dirt was exposed to traffic during the era of leaded gas it's still contaminated)

Oh, and lead solder was only banned in the US in 1986 (same time lead content in plumbing lines was regulated)...so if your home was built prior to 1986 then that is another area of concern.

If you choose not to test, that's your choice. But please don't assume that your child isn't exposed to lead on a daily basis just because of where you live.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

They don't do routine blood work at 12 months here.

My daughter needed blood work done for health reasons, and it was absolutely horrific.

I would think very hard about doing it.

Seeing as it is not routine here, and we don't have larger amounts of children with lead or iron problems, I have to wonder how necessary these tests are. I'll have to look into further.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
I would most certainly recommend 12-month bloodwork. As others have noted, there are many sources of lead besides lead paint, and it is virtually impossible to be certain that your child has no level of exposure. Mine had elevated levels despite having no lead paint in our apartment whatsoever.

Please be aware that lead exposure is not simply a matter of having "lead poisoning" or not. Lead exposure is a spectrum and the higher the levels, the more severe and noticeable the effects. However, cognitive deficits have been found even at very low levels of exposure. For this reason, the federal government has for years been lowering the threshold at which lead levels are considered safe; in the years ahead it will probably be lowered even further, from 10 to 5.

Please also be aware that high lead levels are not something you can "sense" or "feel" through motherly intuition. Your child may not evince any overt symptoms of lead poisoning, and yet may be carrying high levels of lead in his/her blood which will subtly affect his/her cognitive functioning for life.

There are virtually no risks to this procedure, and many find that a blood draw (the more accurate test) is less painful than the fingerprick. My daughter shed not a tear at either of her draws.


I'm going to show this thread to my husband. Thanks OP for bringing it up







.


----------



## Maxine45 (Oct 29, 2005)

We also had a questionnaire to fill out and they didn't mention anything further about it. No offers/suggestions were made at all to get his blood drawn and tested for lead.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

I've seem to get lost every year on my way to the lab with my son. 1 yr, 2 yr and 3 yr no blood work.


----------



## mom2annika (Mar 30, 2006)

The MDs have never mentioned it to us either. :headscratch

<As I wait for Mattel to respond to my email about the Dora figure. ARGH!>


----------



## BabyJay'sMom (Jul 21, 2006)

That's the one test I WANTED to have done! Poor DS inherited his mommy's teeny tiny veins, and it was pretty darn traumatic for him, poor guy. But the results which were fine were justification in my opinion. We lived in a very old rental home at the time, and while I had tested the home for lead, I really was concerned about his exposure. It was also good to throw in DS's horrible Peds (at the time) face how good DS's iron levels were. He had been telling me for months that DS was SURELY deficient as he was ONLY getting mommy's milk and not formula, and I was DENYING him rice cereal. Loved moving away from that guy!

Having said all that, I will get the new baby tested at 12 mo, but I can't see getting my son tested again any time soon. If for any reason they HAVE to take blood in the future however, I will make sure they add lead and iron levels to the panel. No need getting sticked more than you have to!


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Please also be aware that high lead levels are not something you can "sense" or "feel" through motherly intuition. Your child may not evince any overt symptoms of lead poisoning, and yet may be carrying high levels of lead in his/her blood which will subtly affect his/her cognitive functioning for life.

Thank you. I think this really needed to be said.


----------



## slsurface (May 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
Lead isn't "just" in old paint or pipes! It can show up in all sorts of odd places...

http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/...lead/lead.html
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/leadsafe/products.htm
http://www.health.state.ny.us/enviro...ad_sources.htm

Some highlights:
batteries
car seat covers
holiday lights
flexible plastics (like the cord to your vacuum or computer)
plastic miniblinds
pvc products (including "safety bumpers" for furniture)
VDU and TV screens
crayons and chalk
food packaging, plastic wrappers, color printed cardboard boxes
colored ink from printers
soil exposed to current lead sources (renovation or remodeling upwind, manufacturing upwind) OR to gas fumes in the 70s (the lead simply collects so if the dirt was exposed to traffic during the era of leaded gas it's still contaminated)

Oh, and lead solder was only banned in the US in 1986 (same time lead content in plumbing lines was regulated)...so if your home was built prior to 1986 then that is another area of concern.

If you choose not to test, that's your choice. But please don't assume that your child isn't exposed to lead on a daily basis just because of where you live.

Sigh, I'm really tired of all the _fear_ in our culture. Yes, you can find lead in all sorts of places both naturally and unnaturally. However, I sure hope that my child wouldn't be allowed to chew on holiday lights, batteries, or ink cartages. Please don't let fear make your decisions for you.

PS-Don't buy toys from China.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Quote:

Please don't let fear make your decisions for you.
I'm not afraid, I'm informed.









And based on the information available I choose to test once a year. If a person is informed and chooses not to test that's fine.


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Yes, we have always done the lead and iron blood draws at 1yr & 3yrs. I usually request an arm draw, the finger prick takes too long to get enough blood and my boys clot quickly and need to be stuck multiple times, so the arm is easier for us.

As others have said, lead poisoning is dangerous and not usually obvious.
Anemia is also not obvious until it is serious. Yet it is usually so easy to add more iron-rich foods to a child's diet to improve it.
For the very brief discomfort I think it is most definitely worth checking both at least once.


----------



## Jenlaana (Oct 28, 2005)

This was just done to my daughter at 22 mos. She was held by my DH, but screamed and screamed and screamed like we'd never heard her scream before (she is very bounce back ish about most pain things) They had to tug and pull on her little tiny finger for a very long time to get enough blood for the vials. Before the second vial was complete, the nurse said she had to stop, that she just couldn't hurt DD like that anymore....

I dont deny the use of the test, but if you have it done, PLEASE have it done by someone who is good at this sort of thing. We use a family doctor for our pediatrics (we're leaving them, I posted on it) and I regret it so very very much. My DD is always hurting herself (falls, scrapes, scratches, bumps, bruises etc...she has had one fall where she landed wrong and passed out, and when she was a newborn was accidentally jabbed with a pair of nail trimming fingers pretty good in the leg and will have a scar from it for a long time) and nothing has come close to the amt of time it took her to get over this. After the visit was over, the paperwork done, she was put into her carseat, drove home, and brought into the house, she was STILL red faced and crying...


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DklovesMkandJK* 
I'll make sure to ask at our next appointment about the finger prick. I am totally open to that and I think it is a great idea! Thanks!

Doesn't the finger prick hurt more??


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
I'll have to look at the symptons of lead poisoning.

Lucy had *no symptoms*. Her lead level was a 47. That's in the second highest category they take. As I posted before, she was admitted to the hospital within 4 hours of the test coming back. That's how seriously they take lead poisoning. That's how high her levels were. And I wouldn't have known without the blood test because she had no symptoms.










ETA:
I understand the PP in wanting to not fall prey to fear-mongering, but I respectfully submit that we _still_ don't know where Lucy got her lead poisoning. The doc at the ER, an expert in pediatric lead poisoning, told us that all it takes is a piece of lead paint the size of a grain of sand to give a child lead poisoning at a level requiring some sort of intervention. Plastic breaks down over time (why do you think car seats have an expiration date?) and when it's plastic with lead, as in vinyl mini-blinds, what do you think happens to that lead?

Also, regarding the protection of breastfeeding--I'm still breastfeeding Lucy, and that's probably why she didn't have anemia along with the lead poisoning. But she still had the lead poisoning.

Once again, I'm not trying to scare mommas. I just think that, in the grand scheme of things, a couple of moments of discomfort during the blood draw are worth it. There are many tests and interventions that I would decline. This isn't one of them.

Here's the thread for moms dealing with kids with elevated lead levels:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=265284


----------



## ChristianMomOf2 (Jul 30, 2007)

With the new Fisher Price recalls for lead based paint in kids plastic toys made in china... I'd do it...


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I've never heard of a 12 month old having routine blood draws! But I did have my 6 month old (in 1999, in the UK) have blood drawn done for FTT....the procedure was horrrific, tbh.

Without reading the replies, are you sure you want your bub to go through a blood sample testing at such a young age?







:

I'll come back to this soon, as I am so not a fan of routine baby blood work.









But it is late at night here, so give me a few hours to gather my argument, okay?


----------



## nabigus (Sep 23, 2004)

We don't do well baby visits, we're not vaxing yet, we pretty much don't see a doctor. Plus I'm terrified of needles. All that said:

We absolutely absolutely did the blood draw for the lead test. I'm not a fan of fear mongering, but I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that lead IS scary stuff, more so because a) it can have long-term effects, b) you can't tell your child has been exposed, c) some things are just random, even if your house is plastic free with no lead paint.

And there are lots of things you can do to help make sure it's not a terrible experience for your dc. We went to a pediatric lab, so someone who does this all day long took his blood with a butterfly needle. We made sure he had eaten throughout the day and had had a ton of water. I sat him on my lap and we sang songs and talked. He didn't cry at all and seemed more curious than anything else.

And I would recommend a good draw over a bad finger stick any day, ALSO because it's more accurate.


----------



## sweettalker (Jul 19, 2007)

We had the lead testing done, absolutely. You can call it fear-based reasoning, and you might find it empowering to reject a test to make some statement against our fear-based culture and prevent what you think is unnecessary harm to your child. But the facts are that lead poisoning is *very very* harmful to kids, a small amount can cause a lot of damage, and IMO, the "cost" of one blood draw cannot be compared to the damage that lead poisoning can cause. And as stacychev said, she still doesn't know from where her dc got her lead exposure.

Sometimes precautions are worth it.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

We were not offered a 12-month blood test but I asked for lead testing because we are at-risk. In fact, our whole city has high lead levels for too many children. I had to go to a separate lab on my own to get it done. I didn't end up going until she was much older. It's all OK and she had no lead problems, but it would have been better for me to have gone earlier. Then if she did have a problem, I would have had a baseline for what it was at 12-months.

I would look into your risk factors for lead and make a decision on that. I've never worried about anemia.


----------



## gretelmom (Jun 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DklovesMkandJK* 
Jack's Pedi (who was mine pedi and more like family than anything else, I feel is a pretty reasonable guy - understanding of AP and very supportive of us leaving J intact) advised us to get 12 month bloodwork for Jack.

He said it was to check for lead and anemia. I was on the fence about it until he said that it was only two vials and he would only have to be held down for a minute. I'm a pretty big fan of minimizing any pain and just couldn't put him through it considering it was a 'just to check' thing versus something he really needed. (so far he is up to date on vaxes and Pedi feels really strongly about that - I am starting to do research)

Anyway....long story short - did anyone else decline the bloodwork? Did you do it and are glad you did?

(It's only coming up now because our next well baby check is coming up soon and I have the sneaking suspicion it's going to come up!)

I just heard an amazing show on lead poisoning on NPR. There's been significant research to show that the increased levels of violence in America can be tracked to the increased levels of lead in our environment (I think this was last week on Diane Rehm if someonewants to look more specifically). That children who have been exposed to lead (even the smallest paint chip dust ingestion or water through pipes, etc) may not show signs right away but has a tendency toward more violence as time passes. Supposedly there are things they can do to treat exposure, but the longer it's in the system the more irreversible damage is done.

To me, just personally, I would want to know since the effects of lead are so intense and damaging.

Also, unlike many other things pediatricians do "routinely" there are no long -term effects of a blood draw, nothing is left in the body like a vaccination, nothing is removed that isn't replaced quickly, like the foreskin doesn't grow back.

Go to a lab that does a million draws a day, like at a hospital. They're sooo mch faster andmore painless!


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

We don't do WBV at all....

-Angela


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.

It's not routine throughout the US as a whole. It is generally only routine in certain areas of the country where there is a higher risk of lead poisoning (urban areas, lots of older homes, etc.). However, it is an option elsewhere.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Quote:

Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.
Lead testing is often part of a state mandate for children's health, but it is also part of the medicaid system. Different states and counties within each state do it differently. For example, in parts of MA lead testing is part of the pre-school enrollment process while in my region of NY all doctor's offices and health services (like medicaid, WIC, home health visitors, etc) are required to offer testing at 12 months and 24 months...there are even posters and banners in public buildings ("first at one and then at two, testing for lead is what we do").

Many state testing programs began in the early 90's...here's a readable/quick look at the reasoning behind the MA state mandate (http://www.chmed.com/mod.php?mod=use...05&page_id=108 ). From that page:

Quote:

In actuality, routine screening of children for this hazard is simply good medicine. This has been well known in the scientific and pediatric communities for over 25 years. Lead is by far the most common and important environmental toxic hazard affecting the health of children in the USA today.

Overt symptomatic poisoning with lead can be quite a dramatic event. It often involves irritation of the brain with vomiting, convulsions, and coma. Fortunately, few kids nowadays get to that point. The prevalent form of Lead Poisoning today is quiet and insidious. It produces symptoms which are subtle (irritability, personality change, sleep and appetite disturbance) if they are present at all. Nonetheless, it yet can lead to marked anemia, developmental delays, poor growth, and permanent impairment of intelligence and learning ability.

Quote:

A normal lead level is zero. The human body has no use for it at all. One must go to a remote un-industrialized area to find someone with a zero level however. Most of us in the US and other industrialized countries have levels between 3-10mcg/dl, no matter our age. It takes levels above 80 to produce the dramatic symptoms described above, and below 40 a child will usually have no obvious symptoms at all. Unfortunately, the more research that is done the lower the level of lead which is shown to be harmful. We have been essentially unable to find a "lower limit" below which lead can be shown to be "safe". In the '70's we used to define 40 as the "toxic limit". In the '80's that was lowered first to 35, and then to 25. In the late '80's clearly harmful long term effects on intelligence and learning ability were demonstrated even for levels between 10-25. In the early '90's the "legal" definition of lead poisoning was again lowered to 10 reflecting this new medical knowledge.

Previously, testing mandated by the state was satisfied by a blood test known as the "FEP". While not a direct measure of blood lead, the FEP was used for many years as a "screen" because it was cheaper than an actual lead level and was reliably elevated in children whose lead levels were over 25. It could also be done by "finger stick" with accurate results. Things other than lead (notably iron deficiency) can also raise the FEP, so if the FEP was high actual lead and iron levels were then done by venipuncture. Unfortunately, lead levels between 10-25 will NOT elevate the FEP. Our new knowledge of the danger of such levels thus rendered the FEP test obsolete, and it has not been used for the past 5-6 years. We now do actual lead levels.


----------



## elladee (Oct 24, 2005)

We absolutely had the lead testing done. Lead poisoning is scary for good reason. We had the arm blood draw done in a lab by a phlebotomist with lots of experience working with kids. I held DD on my lap and it was over quickly. She cried a little, but was over it as soon as we stood up.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

?? We don't have it. 12 month checkup is weight, height, head circ., and "how is he/she doing?"


----------



## cahwilson (Jan 24, 2007)

We had it done today actually. We do not go to WBV's but this was something important to me. It wouldn't have been bad at all, except the first lady missed (a lot) and so dd was quite upset by the time she had to have it done again







: . And we were at a hospital where they do it all the time. Dd was fine as soon as it was over though and I will probably have her tested again at 2 or 3 years. I am still a bit upset that it was worse than it had to be. I definitly would not do the finger prick, it goes so quickly from the arm.


----------



## LeslieB (Feb 17, 2006)

DS had it done at 9 months old. I was all for the lead test since we were bouncing around from different people's homes in New England. I think a lead test is important since it can be so harmful. We did the iron level test as well and DS's levels came back slightly low. It was good to know, even though it wasn't much of a concern.


----------



## Bunnybee (Jan 16, 2007)

Oh my goodness...I'm glad I found this thread! We do live in an old house, (I even told the nurses at pediatrician) and they still said we don't HAVE to test for lead. I skipped it b/c I figured why put DD through that stuuf, it's not like she's eating from the windows or anything. But after reading this I am going to get her tested! Thanks.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, but we did the lead test at 12 months and will do another at 24 months. It is very important, IMO, for all the reasons others have listed. Lead damage is permanent, life-altering and no warning symptoms are present.

Our experience with the blood draw was a dream. I was not looking forward to it but DD sat on my lap, looked around the room and did not even notice she'd been stuck. I'm not exaggerating, she literally didn't notice. I'm hoping for such a good experience next month but I also agree with a poster above that, although potentially traumatic, there are no risks or long-term effects for a blood draw.

Even if we have a rough go I know we can handle it and there is no doubt in my mind that it is worth it..


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Because we've always lived in old homes that we've renovated, I have done the lead poisoning tests. Lead poisoning can be a serious issue if untreated.

If I had a little one today, I would as well, even if we lived in new homes, given the horror of lead in some toys. Unless I knew for sure that my child has never held a Thomas train or played with anything anywhere, I'd need to know her lead count.

For anemia etc? Not unless the child seemed sickly, and my children haven't and so we didn't.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

We declined. I actually posted about it too. After accessing our risk factors (for both anemia and lead) I didn't feel we needed it. But it contines to be something I am mindful of.


----------



## 425lisamarie (Mar 4, 2005)

I've never even heard of that!

But no, we don't do doc visits of any kind


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

yes not only do we do lead tests but iron as well. despite a wonderful diet of fresh fruit, veggies, bit of meat, breastmilk, and grains, DD was SIGNIFICANTLY iron deficient. not just anemic, specifically, the level of iron in her blood was tested and she was well below normal. that can also affect brain development. since then, I've known to limit her calcium intake and after supplementing for a short time, we've modified her diet to increase iron. I would've never known otherwise, as she wasn't sleepy and didn't look pale or get sick.

a simple blood test will not traumatize your child. being deficient in an essential mineral, or having an excess of a poisonous one, may affect the rest of their lives.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
I'll have to look at the symptons of lead poisoning.

By the time you see symptoms your child will be suffering permanent damage. If you test before symptoms show up you can reduce exposure.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slsurface* 
Sigh, I'm really tired of all the _fear_ in our culture. Yes, you can find lead in all sorts of places both naturally and unnaturally. However, I sure hope that my child wouldn't be allowed to chew on holiday lights, batteries, or ink cartages. Please don't let fear make your decisions for you.

PS-Don't buy toys from China.

Your child can be exposed to lead even if you are a perfect parent. Realistically most of us fall a little short of perfection.

Your child can be exposed to lead from eating vegetables grown in your own backyard if there is lead in the soil. There is lead in soil all over the US and much of the world. There are way way too many ways for a child to be exposed to lead to list.


----------



## DklovesMkandJK (Jun 18, 2007)

Wow - thanks everyone!
This is a lot, to be honest, I never even thought of.

We live in a newer suburban neighborhood and I have never seen any of the lead test 'signs' anywhere so I never really gave lead much of a thought.
In fact, the Pedi seemed to mention the lead test as almost an afterthought after the anemia test and I figured he has none of the anemia symptoms so why put him through it.

I also have a hard time with any medical "procedure". We thought J was having seizures when he was younger and we had to have him heavily sedated for the MRI scan and it was terrible. (come to think of it the iv placement wasn't too bad..) The EEG was terrible. And he had to have minor surgery on his face when he turns two that I am dreading every day. I guess I just hate to subject him to any more than I have to.

As far as the finger prick - I thought it was like a diabetes finger prick - not that they would have to get a vial plus from his poor little finger.

I'm going to talk to the pedi about it again at his appointment later this month. Like some of other PPs said with something like this maybe it is better safe than sorry.


----------



## Kavita (Dec 7, 2004)

We were never offered this test when we went in to our previous ped (we didn't take her for routine WBV and didn't vax and I think it kind of got them all flummoxed about the schedule when we *did* take her in. And I don't know if they regularly do lead testing where we lived before.) But since we moved I just took her to a new ped today and requested the lead level. She's 21 months, and I think that this is important. In fact, before TTC I had gotten my heavy metal levels tested, and I had somewhat elevated levels of mercury, aluminum, and lead. So that's another possible source of heavy metal exposure for infants--their mothers can pass their own body burden of heavy metals in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

They asked if I wanted to do a CBC too and so I figured, what the heck! I am pretty sure that DD is not anemic but it doesn't hurt to confirm it especially since they were going to be poking her anyway. They did a fingerstick and the nurse who did it was great, and she didn't even flinch or cry or anything (I'm referring to DD of course, although the nurse didn't flinch or cry either, lol!). She just sort of watched the nurse with interest and then started trying to grab the cotton ball, the bandaid, the fingerstick poker thingy and everything else with her other hand. Same thing with the vax she got--not even a distressed blink! This was a major change from the only other shot she got (same vax, different shot-giver) when it obviously hurt her a lot and she was very upset.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
By the time you see symptoms your child will be suffering permanent damage. If you test before symptoms show up you can reduce exposure.
.

Crap. Sad, but true. We have friends whose youngest child has been impacted intellectualy. I mean he's still the sweetest, cutest kid. But it was nearly a year before they learned the plumbing in their home was problematic.

It so sucks that you can't really know for sure until after the fact.

I am not one to overly worry, but as I watch the kids around me getting diagnosed with various problems, I just wonder how we managed to escape some things.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
Lead testing is often part of a state mandate for children's health, but it is also part of the medicaid system.

But why? What's the science behind it and why is it a U.S. exclusive? Not only the lead testing but also the anemia testing. If one would check for everything potentially harmful or everything that could be potentially wrong there's be no end.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
But why? What's the science behind it and why is it a U.S. exclusive? Not only the lead testing but also the anemia testing. If one would check for everything potentially harmful or everything that could be potentially wrong there's be no end.

Thankfully, there are no laws in the US that say you must take your baby to be tested for anything! Further, I hope you know well baby checks are not required. You can pick and choose what you want or do not want based upon your own life. You also have the choice to see a doctor or to not see a doctor. Remember that basic health checks are not required by law.

So basically, if you think your baby may have been exposed to lead in an apartment, you might test. If you know she hasn't , you wouldn't. That's your right as a parent.


----------



## Bunnybee (Jan 16, 2007)

OK, I hope I haven't waited too long to test DD! She has an appt next month for her 18th month WBV...should I request the test then? Or is this something that I should do ASAP? I guess I'm asking, if she HAS been exposed to lead, will waiting another 5 weeks or so make a big difference?


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
But why? What's the science behind it and why is it a U.S. exclusive? Not only the lead testing but also the anemia testing. If one would check for everything potentially harmful or everything that could be potentially wrong there's be no end.

I don't understand the question "what's the science behind it?" The toxic effects of lead exposure are extremely well-documented and are the basis of decades of public health policy, including the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. Are you looking for the biological mechanism by which lead in the blood and the brain affects cognitive functioning? For more information online, the EPA is an excellent resource. If you want to start with the hard science, PubMed and Google Scholar should offer you plenty. Iron deficiency is also a condition for which there is a long trail of reputable research.

I don't know if lead testing or iron testing is a US exclusive or not. I don't know the years in which European countries removed lead from paint, gasoline, and plumbing. I would be surprised to hear that other industrialized countries are entirely unconcerned with lead exposure, but the US is often more safety-conscious in certain areas than other countries, possibly due to our more litigious culture.

Do you feel that the fact that it is impossible to check for everything that is potentially harmful means that we should not check for anything? Even when we are talking about one of our most common and harmful environmental hazards, or one of our most common nutritional deficiencies? When it comes to lead exposure, rigorous testing and increased building regulation has lead to steadily decreasing rates of lead poisoning year after year.


----------



## ktmama (Jan 21, 2004)

:


----------



## millionmom (Oct 30, 2005)

I had this test done for ds at 12 months and was very happy to get the results back. Of course I teach in the inner city and I see a lot of high lead level kids, so I was worrying about it a bit. Ia gree with a lot of what PPs have sid about it. - I think it's important and worth your child having to suffer a few moments of discomfort.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bunnybee* 
OK, I hope I haven't waited too long to test DD! She has an appt next month for her 18th month WBV...should I request the test then? Or is this something that I should do ASAP? I guess I'm asking, if she HAS been exposed to lead, will waiting another 5 weeks or so make a big difference?

Bunnybee, if you have reason to think your DD is at risk for exposure, you may not want to delay. You can call your pediatrician and get a prescription for a test. Some questions to ask yourself might be: Do you live in a building built prior to 1978? Does you live in an urban environment? Is there anyone doing gut renovation or construction nearby? Do you allow shoes in the house? Does your DD spend considerable time playing in your backyard, if you have one, and if so, is there bare soil or is it grassed? I would suggest you check your state health department recommendations as there are significant regional differences.

If you go over the risk factors and you feel your DD is at low risk, I think you can afford to wait for the appointment. In addition, you don't have to wait five weeks to start living in a more lead-safe way, regardless of when you get the test. I think a PP linked to a thread about mothers dealing with elevated lead levels and you may find some good, simple suggestions there.

Please don't panic. Most children are fine. It's just better to know for sure.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
yes not only do we do lead tests but iron as well. despite a wonderful diet of fresh fruit, veggies, bit of meat, breastmilk, and grains, DD was SIGNIFICANTLY iron deficient. not just anemic, specifically, the level of iron in her blood was tested and she was well below normal. that can also affect brain development. since then, I've known to limit her calcium intake and after supplementing for a short time, we've modified her diet to increase iron. I would've never known otherwise, as she wasn't sleepy and didn't look pale or get sick.

a simple blood test will not traumatize your child. being deficient in an essential mineral, or having an excess of a poisonous one, may affect the rest of their lives.

My child had blood drawn for health reasons, and it was the single most horrific experience of her or my life.

She absolutely freaked. I was holding the baby, and my partner was holding her. He couldn't hold her. The nurses tried everything and eventually had to help him hold her down.

We certainly did not instill any fear in her. We explained what would happen, why they were doing it, and that it wouldn't hurt, but might pinch.

She cried for an hour afterwards. She was scared for weeks to go anywhere in the car. She is still scared to this day to go to the doctor.

My daughter has anxiety issues and is very nervous around strangers.

PLease don't minimize what my child went through or say that it won't traumatize her.

I know of course there is no choice sometimes, and that the tests she had were important for her health, but to say it won't traumatize a child is ridiculous. Just because it didn't hurt or traumatize your child, doesn't mean it will be the same for every child.

One of the things they tested was her iron, and it was fine, so it doesn't concern me.

Also, since the tests are not routinely offered here, and we don't have droves of children with iron or lead problems, I am not concerned.

ALthough this thread has inspired me to bring it up with my doctor when my son goes for his 12 month visit this month.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
My child had blood drawn for health reasons, and it was the single most horrific experience of her or my life.

She absolutely freaked. I was holding the baby, and my partner was holding her. He couldn't hold her. The nurses tried everything and eventually had to help him hold her down.

We certainly did not instill any fear in her. We explained what would happen, why they were doing it, and that it wouldn't hurt, but might pinch.

She cried for an hour afterwards. She was scared for weeks to go anywhere in the car. She is still scared to this day to go to the doctor.

My daughter has anxiety issues and is very nervous around strangers.

PLease don't minimize what my child went through or say that it won't traumatize her.

I know of course there is no choice sometimes, and that the tests she had were important for her health, but to say it won't traumatize a child is ridiculous. Just because it didn't hurt or traumatize your child, doesn't mean it will be the same for every child.

One of the things they tested was her iron, and it was fine, so it doesn't concern me.

Also, since the tests are not routinely offered here, and we don't have droves of children with iron or lead problems, I am not concerned.

ALthough this thread has inspired me to bring it up with my doctor when my son goes for his 12 month visit this month.

That's absolutely horrible! I am so sorry she had to experience that! I thank the fates everyday that we've been lucky, One of my children was born with major and multiple birth defects-- blood was drawn from the main vein in the arm a few times. I managed to keep the child home and nursing for nearly a year before we had to face the world.

The blood draws were not an awesome experience, although the trauma, due to our fabulous pedi people, was minimum to non exisitent. They were so amazing. Most blood draws were done as we nursed. I will be forever thankful.

As the mother of a past medically involved child, I've learned over the years that you must seek out the best of the best. Some techs can't draw blood to save their lives, and some do it with no trauma at all. For those folks with children who need to be monitored, say this to the tech : "Are you the best at drawing blood? If you are not, please get me the best,and yes, I plan top nirse my child through this". And then stand firm. Don't be afraid to sound like a bitch.

When one has a medically compromised child, you don't settle for mediocre. A good tech can spare your child massive trauma. I'm sorry your child had to needlessly suffer like this. Over the years I've learned that there are only a few really good techs.

That said, lead tests here in MA involve a quick prick on the finger, which was an absolute cake walk for even my hospital -savvy child.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
Thankfully, there are no laws in the US that say you must take your baby to be tested for anything! Further, I hope you know well baby checks are not required. You can pick and choose what you want or do not want based upon your own life. You also have the choice to see a doctor or to not see a doctor. Remember that basic health checks are not required by law.

So basically, if you think your baby may have been exposed to lead in an apartment, you might test. If you know she hasn't , you wouldn't. That's your right as a parent.

I know, I was just thinking that there must be some studies showing , well, something, if this mass testing is going on. It's a painful and invasive procedure after all.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
I don't understand the question "what's the science behind it?" The toxic effects of lead exposure are extremely well-documented and are the basis of decades of public health policy, including the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. Are you looking for the biological mechanism by which lead in the blood and the brain affects cognitive functioning? For more information online, the EPA is an excellent resource. If you want to start with the hard science, PubMed and Google Scholar should offer you plenty. Iron deficiency is also a condition for which there is a long trail of reputable research.

I was thinking some studies showing that lead poisoning and anemia are not uncommon in 1 year olds and thus showing the need for invasive mass testing

Quote:


I don't know if lead testing or iron testing is a US exclusive or not.
I at least don't know of any European country that does it

Quote:

I don't know the years in which European countries removed lead from paint, gasoline, and plumbing.
The year is 1989 in the european union

Quote:

I would be surprised to hear that other industrialized countries are entirely unconcerned with lead exposure, but the US is often more safety-conscious in certain areas than other countries, possibly due to our more litigious culture.

I wouldn't call it safety conscious, but that's not the point.

Quote:

Do you feel that the fact that it is impossible to check for everything that is potentially harmful means that we should not check for anything?
No, I don't. unknown genetic/metabolic disorders are common, which is why i support the newborn screen. It's also less traumatic than a blood draw if done properly.

Why don't they test for Mercury then? it looks like testing for the sake of it









Quote:

Even when we are talking about one of our most common and harmful environmental hazards, or one of our most common nutritional deficiencies? When it comes to lead exposure, rigorous testing and increased building regulation has lead to steadily decreasing rates of lead poisoning year after year.
That's all good, I still believe mass testing should be statistically justified.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
That's absolutely horrible! I am so sorry she had to experience that! I thank the fates everyday that we've been lucky, One of my children was born with major and multiple birth defects-- blood was drawn from the main vein in the arm a few times. I managed to keep the child home and nursing for nearly a year before we had to face the world.

The blood draws were not an awesome experience, although the trauma, due to our fabulous pedi people, was minimum to non exisitent. They were so amazing. Most blood draws were done as we nursed. I will be forever thankful.

As the mother of a past medically involved child, I've learned over the years that you must seek out the best of the best. Some techs can't draw blood to save their lives, and some do it with no trauma at all. For those folks with children who need to be monitored, say this to the tech : "Are you the best at drawing blood? If you are not, please get me the best,and yes, I plan top nirse my child through this". And then stand firm. Don't be afraid to sound like a bitch.

When one has a medically compromised child, you don't settle for mediocre. A good tech can spare your child massive trauma. I'm sorry your child had to needlessly suffer like this. Over the years I've learned that there are only a few really good techs.

That said, lead tests here in MA involve a quick prick on the finger, which was an absolute cake walk for even my hospital -savvy child.

I will definitely ask my doctor about the test, and I wouldn't not have blood drawn because of the possible trauma.

I'm just saying it was sheer trauma for my daughter, and it galls me when people say it won't traumatize your kid or it won't unless you instill fear in them.

That said, I don't know that it has much to do with the skill of the lab person because it took us twenty minutes to even get to the point where they could get near her arm with a needle. At the very least, I will go to a different lab (everyone in the lab we went to were helping us).


----------



## wfuteach (Jun 13, 2007)

We didn't intentionally decline, but were only in the states for a month and between other appts and visiting family, we were unable to make it to the lab. So, DD2 didn't have it done. DD1 did.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I am







and







just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Yeah I would be very interested in anemia and lead poisoning stats in the U.S. and countries that don't do these tests routinely, and how much, if at all, these tests help outcomes.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
I know, I was just thinking that there must be some studies showing , well, something, if this mass testing is going on. It's a painful and invasive procedure after all.

A lead test is a finger prick and yes it hurts, but it's not a blood draw.

There are countless studies showing that lead poisoning damages the brain. It's an issue the world over.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Huggerwocky, of course there are relevant studies. Why don't you start here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/116/4/1036

You asked why we don't test for mercury, then. The reason is that the risks and sources of lead exposure are far more thoroughly researched and understood. EPA limits on mercury exposure are based on a couple of particular instances of mercury poisoning, whereas we have long-term data on the relationship of lead exposure at various levels to cognitive deficits. I could compare lead exposure and mercury exposure further, but I don't wish to get diverted into a conversation about vaccinations, amalgam fillings, etc. Perhaps down the road we will have more data on mercury exposure - certainly we will if the activists have their way - and recommendations will shift accordingly, but for now I'm glad that my daughter's health wasn't further jeopardized by lead exposure simply because I wasn't able to do a mercury test at the same time.

Further, on whether it's a "painful and invasive" procedure. Frankly, there should be very little pain to a blood draw if the practitioner is skilled. I understand that a few people have had dreadful experiences. I don't believe this is the norm. In addition, I believe it would be far more painful to have a brain-damaged child.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I am







and







just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will

Well...lead pipes are the least of it, pipes aren't made of lead in the states these days, either. There's lead paint, and cars emit tons of lead and more and more. You're not saying there is no lead poisoning int he UK, are you?

As for insurance, if you get WIC, say, they 'require' lead tests. Lead tests are free for children most places, and kids on welfare, fi, get lead tests as part of the WIC/Food stamp programs. Also, I am pretty sure that if you live in public housing, children are lead tested.

Oh, and say you live in an apartment, and your child comes up postive for lead... you can sue the pants off the landlord. In MA, it is required by law that landlords remove lead paint if a child is found with elevated lead levels. It's one reason some people don't like to rent to families with little kids. (Not that they can legally say they aren't renting because the family has kids).


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Some links about lead testing in the UK. There is a 2004 BBC article in there as well about identifying lead posioning better.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...sting+UK+child

And you are spot on about UK not lead testing kids--

http://www.childalert.co.uk/absolute...d=193&zoneid=3


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
My child had blood drawn for health reasons, and it was the single most horrific experience of her or my life.

That's truly awful; your poor baby. I also had a terrible experience with my first blood draw, I was more like 8 years old, and I had a issue with needles for years.

I can understand why it aggravates you to hear people say that a blood draw is not a big deal. At the same time, my daughter's experience was the complete opposite; she sat in my lap and did not make a sound or flinch when they did the draw. So it bugs me when people call the procedure, by definition, traumatizing for a child. It can be but it certainly also can not be.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country?

If only it were so easy. There are so many sources for lead exposure that it is not at all a simple matter to test or even completely control the environment in which kids live. There are several posters here who have children adversly affected by lead who have never been able to determine the source, even retrospectively.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
So basically, if you think your baby may have been exposed to lead in an apartment, you might test. If you know she hasn't , you wouldn't.

This is misleading, and plays into the poor, inner-city lead poisoning stereotype. Once again, Lucy was exposed while living in my mom's very clean, 1960's-era suburban home. Lead paint was phased out in 1978, but I'm convinced that it was used for at least a few years after that due to cans sitting around. And it's still used in things like vinyl mini-blinds (and sadly, products from other countries...)


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *staceychev* 
This is misleading, and plays into the poor, inner-city lead poisoning stereotype. Once again, Lucy was exposed while living in my mom's very clean, 1960's-era suburban home. Lead paint was phased out in 1978, but I'm convinced that it was used for at least a few years after that due to cans sitting around. And it's still used in things like vinyl mini-blinds (and sadly, products from other countries...)

I agree with you 10,000 %. I was just trying to give the doubters a way out.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
I agree with you 10,000 %. I was just trying to give the doubters a way out.

Thanks. I think that this thread definitely struck a nerve!


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I do understand that lead poisoning in children is a serious problem, & have considered requesting that my own children be tested because we live in an old house where I know there is lead-based paint under the newer paint. However, I do feel that we took recommended precautions to stop their exposure to lead, & based on those choices, I haven't requested the blood test.

Honestly, it was the age of the child + the two vials of blood, & the routine mentality from some posters that gave me pause. To the OP, do you think your child is at risk? Or is just your pediatrician who thinks your child is at risk? You have weigh the possible outcomes & your circumstances & decide accordingly, yk?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
As for insurance, if you get WIC, say, they 'require' lead tests. Lead tests are free for children most places, and kids on welfare, fi, get lead tests as part of the WIC/Food stamp programs. Also, I am pretty sure that if you live in public housing, children are lead tested.

See now, that kinda freaks me out, if only because vaccines are free here in Australia (indeed, the gov't will pay you money if you vax on schedule- at least they used to a few years ago) & that still doesn't make it a good thing. Not saying lead tests for some inner-city littlies is a bad thing, it's just the free mandate part that has me concerned. Do you know if you have to have a child blood test done before you can receive public assistance in the US? Because that, to me, would be really really freaky.....

Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda getting a vibe from this thread that mamas who don't have routine infant lead testing done in their home countries (unlike the US, apparently) are ignorant of the issues or are somewhat behind the times when it comes to child health. If that is the case, I do strongly resent that. WHat happens in the US is not best for the rest of the world.

Australia has high blood lead levels in children in some places like Mount Isa. It is a small town that has many mines near the town centre, & some of those produce lead as a by-product. Some of the children in that town have high blood lead levels. So we are not ignorant of the issue, or uncautious. Pragmatic in problem solving, however, I would accept & it is a problem that is being dealt with. Personally I could never, ever live in Mount Isa- for lots of reasons.

...............................

And finger pricks are horrid, imo. I used to have one twice a week when I went to Ohio University & sold my plasma for...... beer money.







Had to have the finger prick first each time, & I hated it more than the needle in my arm. Fwiw.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
A lead test is a finger prick and yes it hurts, but it's not a blood draw.

Actually, the blood draw is far more accurate and the reason my daughter's pediatrician only offers a blood draw for lead testing. I think this probably varies based on region and doctor.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
Actually, the blood draw is far more accurate and the reason my daughter's pediatrician only offers a blood draw for lead testing. I think this probably varies based on region and doctor.

Ah, interesting.


----------



## meisterfrau (Sep 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda getting a vibe from this thread that mamas who don't have routine infant lead testing done in their home countries (unlike the US, apparently) are ignorant of the issues or are somewhat behind the times when it comes to child health. If that is the case, I do strongly resent that. WHat happens in the US is not best for the rest of the world.

That's funny, because I'm kind of getting the vibe from this thread that those of us who have chosen to have our children tested for lead levels are any of the following (and I'm not picking on you, specifically, aussiemum, since you didn't say all these things; it's a general impression from the thread):

1. alarmists
2. subjecting our children to "unnecessary" pain or medical intervention unless, of course, we are poor apartment dwellers (which I was at the time)
3. buying into some vast US conspiracy, the nature of which I'm not really clear on.

I also am not sure how "What happens in the US is not best for the rest of the world" in this case (again, not calling you out specifically). Did they not use lead paint or pipes in your country? Do they not have any toys that might have lead paint? Did they never use leaded gasoline that might have gotten into your soils? I would think the risks of lead exposure are probably similar in most industrialized countries.

For people in the US who think it doesn't apply to their kids, ask the following: Do I know what was in the dirt that my kids have played in? Do I have friends or relatives with older homes? Does my kid ever play with toys, at my house or anyone else's that might have been tainted? Could I have touched a lead coated extension cord, or something with lead solder like a tiffany lamp and not washed my hands, thus maybe exposing my children to lead when I touched them or prepared their food?

I just think the chances of exposure are SO varied that you'd never know without testing.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
I do understand that lead poisoning in children is a serious problem, & have considered requesting that my own children be tested because we live in an old house where I know there is lead-based paint under the newer paint. However, I do feel that we took recommended precautions to stop their exposure to lead, & based on those choices, I haven't requested the blood test.

Honestly, it was the age of the child + the two vials of blood, & the routine mentality from some posters that gave me pause. To the OP, do you think your child is at risk? Or is just your pediatrician who thinks your child is at risk? You have weigh the possible outcomes & your circumstances & decide accordingly, yk?

See now, that kinda freaks me out, if only because vaccines are free here in Australia (indeed, the gov't will pay you money if you vax on schedule- at least they used to a few years ago) & that still doesn't make it a good thing. Not saying lead tests for some inner-city littlies is a bad thing, it's just the free mandate part that has me concerned. Do you know if you have to have a child blood test done before you can receive public assistance in the US? Because that, to me, would be really really freaky.....

Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda getting a vibe from this thread that mamas who don't have routine infant lead testing done in their home countries (unlike the US, apparently) are ignorant of the issues or are somewhat behind the times when it comes to child health. If that is the case, I do strongly resent that. WHat happens in the US is not best for the rest of the world.

Australia has high blood lead levels in children in some places like Mount Isa. It is a small town that has many mines near the town centre, & some of those produce lead as a by-product. Some of the children in that town have high blood lead levels. So we are not ignorant of the issue, or uncautious. Pragmatic in problem solving, however, I would accept & it is a problem that is being dealt with. Personally I could never, ever live in Mount Isa- for lots of reasons.

...............................

And finger pricks are horrid, imo. I used to have one twice a week when I went to Ohio University & sold my plasma for...... beer money.







Had to have the finger prick first each time, & I hated it more than the needle in my arm. Fwiw.

Many people refuse WIC because of the requirements.

It is a little freaky, but the net is cast wide to try and catch children before they succumb to brain damage, kidney problems etc. In industrialized countries, lead poisoning is a big health problem. And not just in humans.

If a country doesn't require lead testing for littles (Austrailia does) it might or might be of benefit, depending on the extent of lead posioning in that country. Offerring or not offerring blood tests doesn't mean there aren't lead problems in that country. And it doesn't mean there are. A few countries require it, but most do not. It doesn't look like there is a big race to test for lead in children the way the Aussies, Americans, or Germans etc do it.

If a parent doesn't do well baby checks or doesn't want to jump through the WIC hoop in the US, or believe lead testing is 'too routine', or whatever their reasoning, they can skip any and all tests, vax etc.

Some people prefer blood to be drawn from the arm, and some prefer finger pricks-- it's individual-- as most things are.

ETA another thought-- I just learned from this thread--that some blood draws are better than others, and give you more info. With this information, people who do choose to test might prefer the more reliable test, which might mean the two vials. I wouldn't put my child through something to not get the best information psosible. If one drop of blood is inconclusive, one might consider the alternative from the get go.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 
That's truly awful; your poor baby. I also had a terrible experience with my first blood draw, I was more like 8 years old, and I had a issue with needles for years.

I can understand why it aggravates you to hear people say that a blood draw is not a big deal. At the same time, my daughter's experience was the complete opposite; she sat in my lap and did not make a sound or flinch when they did the draw. So it bugs me when people call the procedure, by definition, traumatizing for a child. It can be but it certainly also can not be.

Oh definitely.

I've heard people say the pku test is, by definition, traumatic, when both my babies nursed through it, so I can see both sides.

I feel the same as you aussie.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Oh and I forgot to add that if you have a finger prick test come back positive for lead, AFAIK, no mattter where you are or who your doctor is, it will be followed up with a blood draw to confrim and to get a more accurate result. So, opting for the finger prick does not necessarily mean no blood draw.

Also, my daughter had a finger prick done for anemia and it was horrific, much to my surprise. I thought it would be a piece of cake. I think the nurse we got wasn't the best person for that job. It took forever and was just awful. If had known what my daughter was going to go through with that, I either would have opted not to do it at all or chosen to go to a pediatric phlebotimist at the hospital for a blood draw.

All that to say, if you do decide to do the test, IMO it would be best just to cut to the chase and get the blood draw by a qualified tech.


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
That said, lead tests here in MA involve a quick prick on the finger, which was an absolute cake walk for even my hospital -savvy child.









We are in MA. All of my boys have the blood draw. The finger prick was HORRENDOUS, pinning them down screaming kind of terrible. But I still think it's important to do. I was talked into trying the finger prick versus the arm because it's "easier" for #2, but it was waaay worse as usual. With #3 I will refuse anything but an arm draw. With the finger (or heel as an infant) they had to reprick SEVERAL times and squeeze and squeeze for 20 minutes to get enough for the tests.
Go with the arm.


----------



## AugustLia23 (Mar 18, 2004)

We didn't do it with #1, who had no ped from month 4 to month 16, but then we did it once we were seeing a PED again, and we did it on time with Ds #2. The results were fine, which I was happy to know. Both had arm draws as that's what my prctice does. I think I prefer it.

FWIW, DS #2 didn't even cry, he just watched them draw the blood, almost in shock. I was soooo surprised, as I used to freak out with them. Ds#1 cried durin it, but I think only because he was being held down, which he hates.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Honestly I haven't bothered to go to a doc appt since 6 or 9 months......but if I had I would have declined. If we lived in an old home I might have had lead testing done, but I had no concerns, so I would have declined it.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganf* 







We are in MA. All of my boys have the blood draw. The finger prick was HORRENDOUS, pinning them down screaming kind of terrible. But I still think it's important to do. I was talked into trying the finger prick versus the arm because it's "easier" for #2, but it was waaay worse as usual. With #3 I will refuse anything but an arm draw. With the finger (or heel as an infant) they had to reprick SEVERAL times and squeeze and squeeze for 20 minutes to get enough for the tests.
Go with the arm.

While my children have never had issues with the finger prick test, I would now skip it. I agree, go staight to the arm and get the best info possible from the beginning.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meisterfrau*
I also am not sure how "What happens in the US is not best for the rest of the world" in this case (again, not calling you out specifically). Did they not use lead paint or pipes in your country? Do they not have any toys that might have lead paint? Did they never use leaded gasoline that might have gotten into your soils? I would think the risks of lead exposure are probably similar in most industrialized countries.

It's okay, you can call me out specifically. I'm just trying to work through this issue too, & as long as we can all remain respectful, it's cool with me.









Yes, of course we have all the lead based product issues that any country would have, but we do have a lower population density overall, so I think that would mitigate the lead levels that you would find in many places. Except, of course, in certain mining & urban areas, where the lead problem has been in the media recently.

In general I do not like the idea of mandatory blood testing being tied to qualifying for government based help. We are a country of 20 million people, so I would like to think that we can lift everybody up without coercion.

I know that I have posted opinions opposite to that stance in recent months regarding indigenous Australians, & I still stand by those opinions. I don't think indigenous children should be subject to mandatory blood tests, either. All children should, however, receive mandatory access to healthy food on a regular basis- it's a human right, imo. Access is the key issue there, imo.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 

In general I do not like the idea of mandatory blood testing being tied to qualifying for government based help. We are a country of 20 million people, so I would like to think that we can lift everybody up without coercion.

I agree with this. I think that sadly, the gov't's stance has been "make it required, because it's too hard to educate everyone." I was actually told that this was why they started to do Hep-B vax at birth. It's easier to get them when they're already in the hospital rather than to get people to come in for a vax when they're more at risk. Sigh.

My big thing is just to make it known that lead poisoning doesn't always follow the stereotypes, so that parents can make an informed decision for themselves.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:

I was actually told that this was why they started to do Hep-B vax at birth. It's easier to get them when they're already in the hospital rather than to get people to come in for a vax when they're more at risk. Sigh.
I recieved this argument, too, from the midwives at the womens hospital when I took DS in to them the morning after his birth (long story). Not to sidetrack this thread, but what a bunch of rubbish! I'm sorry, but you want to vaccinate my 10 hour old for..... convenience?!?

I don't think so.

(and that's even from a mama who has selectively vaxed).


----------



## Swirly (May 20, 2006)

We weren't offered it after the questionnaire, but I now think that was naive of them. I hadn't thought of it much at the time myself. I would like her tested now in the light of recent events, but my question is why isn't a hair test sufficient, when it works to detect many other metal/chemical contaminants?


----------



## meisterfrau (Sep 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
It's okay, you can call me out specifically. I'm just trying to work through this issue too, & as long as we can all remain respectful, it's cool with me.









Yes, of course we have all the lead based product issues that any country would have, but we do have a lower population density overall, so I think that would mitigate the lead levels that you would find in many places. Except, of course, in certain mining & urban areas, where the lead problem has been in the media recently.

In general I do not like the idea of mandatory blood testing being tied to qualifying for government based help. We are a country of 20 million people, so I would like to think that we can lift everybody up without coercion.

I know that I have posted opinions opposite to that stance in recent months regarding indigenous Australians, & I still stand by those opinions. I don't think indigenous children should be subject to mandatory blood tests, either. All children should, however, receive mandatory access to healthy food on a regular basis- it's a human right, imo. Access is the key issue there, imo.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. I don't think it should be mandatory and tied to food assistance.

As far as that goes, I think the income limits and amount of red tape a person has to go through should be WAY more relaxed for food assistance than for monetary assistance, and that everyone in this country should have access to decent health care for their children that includes EDUCATION about the dangers of lead poisoning so that mamas can make an educated decision for their kids...but now I'm on a whole 'nother thread.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

I think the "ideal" reasoning behind linking certain tests (like lead) to aid programs is that the children being served by these programs tend to live in situations that elevate their risk... older homes or apartments, urban environments, rural settings that may have fuel contamination in the soil, etc. And due to economic concerns these children may have other exposure risks...for example they may have more imported toys or older toys with higher lead levels. And, sadly, some people may miss the early signs of chronic poisoning simply because they "expect" children in aid programs to be aggressive or delayed or frequently ill...so individual detection of a problem may be missed.

Obviously the cynical explaination ("cause we can", "cause people in aid are somehow less", etc) is there too. But I try to look at everyone in the best light possible. (and I say this as a mama who was on aid for a while when my oldest dd was little)

Personally I appreciate efforts to make lead testing more universal since this acknowledges that lead poisoning is NOT just a problem for certain economic, racial, or ethnic communities. But that's neither here nor there in terms of this thread's central topic!


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Swirly* 
We weren't offered it after the questionnaire, but I now think that was naive of them. I hadn't thought of it much at the time myself. I would like her tested now in the light of recent events, but my question is why isn't a hair test sufficient, when it works to detect many other metal/chemical contaminants?

Because hair testing is not really reliable for anything other than DNA. There are no standards for hair testing for heavy metals. Results can vary wildly even from a single sample. There are too many external variables (air pollution, shampoo, water).


----------



## Kavita (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I am







and







just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will

Okay, well, my house was built in 1953. I assume that quite a few other people also live in houses older than 15 years old! So I am quite sure that there is lead used in the solder in the copper pipes in my home, because that's just how it was done in those days. And I'm sure that every building built before 1995 in the UK was not replumbed completely, either. Generally buildings are not required to be changed to comply with new building codes, it only applies to new construction or houses when they are significantly remodeled. (Like if you were installing a new water heater, that would have to be done up to the current code.)

But that's not even the point--plumbing or drinking water is not necessarily even the main source of exposure for lead. There are a lot of sources, as previous posters have noted.


----------



## Kavita (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
I was thinking some studies showing that lead poisoning and anemia are not uncommon in 1 year olds and thus showing the need for invasive mass testing I at least don't know of any European country that does itThe year is 1989 in the european union

I wouldn't call it safety conscious, but that's not the point.

No, I don't. unknown genetic/metabolic disorders are common, which is why i support the newborn screen. It's also less traumatic than a blood draw if done properly.

Why don't they test for Mercury then? it looks like testing for the sake of it









That's all good, I still believe mass testing should be statistically justified.

I think it's stretching it to call a fingerstick an invasive procedure!


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
My child had blood drawn for health reasons, and it was the single most horrific experience of her or my life.

She absolutely freaked. I was holding the baby, and my partner was holding her. He couldn't hold her. The nurses tried everything and eventually had to help him hold her down.

We certainly did not instill any fear in her. We explained what would happen, why they were doing it, and that it wouldn't hurt, but might pinch.

She cried for an hour afterwards. She was scared for weeks to go anywhere in the car. She is still scared to this day to go to the doctor.

My daughter has anxiety issues and is very nervous around strangers.

PLease don't minimize what my child went through or say that it won't traumatize her.

I know of course there is no choice sometimes, and that the tests she had were important for her health, but to say it won't traumatize a child is ridiculous. Just because it didn't hurt or traumatize your child, doesn't mean it will be the same for every child.

One of the things they tested was her iron, and it was fine, so it doesn't concern me.

Also, since the tests are not routinely offered here, and we don't have droves of children with iron or lead problems, I am not concerned.

ALthough this thread has inspired me to bring it up with my doctor when my son goes for his 12 month visit this month.

Really. My daughter has had two surgeries on her cleft palate. I've watched her held down, screaming, for over an hour while they tried to re-insert her IV line because she was dehydrated from refusing to eat because of the pain. She spent the first week of her life having multiple blood tests in the NICU, not to mention the MRIs and various other bloodtests she's been through since then. She is also afraid of doctors, for good reason. I still wouldn't say she is *permanently* traumatized. I save that word for extreme situations. I'm sorry if you felt I was minimizing your child's fear- I realize it was scary for her, that's valid, it's an unusual response to be quite that terrified of one blood test, yet I still wouldn't consider it traumatized in the true sense of the word.

If that is the most horrific experience of her or your life, please consider yourselves extremely lucky.


----------



## BakingMama (Oct 18, 2005)

The Dr. (Family Dr.) for ds never brought up any testing for lead, iron or anything. When he was under 12 months, probably around 9 months, I asked about the iron but since they didn't have the finger prink method available I decided drawing his blood just for that wouldn't be worth it, and especially since I didn't have much concern.

Very recently, a friend with a baby 5 months younger got her dc tested when the Ped did a routine lead test. It came back over the "acceptable" limits for lead. Per her Dr. that was the first time in 3 years that this happened. They got their house tested, which came up positive for lead both inside and out. They only lived in this house for 9 months. They were renting so ended up moving pretty fast and got their new house tested before they moved in. With the new house somewhere on the garage floor, tested positive for lead so the new landlord sealed it up prior to them moving in. Just thought I would note that because I found that interesting, I would have never of thought a garage floor would have lead. So anyway, I found out from her that lead tests are often a routine test that is offered at 12 months. I never knew this. While I certainly avoid uncessary medical interventions, to me the benefits certainly outweigh the negatives for this test.

Ds is now 18 months and I am getting him tested for lead. I specifically requested him to. We live in a house from the 40's and with all the recent talk about various toys coming back with positive tests for lead it make me nervous. Although, I would still get him tested just based on the age of our house. Right now, I'm trying to get them to give me an order so I can take him to the local Children's Hospital Lab instead of having one of the Dr.'s techs do it (as I know the tech doesn't draw blood very often from young children).


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
Really. My daughter has had two surgeries on her cleft palate. I've watched her held down, screaming, for over an hour while they tried to re-insert her IV line because she was dehydrated from refusing to eat because of the pain. She spent the first week of her life having multiple blood tests in the NICU, not to mention the MRIs and various other bloodtests she's been through since then. She is also afraid of doctors, for good reason. I still wouldn't say she is *permanently* traumatized. I save that word for extreme situations. I'm sorry if you felt I was minimizing your child's fear- I realize it was scary for her, that's valid, it's an unusual response to be quite that terrified of one blood test, yet I still wouldn't consider it traumatized in the true sense of the word.

If that is the most horrific experience of her or your life, please consider yourselves extremely lucky.

That's condescending. What traumatizing to one person isn't to another.

I'm sorry but comforting my child when she woke up with nightmares about it fits my definition of traumatized. Being so scared that she couldn't get in the car for weeks without freaking, and thus interfering with her normal activities, again fits my definition of traumatized.

You also completely missed my point. Most kids won't be traumatized, but some kids will, and it certainly isn't because their parents instilled fear in them.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

I'm sorry if I sounded condescending. I have a different perspective, and maybe spending time in the PICU or belonging to groups that have members with severe health problems has affected me. Your definition of trauma is a little different than mine, no need to be offended by that. If I'd had a different child and a different life, maybe I'd feel the same as you. this kind of bantering really takes the focus off the important issue at hand, which are that simple bloodtests for anemia and lead ARE important. I AM sorry that your little girl had such a rough time, as I said, in a failed attempt to mend fences. And by the way, while I certainly believe that some parents make their children unnecessarily nervous about needles by projecting their own fear, I never, never said that's the _only_ reason children are afraid. Clearly, children with anxiety issues are an exception.


----------



## slsurface (May 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I am







and







just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will

Amen!


----------



## mom2tatum (Mar 14, 2007)

This is actually a routine check that ped's choose to do at either a 6, 9, or 12 mos visit and is a finger prick. I am one who doesn't go to a well visit unless I really want to discuss something or have a concern (we don't vax, so its really unnecessary for us). Our ped is also a lactation consultant and fan of AP, and I enjoy seeing her once in a while, though. HOWEVER, I must say that I am glad at 9 mos. I happened to be there when she recommended these finger pricks. Ds didn't even notice the pricks (I nursed him during it) - and we ended up finding out that he had a pretty severe iron deficiency. It took me and the ped by surprise because he is SOOO active and exclusively breastfed until 8 mos. or so when we introduced some foods like banana, avocado, sweet potato, the norms. She was shocked that his iron levels were so low because even though he was born 1 month early and only 4 lbs 13 oz, he is developing either right on or advanced in every area. After further testing, which meant more blood (3 vials taken from his little arm - which I think upset me more than him, he just stared at it), I did tons of research. We think we have it figured out as to why he was low in iron (because that is not typical of a breastfed baby unless other factors play into it) and now I have learned how to include more iron in his diet and getting things into him to help his body create more red blood cells, etc. But, I always think, wow, what if I never knew? Maybe he'd turn out ok in the long run, but maybe he would have suffered learning problems later...we'll never know.

You don't want to wonder what if, yk? Strange things happen and not every child fits into a box. And as far as the risk factors go for lead, I have heard tons of moms say that they were shocked that their child's lead test came back high.

Just do it. It won't bother him and it will give you peace of mind. Both of those things are important levels to know about I think. This is one of those things that is just not a bad medical intervention. We would've never known of his iron deficiency because he wasn't showing symptoms (yet).


----------



## gretelmom (Jun 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *becoming* 
I would definitely decline. I've never heard of routine bloodwork for a 12-month-old. We try to avoid medical procedures all together unless absolutely necessary.


There are cities where there are more lead pipes, and that's why you may not have heard about it, whereas in other cities like Washington DC there's such a high prevalence of lead poisoning in children with no symptoms.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slsurface* 
Amen!

Slsurface, the sentiment you were applauding was apparently Orangefoot's shocked disapproval of testing, followed by: "Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country?"

My first thought was to wonder if you'd actually read the thread.

My second was to check your location, since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure. I see that you are located in Michigan. In 2004, the state of Michigan had the following to say about lead poisoning:

Quote:

Michigan currently ranks as t*he sixth highest state in terms of the estimated population of children with lead poisoning, and the percentage of children found in Michigan with elevated blood lead levels remains higher than the national average*. In 2003, more than 100,000 children under the age of six years were tested for blood lead status and 3,141 children were found to be lead poisoned. Another 747 children with preliminary finding of elevated blood lead levels await confirmation of their lead status.

Lead-based paint was in common use for the interior and exterior of houses prior to 1950. Between 1950 and 1978, the percentage of lead in paint utilized in housing gradually decreased, but it was not until 1978 that lead-based paint was banned for use in residential structures. A review of 2000 census data for Michigan indicates that the number of homes constructed prior to 1950 is in excess of one million. *Lead poisoning may affect as many as 20,000 children under the age of six in Michigan*
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lead_108767_7.pdf

Under the circumstances, I find your attitude inexplicable.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
...since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure.

And in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand why anyone would choose not to test.


----------



## WannabeaFarmer (Jul 7, 2006)

Our DD was tested at 9mo and again at 12mo for Iron. Then at 12mo for Lead. The lead came back a little high, but the doc wasnt that worried cause we have city water(since then we have used a PuR 3 stage filter). But the reason we agreed to the 2 tests for Iron was cause I am VERY anemic and she was 9 weeks early. With those 2 risk factors the ped believed that it was warranted to test her early. She has been through quite a few pokes and draws and been held down and strapped to boards due to her suseptability to infection from a lower immune system as a baby.
We were lucky to find out early that she has anemia and since have been able to control it (first with scripts, and now finally with just an every day multi vit. w/extra Iron).
I am all for tests. We did delayed vaxes because of her immune system and it worked out great.
I think it really doesnt hurt to know. Kids can have blood issues and never know. I was never tested for certin things as a child and now come to find out(I didnt find out till two years ago and I am 24)that I have an Auto Immune Disease that is the reason why I was sick so much as a child. My mother expresses her regrets to me all the time for not having me tested as a child for this.
This is just my experiences and MHO.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I am







and







just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will

Sure you can test your water and many people do but that doesn't eliminate the need to test your child. Lead exposure can happen so many ways that you could spend years testing everything your child comes in contact with and still miss something.

A while back somebody came up with the idea of hunting canada geese and feeding the meat to the homeless. The idea was that they could solve both the goose over population problem and the hungry homeless problem at the same time. After having kill a few geese they decided to test the meat before giving it to the homeless and found that the geese had such high lead levels they were not suitable for consumption.

These geese were not drinking water from lead pipes they were merely eating grass next to roads where for decade cars drove by with leaded gasoline.

If you don't take your shoes off when you enter your house this is the soil you treck in.

Lead comes from too many sources to be sure your child ins't being exposed to any of them unless you have them tested.


----------



## slsurface (May 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Slsurface, the sentiment you were applauding was apparently Orangefoot's shocked disapproval of testing, followed by: "Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country?"

My first thought was to wonder if you'd actually read the thread.

My second was to check your location, since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure. I see that you are located in Michigan. In 2004, the state of Michigan had the following to say about lead poisoning:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lead_108767_7.pdf

Under the circumstances, I find your attitude inexplicable.

I am not against testing per se. Rather, I am against the notion that one solution fits all. I suggest that it is important to be mindful of the environment in which we choose to live. I am aware that there are many contaminants in my area. Arsenic is actually a bigger problem in my town than lead. In addition, before we bought our house, we made sure it did not have lead pipes and tested it for lead elsewhere. If we made these decisions, there may not be the need for _everyone_ to test their child.

As for toys with lead paint. Only a handful have been recalled in the past decade due to lead (and most of those were not meant for infants/toddlers). My dh and I also make careful decisions about the types of toys our ds has. For example, we do not buy toys from China (for moral/economic principles more than anything else).

Frankly, I am just surprised at the level of hostility in this thread. We should be channeling this energy into getting our lawmakers to reduce the amounts of toxins released into our environments and placed in our foods and health products without or knowledge. In the last decade these controls have been repeatedly loosened and are seldom enforced when they are in place. The question of when and whether to test your child is a personal one, just like vax-ing and circ-ing. I don't hold any judgment about whether or not you do any of these things, let's try to be more respectful of each other's person decisions.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
And in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand why anyone would choose not to test.









Actually, Riverscout, by posting her "Amen!" to Orangefoot, Slsurface was not discussing her choice not to test, but rather applauding a complete misunderstanding of the nature of lead exposure (i.e. the idea that testing the water supply would solve the problem). Further, the point here is that while regional differences would certainly justify a lack of interest in testing in some (I don't expect someone in suburban Phoenix to be terribly concerned) someone living in Michigan has no excuse for ignorance.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slsurface* 
I am not against testing per se. Rather, I am against the notion that one solution fits all. I suggest that it is important to be mindful of the environment in which we choose to live. I am aware that there are many contaminants in my area. Arsenic is actually a bigger problem in my town than lead. In addition, before we bought our house, we made sure it did not have lead pipes and tested it for lead elsewhere. If we made these decisions, there may not be the need for _everyone_ to test their child.

As for toys with lead paint. Only a handful have been recalled in the past decade due to lead (and most of those were not meant for infants/toddlers). My dh and I also make careful decisions about the types of toys our ds has. For example, we do not buy toys from China (for moral/economic principles more than anything else).

Frankly, I am just surprised at the level of hostility in this thread. We should be channeling this energy into getting our lawmakers to reduce the amounts of toxins released into our environments and placed in our foods and health products without or knowledge. In the last decade these controls have been repeatedly loosened and are seldom enforced when they are in place. The question of when and whether to test your child is a personal one, just like vax-ing and circ-ing. I don't hold any judgment about whether or not you do any of these things, let's try to be more respectful of each other's person decisions.

Slsurface, if you are not against testing per se, then you should not have posted "Amen!" to Orangefoot, since she obviously is.

Only a handful of toys have been recalled in the last decade for lead? Try _hundreds_, all in the last _year_.

You are "surprised at the level of hostility in this thread." Well, perhaps it's a little frustrating to see page after page of solid information and links be dismissed with a one-word "Amen!" to a thoroughly misinformed post. Your most recent post is far more thoughtful, and though I may not agree with your conclusions, if you had posted that instead of an apparently kneejerk "amen," it wouldn't have called forth the reaction that it did.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Some information on lead pipes, since this keeps coming up. Lead in piping was not restricted nationally until 1986, and at that point, it's not as if all pipes were automatically replaced. Further, faucet fixtures are still allowed to contain as much as 8% lead.

Quote:

*Lead-contaminated drinking water is most common in recently constructed or very old homes.* Many homes built in the early 1900's used lead pipes for interior plumbing. Lead piping was also used for many service connections that join homes to public water supplies. In 1986, a nationwide ban restricted the use of lead pipes for drinking water supplies.

When copper pipes replaced lead pipes, lead solder and flux were often used to join the pipes. Lead solder is a major cause of lead contamination in drinking water today. The N.C. Building Code Council banned lead solder in 1985. Since 1988, solder that has a lead content over 0.2 percent must be labeled to say that it cannot be used for joints or fittings in any private or public drinking water system.

Homes with plastic drinking water lines, which are glued rather than soldered, should not have problems with lead contamination from pipes. However, *household faucets may be a significant source of lead contamination. Chrome-plated faucets are generally made of brass, which contains 3 to 8 percent lead.* Contamination can occur when water comes in contact with these fixtures.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/ext...qwm/he395.html


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Actually, Riverscout, by posting her "Amen!" to Orangefoot, Slsurface was not discussing her choice not to test, but rather applauding a complete misunderstanding of the nature of lead exposure (i.e. the idea that testing the water supply would solve the problem). Further, the point here is that while regional differences would certainly justify a lack of interest in testing in some (I don't expect someone in suburban Phoenix to be terribly concerned) someone living in Michigan has no excuse for ignorance.

I understood what the main point of your post was. However, your wording about regional differences was in general terms, hence my comment, which was also in general terms.


----------



## mom2tatum (Mar 14, 2007)

Everyone is still stuck on arguing about whether or not lead is important to check for as a routine finger prick blood test. Again, I will say that my exclusively breastfed healthy ds tested for severe iron deficiency from the same 'routine blood test'. If that hadn't been my situation, I may have been on here agreeing with most of you saying to decline the test and that its unnecessary. These are BOTH serious problems if the tests come back abnormal...Iron deficiency anemia is one of the most common causes of later diagnosed learning disabilities for children. If caught at a 12 month visit and addressed appropriately, this can be avoided. Come on, what is the point in making a big deal out of a finger prick if you could possibly prevent later learning problems for your dc?


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I understand that your situation is different to ours but I cannot imagine routine blood testing being mandatory or even affordable by our National Health Service. I imagine that it so would be very difficult to justify.

I am not 'obviously' against testing: I am just shocked by it. I cannot believe that in all the years that lead has been known to be a problem there has not been some massive investment in clean-up or highlighting of risk areas and that this is seen as the only way to deal with the problem.

In this country where high levels of contamination are found, remediation work is carried out. In 1998 1m depth of soil was removed from the gardens of one street in our town and replaced with new then the front gardens were paved over. The tenants have been advised not to grow any vegetables in their gardens an periodic re-testing is carried out. Local councils have contamination strategies and implement them.

Lots of older houses have had pipework replaced on installation of new heating systems as gas fired central heating or electric heaters become almost universal and few properties still use hot air vented heating. Surveys carried out when buying a home check for sources of possible contamination such as lead and asbestos both within the home and in the local area.

If your child tests positive do you then go on to test yourself and other family members along with your home, water supply and land to see if you can remedy any problems found there? If not then how do you prevent further contamination?

I agree that the only way to find out if there is a problem is to test but I suppose I just can't see that every child needs to be tested or that blood testing gets to the root of the problem; hence my shock.


----------



## mom2tatum (Mar 14, 2007)

Trust me, I agree there are many more things that need to be done to reduce the problem of lead exposure altogether. I am appalled not more is done also. I just think that this test is absolutely fine and very beneficial to ALL children. And, I know three children under the age of 3 who tested high lead levels at a 9 or 12 mos check and yes, their family members were all tested as were their houses checked - one house in particular ripped apart to get to the root of it. But, it is not nearly as dangerous of an exposure to you or I then is to a baby.

Yes, there should be more done to prevent further exposure problems, but this is one test proven helpful to many families (some on this board who've posted previously) and I guess I cannot understand why people are so shocked by the test. Everyone who is shocked and is giving this OP advice to decline obviously has been lucky in never getting scary blood test results for their little ones OR they may have a child with lead exposure or iron def. and not know because they were so stuck on refusing any routine tests.

I guess its all perspective.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2tatum* 
I guess its all perspective.


So true.

Lori, sending you a PM in a minute!


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I understand that your situation is different to ours but I cannot imagine routine blood testing being mandatory or even affordable by our National Health Service. I imagine that it so would be very difficult to justify.

Outside of participation in some government programs, it's not mandatory. It's recommended. I do not believe that a blood test on all infants unduly taxes a universal healthcare system; on the contrary, preventative treatment and screening *saves* healthcare money as the costs of immediate intervention for severe cases and long term care needs for children who are exposed but go undetected far outweigh the cost of the screening.

Lead abatement is an ongoing process in the US. It is not a simple issue and, like asbestos, it is sometimes better to let "sleeping lead lie" as the clean-up process can end up causing more damage than good. There is no plan and no amount of money that could sweep the country to remove all sources of lead. As abatement continues to be an investment, so is education for parents on the risks of lead exposure.

I feel strongly that screening infants for lead makes sense and is the best and most sensible approach to the problem of lead in our environment in the US (and I suspect other industrialized nations but can't speak from a position of authority) and in the year 2007. It is an unfortunate state of affairs, I agree, hopefully my grandchildren will be in a different situation, but right here right now we need to know if children are being exposed and we need to know as soon as possible.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 
It's recommended.

It is recommended by some local and state agencies that all young children in that area be tested for lead due to a higher level of risk. However, last time I checked, the CDC and the AAP do not recommend routine lead testing of all young children across the country, but rather recommend testing young children that are in high risk groups, such as children who live in older homes. While my daughter's pediatrician offered the test to us as an option, he did not recommend that we test. After asking us some questions, he actually agreed with our decision to decline.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

This link says that the cdc does recommend routine testing of children 12 and 24 months. I think I would do the lead test if I lived in the U.S.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/...pdf/s2c25e.pdf


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
This link says that the cdc does recommend routine testing of children 12 and 24 months. I think I would do the lead test if I lived in the U.S.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/...pdf/s2c25e.pdf

That's from a Canadian medical journal. To believe that, I would have to see a link from the CDC. I'll try and find one that states what I said they recommend.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

_


orangefoot said:



I am not 'obviously' against testing: I am just shocked by it. I cannot believe that in all the years that lead has been known to be a problem there has not been some massive investment in clean-up or highlighting of risk areas and that this is seen as the only way to deal with the problem.

If your child tests positive do you then go on to test yourself and other family members along with your home, water supply and land to see if you can remedy any problems found there? If not then how do you prevent further contamination?

Click to expand...

_


orangefoot said:


> > Testing is most certainly not seen as the only way to deal with the problem. Here in NY, just for example, there _has_ been a "massive investment" in lead abatement of public facilities, and for private residences landlords are heavily regulated with regard to maintenance and disclosure of lead-painted buildings. Testing is important to identify children who are in the process of being poisoned; when high levels are found a variety of interventions may be made depending on the situation. The advent of routine testing in areas where lead exposure is common has been part of a multi-pronged campaign leading to a drastic drop in the numbers of children being poisoned (and incidentally, were it not for such testing we would have little idea if public and private abatement efforts were succeeding).
> >
> > If a child tests positive, family members may or may not be tested. Often not, because lead exposure is primarily damaging to children's developing and vulnerable brains. It takes particularly extreme levels to produce damaging effects in adults. And yes, a variety of tests can be conducted of a child's living environment, many of which are publicly funded as a matter of community health. Again, the blood lead level will determine what kinds of inspections and interventions are warranted.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

From the CDC page on lead http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ (bolding mine)

Quote:

As a result of this Act, the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch was created, with primary responsibility to:

Develop programs and policies to prevent childhood lead poisoning.

Educate the public and health-care providers about childhood lead poisoning.

*Provide funding to state and local health departments to determine the extent of childhood lead poisoning by screening children for elevated blood lead levels*, helping to ensure that lead-poisoned infants and children receive medical and environmental follow-up, and developing neighborhood-based efforts to prevent childhood lead poisoning.

Support research to determine the effectiveness of prevention efforts at federal, state, and local levels.
The page lists programs supported by the CDC lead mandate... the list includes increased testing of medicaid populations and funding of state programs for blood testing in childhood.

According to the AAP http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;101/6/1072 (again, bolding mine)

Quote:

Although recent data continue to demonstrate a decline in the prevalence of elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) in children, lead remains a common, preventable, environmental health threat. Because recent epidemiologic data have shown that lead exposure is still common in certain communities in the United States, *the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued new guidelines endorsing universal screening in areas with 27% of housing built before 1950 and in populations in which the percentage of 1- and 2-year-olds with elevated BLLs is 12%.* For children living in other areas, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends targeted screening based on risk-assessment during specified pediatric visits. In this statement, The American Academy of Pediatrics supports these new guidelines and provides an update on screening for elevated BLLs. The *American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians continue to provide anticipatory guidance to parents in an effort to prevent lead exposure (primary prevention).* Additionally, pediatricians should *increase their efforts to screen children at risk for lead exposure to find those with elevated BLLs* (secondary prevention).
So in a way, everyone is right







The CDC and AAP recommend universal testing in some places and in some populations (and these populatios change over time) but risk-assessment testing in others.

However, the impression I get from the CDC page is that they recommend this test for most children (bu please read through the page and see if you get the same vibe). I mean, after all, how do you identify if a population fits the 12% "with elevated levels" classification if you're not testing a fair chunk of that population? And if you actually read the AAP paper you'll see that the CDC did endorse universal blanket screening from 1991-1998....apparently this "true universal screening" cost to much and it was revised from "test unless you know there is no risk" to "test if you know there is a risk". Hmmmmm...gotta love money driven medicine!


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Since that post was getting info dense... I forget who asked about the short term/long term impact of lead and at what amount these were seen... From the AAP paper linked above:

Quote:

No threshold for the toxic effects of lead has been identified. The impact of lead exposure on cognition in young children at BLLs 10 µg/dL has been amply demonstrated,23 and the literature is remarkably consistent.23-25 The magnitude of the effect of blood lead on IQ in young children has been estimated as an average loss of two to three points for BLLs averaging 20 µg/dL, compared with BLLs averaging 10 µg/dL.23,26-28

A number of studies recently reviewed by the National Research Council found an association between lead levels and intellectual function in children.23 In one population, for example, moderately increased body lead burden (defined as a dentine lead level of >24 ppm, corresponding with a peak BLL of >30 µg/dL) was correlated with an increase in the percentage of children with severe deficits (ie, IQ <80) from an expected 4% to 16% and a decrease in the percentage of children with an IQ 125 from an expected 5% to 0%.29,30

In recent years, research has been directed to other aspects of the developmental neurotoxicity of lead. This research has been aided by the creation of instruments that provide valid, reliable measures of attention, behavior, and other aspects of neurodevelopment. Using these instruments, some investigators have identified associations between lead exposure and weaknesses in attention/vigilance,31 aggression, somatic complaints, and antisocial or delinquent behaviors.32,33 Other adverse neurodevelopmental sequelae that have been associated with low to moderate elevated BLLs include reduction in auditory threshold,34,35 abnormal postural balance,36 poor eye-hand coordination, longer reaction times,29 and sleep disturbances.37 Other studies have failed to confirm many of these results. Although these findings may be statistically significant, in some cases they may not be clinically significant.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

I found this to somewhat clarify the US gov't recommendation:

Quote:

Between 1991 and 1997, both the AAP and CDC recommended universal screening, that is, that all children have their blood lead concentration measured, preferably when they are 1 and 2 years of age. Because the prevalence of elevated blood lead concentrations has decreased so much, a shift toward targeted screening has begun and the criteria for and implementation of targeted screening continues to develop.
It is dated Oct. 2005: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;116/4/1036

To be honest, the current-to-this-minute recommendation is foggy to me and seems to be under development. It does seem that the recommendation for truly universal testing is no longer in effect.

I mainly wanted to clarify that at no time was lead testing *mandatory* in the US.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

Yeah, the "targeted screening" they mention icludes the following (from the AAP site):

Quote:

Children whose parents respond "yes" or "not sure" to any of these three risk-assessment questions should be considered for screening: 1) Does your child live in or regularly visit a house or child care facility built before 1950?; 2) Does your child live in or regularly visit a house or child care facility built before 1978 that is being or has recently been renovated or remodeled?; 3) Does your child have a sibling or playmate who has or did have lead poisoning?

Other candidates to be considered for targeted screening include children 1 to 2 years of age living in housing built before 1950 situated in an area not designated for universal screening (especially if the housing is not well maintained), children of ethnic or racial minority groups who may be exposed to lead-containing folk remedies, children who have emigrated (or been adopted) from countries where lead poisoning is prevalent, children with iron deficiency, children exposed to contaminated dust or soil, children with developmental delay whose oral behaviors place them at significant risk for lead exposure,40 victims of abuse or neglect,41,42 children whose parents are exposed to lead (vocationally, avocationally, or during home renovation), and children of low-income families who are defined as receiving government assistance (Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children; Supplemental Security Income; welfare; Medicaid; or subsidized child care).
It makes sense, but I find it interesting that they include having a playmate with elevated levels as a reason to test. It makes sense since the littles are playing together and may share an exposure point outside of the affected child's home (park, play structure, tarmac, bike route, food seller, etc), but I wonder how many mamas would think to call their playgroup with this info? I know mamas will call if their little is sick...but what about elevated lead?

This whole thread has been so interesting and raised so many interesting questions...


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 
I found this to somewhat clarify the US gov't recommendation:

It is dated Oct. 2005: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;116/4/1036

To be honest, the current-to-this-minute recommendation is foggy to me and seems to be under development. It does seem that the recommendation for truly universal testing is no longer in effect.

I mainly wanted to clarify that at no time was lead testing *mandatory* in the US.

I knew you were just trying to say it wasn't mandatory, and I wasn't trying to be adversarial or nitpick at your wording.







I just didn't want the impression to be given that all those who have chosen to not test were defying some kind of recommendation. I get the impression from some on this thread that they think parents who choose not to test are some kind of fringe group wackos who are defying the Man just for the sake of it, so I wanted to point out that many of us are not defying standard recommendations set forth by major medical organizations.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombatclay* 
Yeah, the "targeted screening" they mention icludes the following (from the AAP site):

...

Other candidates to be considered for targeted screening include ...*children with iron deficiency*...


Bolding mine to point out: now we've come full circle, haven't we? The commonly recommended blood test at 12 months is for both lead *and* iron levels...how do you find the children with iron deficiency without blood testing them? Oh, the irony.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

H aI totally wouldn't think that even if it were the recommendation. I decline a lot of things that are recommend like vaxes, erythromycin, and vit k at birth.

And of course we don't lead test here.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
... I just didn't want the impression to be given that all those who have chosen to not test were defying some kind of recommendation. I get the impression from some on this thread that parents who choose not to test are some kind of fringe group wackos who are defying the Man just for the sake of it...

I understand, and I personally have no problem whatsoever with parents who are informed and choose not to do the test. I have no issue with parents who are not informed and choose not to do the test either, that's their right, although I strongly encourage people to look into it.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
I get the impression from some on this thread that they think parents who choose not to test are some kind of fringe group wackos who are defying the Man just for the sake of it, so I wanted to point out that many of us are not defying standard recommendations set forth by major medical organizations.

I think there are some parents on this thread who have made an informed decision not to test, and I would include you among them. I think there are others who simply have a kneejerk negative response to any procedure endorsed by the medical community, and whose comments about lead exposure and testing reveal that they do not have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

We haven't tested for lead and don't plan to for now --- our state has pretty decent standards for notification of whether or not lead has ever been used in the building (when renting or buying) even if it hasn't been used for years -- you have to sign waivers stating you were informed that lead paint or pipes may have been used at some time etc (if you choose to live there) --- We have only lived in one place that was built before lead was outlawed (way before we had dd) and this apartment was built in the 90's and no lead was used so we feel pretty safe in that area --

That, and all the other *risk* factors have been assessed and we decided for now that it isn't something we are going to do based on our daughter's environment --

We don't do "well" visits either and don't vax -- she has never been ill once in all her 26 months --

I am mindful of iron because we are nearly vegan so I do make sure she is getting enough anyway --

It just isn't something we are fearful about -- we choose to focus our energy upon wellness. I don't judge people who test obviously, I just don't feel it is something we need at this point.


----------



## umsami (Dec 1, 2003)

Where I live, they test for lead at one and two years via bloodwork.

I didn't decline for my first son because we lived in a pre-WWII apartment... and the paint was chipped in places.

I would have declined for my second son had the red Thomas trains recall not have taken place. Because we had over 1/2 of the items being recalled







I felt better to be safe than sorry.

DS1 was a very hard stick... phlebotomists (4 different ones!) tried both of his arms, as well as legs before finally getting a vein. Very traumatic. He just had blood work a few days ago, and is still a hard stick. Our ped ended up taking it off the top of his foot. Traumatic for everybody.

DS2 is the complete opposite...an easy stick. One try, not much crying from him either.

I think if we had been living in a new house and the Thomas recall hadn't occurred, I probably would have skipped the bloodwork.


----------



## SunCB (Jan 29, 2007)

Thanks for posting this ?. I had DS1 done and it was not a good experience (took 3 nurses to get it done and several pricks)! I have been trying to figure out if I want to do it for DS2 now (I skipped DS1's 2 yr check after remembering what had happened a yr ago).


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Why are we debating what the AAP's or CDC's policy is? Why should we care if lead testing is "standard" "mandatory" or "reccomended" by this gov agency or that? Very few of us follow them on other issues like vax'ing.

The real issue is if we think the testing is a good idea or a bad one.

I think testing is a good idea. I also feel that if your Dr doesn't reccomend it to you that you should be requesting it from your Dr. I feel that if your Dr just hands you a questionair that you should hand it back and say that you don't want to skip an important test just so your insurance company or medicaid doesn't have to pay for it.

Feeding your child organic fruits isn't "standard" "mandatory" or "reccomended" by any gov agency, but many of us insist on it. So why not insist on lead testing?


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

We don't vax or do well baby checks, but I'm seriously considering getting a lead test for DD because of the lead paint in toys issue. I'm not worried about her iron levels as we eat a lot of red meat, but I am concerned about possible high lead levels. But...we don't have a ped and we don't have insurance, so if I do it I'd like to find a less expensive way to do it. Does anyone know if a naturopath or chiropractor can prescribe a lead test, even if I have to go to the hospital lab to have it done?


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
Why are we debating what the AAP's or CDC's policy is?

Well, it all started when someone stated it was "recommended," and I wanted to clarify.







I certainly wasn't advising that anyone follow those recs hook line and sinker. I'm all for making an informed decision. Also, I don't think anyone here is "debating" the recs per se, but just trying to get as much information as possible. I personally find it very interesting, and I am thankful to those here that provided so many helpful links.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
So why not insist on lead testing?

I agree that even in an area where testing is not routine, parents should look into the risks, make an informed decision about whether or not to test, and if they feel one is needed, request it even if the pediatrician doesn't offer or recommend it.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
I feel that if your Dr just hands you a questionair that you should hand it back and say that you don't want to skip an important test just so your insurance company or *medicaid* doesn't have to pay for it.

*bolding mine*

Lead screening is actually mandatory at 12 and 24 months for medicaid eligiblilty, regardless of risk factors.


----------



## *guest (Oct 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Does anyone know if a naturopath or chiropractor can prescribe a lead test, even if I have to go to the hospital lab to have it done?

I'd assume an ND could definitely do it, not sure about a chiro. However, just call your state or city health department. They may offer the test for free. My town does this. Although the test at the health department is usually the more painful, less accurate finger prick, so finding a private lab or hospital that deals with plenty of kids is probably a good idea.


----------



## GradysMom (Jan 7, 2007)

what an informative thread ! also we have stopped wbv and I did not know this was a routine proceedure for 12 mo


----------



## OGirlieMama (Aug 6, 2006)

This really was an informative thread.

Staceychev, your daughter's story has really lit a fire under me. I've been putting off my girls' testing for several months because I just hate the tears and hysterics that result, even though it's brief. My girls spend 9 weeks in the NICU and had a lot of follow-up blood tests, so I just hate to cause any more pain to them, even though I do feel this testing is important. I was thinking they were more likely to be anemic than have lead issues, but you've really opened my eyes to the possibility. I'm going to get them down to the lab before their next WBV on 9/5. Thank you and good luck to you.


----------



## SweetTeach (Oct 5, 2003)

we chose to do the lead and anemia test when ds turned 1. he had no obvious risk factors and his number came back at 4. that is considered an acceptable level but we decided to try and figure out why he has any lead at all. we sent our water to the epa to get tested and it came back fine. we have tried to be aware of other sources of exposure and he just had his (almost) 2 year old wbv and we made sure to do the test again. for us, any exposure is too much so we want to stay on top of it. he cried during the blood draw but got over it veeery quickly.


----------



## forest~mama (Mar 16, 2005)

We don't do structured dr. visits, but maybe we should have dd checked for lead. We know our 1920 house has it, and so she probably has it in her system. Thanks for the notice mamas!


----------



## OGirlieMama (Aug 6, 2006)

I had to update. I took the girls for their bloodwork today and reviews from the girls were decidedly mixed.

Lilly went first, and she's usually the more sensitive one, but she was such a trouper. Didn't even cry when they put the tourniquet on, and only cried when they actually stuck her. She settled quickly afterwards and I handed her to grandpa, who came with me because grandma's not brave enough, and I preferred not to have to take them alone and have one of them not be held after her shot.

Poor Katie, who is usually my fearless muffin, was flipping out even before they got the tourniquet on. She calmed down enough for them to start, though, and when they stuck her, I watched the tube. Nothing. No blood. She pushed in further, pulled out and said the vein was rolling, and she kept trying. It was horrible. Katie was turning so red, screaming so badly that I had to tell the phlebotomist to stop, because I couldn't let Katie be in such pain when there wasn't even anything happening and she probably wasn't going to get the vein out at that point. I have bad veins, so I know the drill. Apparently she inherited mine.

She was hyperventilating and so upset. It was so awful to see her that way. She is such a tough little kid and has been through a lot in her shor life without much complaint, so I know it must've really hurt. In the end I decided that we'll see what Lilly's numbers come back at, and what the ped says at our appointment in 2 weeks. If he says take Katie again, I'll wait a few more weeks and try then. And hydrate the heck out of her beforehand in hopes that it'll help.

When we got her calmed down and back home, they both took almost an hour's nap and were totally fine the rest of the day. But they got a lot of extra cuddles anyway.


----------



## *Karen* (Jul 28, 2006)

I would do both.


----------



## momma-d (Feb 2, 2007)

We just got our referral for our bloodwork at DD's 12 month check-up...and ...we're going to do it. It's not putting any foreign substances in her system, but it could catch something important...I plan on holding her, comforting her, offering her boob right after...and asking for topical anasthesia...it should (finger crossed) be over quickly...


----------



## OGirlieMama (Aug 6, 2006)

I'm bumping because we got our results yesterday at our WBV. Well, Lilly's results only since they never got any blood out of Kate. Her CBC was fine and she's not remotely anemic. Her lead level was 3.7. I'm really bothered by that. I know that's well below the threshold of 10, but it's not as low as I want it to be. The ped said yes, obviously there is some exposure, it's not at a danger level, but we'll repeat the test in a year. That feels like a long time away. Not that I am anxious to repeat the blood draw, but now I feel uncomfortable about it. He did say we can assume Kate's exposure is the same, but we can't know that, so we'll do her test in a few months and hopefully she'll have better veins then. I'm leaning towards asking to have Lilly re-tested then, too.

In the meantime I'm going to try and push as many of the "lead-unfriendly" foods as possible (http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/nutrition.pdf) although honestly they eat most of what's on that list already in pretty high quantities, except for red meat which they don't really love.

This house was built in 1959. I'm sure there's lead in here. And now I'm suspicious of all the toys, of course. Pretty much everything. Urgh.







:


----------



## Bunnybee (Jan 16, 2007)

Well, I had DD's lead level checked today and all they told me is that is is "low"! She had the finger prick in the office. They said it was too small to measure, hence the result of "low". Should I feel happy/safe at this result? SHould I have requested the blood draw or would that only be necessary if she got some other result form the finger prick?
P.S. She did not even cry or flinch...she sat on my lap and it was not traumatic at all!


----------

