# Lead test- is it really needed?



## Twinma (Oct 1, 2012)

We took our almost 24 months old twins to a general physician and he ordered a blood lead test. Is it really necessary? I dont want my kids going through unnecessary medical procedures, just for "just in case" scenarios.

So, please put in your thoughts on this.

P.S: We stopped vaccinating our little ones after 1 yr (since we dint know about their ill effects then), and the doc was very judgmental about it and that I am breastfeeding my twins. I am not going to him again, it was our first and last visit.

Thank you

Amol


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

It really depends on where you live and the places where your twins spend time. Lead poisoning is nothing to joke about & the screening, while unpleasant for a moment, could provide you with important information.


----------



## jmarroq (Jul 2, 2008)

If you live in a newer home and don't have any of the other risk factors, than it isn't really necessary, but there can be hidden exposures. Perhaps the soil outside your home, an old toy, an occupation or hobby, etc (did you ever notice the warnings on Christmas trees and lights?).

My son had a touch of pica as a baby and eat anything he could get his hands on (a spec of dirt, string, paper..he even chewed a hole into his crib railing). Even the average house dust can have lead in an older home, so everything that went into his mouth had potential to have some lead on it. I caught my son chewing on a window sill a handful of times when he was a toddler. I would have to pick the paint and wood out of his mouth and we lived in an old home, so I knew he needed to be tested. It was very invasive -a real blood draw, which he never had before. He did test rather high, but no chelation therapy was ordered. We were required to re-test again in a few months, and at that point the levels were closer to where they should be.

They used to say anything under 10 was OK. I heard they are thinking of lowering that number to 5. My son's level was 17, and later dropped to 3. A neighbor of mine said her daughter tested a bit high too, so if you are in an older home (pre-1970s) it might be a good idea to test. Maybe they have a less invasive test, like a finger prick.


----------



## Twinma (Oct 1, 2012)

Jmorroq and TCMoulton and thank you for your inputs. We have been living in a new apartment since before they were born. But I think I will get them tested. I am so hesitant becuase one of my sons had two catheterisations when he was 11 months old which later were concluded as unnecessary. So just making sure that the test is really needed.

Thanks again

amol


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

I agree with PP: if your Ped ordered it, it is necessary. That isn't a blanket rule but I have lived in both 'lead endemic' & not lead endemic areas & IME in areas where Peds never see lead, you have to specifically ask them to order the test. If they are ordering it w/o being asked IME that is because they are @ least sometimes seeing concerning levels.


----------



## alpenglow (Oct 29, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jmarroq*
> 
> They used to say anything under 10 was OK. I heard they are thinking of lowering that number to 5. My son's level was 17, and later dropped to 3. A neighbor of mine said her daughter tested a bit high too, so if you are in an older home (pre-1970s) it might be a good idea to test. *Maybe they have a less invasive test, like a finger prick. *


This. It can be done this way. Better to know than to not be tested and later find out there was lead exposure you didn't know about. I would want to know WHY the ped recommends it. If there are high average blood lead levels in your community then I would get the test. No amount of lead is healthy.


----------

