2022 05-17 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC: HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT .DRAFT Children under six yearsof age represented the majority of individuals tested in the data analyzed for this report. There.was nosignificant difference in children's EBLL rates between zip.code.55110 and the. comparison area. However, addresses -of 3.6% of children with a.n EBLL were matched to the address of a known Water Gremlin employee who also was tested for lead and had their place of work reported to the BLIS database. Ad iscussio n of take-home Lead and..the steps taken to prevent this from. occurring among Water Gremlin workers and their families is found in section.V]I. B. above: Figure 11 Zip Codes Where B106d.Leod Information System Data was Evaluated Woi-r Interpretation of theresults are limited for several reasons. • EBLL rates for an area are --a non-specific.measure. They must be combined with additional information, such as case manager interviews and.environmental sampling, to.be able to determine the most likely sources) of lea d.for the individuals with EBLLs. • Adult blood lead data. are very limited as most adults are not routinely tested for lead, and those who are donot represent the general adult population. • Eimployees.of a company Who have. received a blood lead .test are not necessarily representative of all.employees of that company. • MDHI receives test results but does not receive a roster of company employees who work with lead; so matching employee addresses to chi Idren's addresses is a rough approximation of.children who might be exposed to take-home.lead. • The reference level for EBLLs (.cutoff where a measurement.is defined as "elevated".) was lowered from 10 µg/dL to 5 µg/dL in 2012. This implies that tests. in 5 — 9,9 µg/dL range would likely: have gone unconfirmed prior to 2012 and not. recorded in MDH's blood .lead information system as elevated. LI6i