Research conducted in recent years has increased public health concern about the toxicity of lead at low dose and has supported a reappraisal of the levels of lead exposure that may be safely tolerated in the workplace. In this article, which appears as part of a mini-monograph on adult lead exposure, we summarize a body of published literature that establishes the potential for hypertension, effects on renal function, cognitive dysfunction, and adverse female reproductive outcome in adults with whole-blood lead concentrations < 40 μg/dL. Based on this literature, and our collective experience in evaluating lead-exposed adults, we recommend that individuals be removed from occupational lead exposure if a single blood lead concentration exceeds 30 μg/dL or if two successive blood lead concentrations measured over a 4-week interval are ≥ 20 μg/dL. Removal of individuals from lead exposure should be considered to avoid long-term risk to health if exposure control measures over an extended period do not decrease blood lead concentrations to < 10 μg/dL or if selected medical conditions exist that would increase the risk of continued exposure. Recommended medical surveillance for all lead-exposed workers should include quarterly blood lead measurements for individuals with blood lead concentrations between 10 and 19 μg/dL, and semiannual blood lead measurements when sustained blood lead concentrations are < 10 μg/dL. It is advisable for pregnant women to avoid occupational or avocational lead exposure that would result in blood lead concentrations > 5 μg/dL. Chelation may have an adjunctive role in the medical management of highly exposed adults with symptomatic lead intoxication but is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals with low blood lead concentrations.

Ingestion of arsenic, both from water supplies and medicinal preparations, is known to cause skin cancer. The evidence assessed here indicates that arsenic can also cause liver, lung, kidney, and bladder cancer and that the population cancer risks due to arsenic in U.S. water supplies may be comparable to those from environmental tobacco smoke and radon in homes. Large population studies in an area of Taiwan with high arsenic levels in well water (170-800 micrograms/L) were used to establish dose-response relationships between cancer risks and the concentration of inorganic arsenic naturally present in water supplies. It was estimated that at the current EPA standard of 50 micrograms/L, the lifetime risk of dying from cancer of the liver, lung, kidney, or bladder from drinking 1 L/day of water could be as high as 13 per 1000 persons. It has been estimated that more than 350,000 people in the United States may be supplied with water containing more than 50 micrograms/L arsenic, and more than 2.5 million people may be supplied with water with levels above 25 micrograms/L. For average arsenic levels and water consumption patterns in the United States, the risk estimate was around 1/1000. Although further research is needed to validate these findings, measures to reduce arsenic levels in water supplies should be considered.

Ingestion ofarsenic, both from water supplies and medicinal preparations, is known tocause skin cancer. The evidence assessed here indicates that arsenic can also cause liver, lung, kidney, and bladder cancer and that the population cancer risks due to arsenic in U.S. water supplies may be comparable to those from environmental tobacco smoke and radon in homes. Large population studies in an area ofTaiwan with high arsenic levels in well water (170-800 jAg/L) were used to establish dose-response relationships between cancer risks and the concentration of inorganic arsenic naturally present in water supplies. It was estimated that at the current EPA standard of50 ug/L, the lifetime risk ofdying from cancer of the liver, lung, kidney, or bladder from drinking 1 L/day of water could be as high as 13 per 1000 persons. It has been estimated that more than 350,000 people in the United States may be supplied with water containing more than 50 yg/L arsenic, and more than 2.5 million people may be supplied with water with levels above 25 Ag/L. For average arsenic levels and waterconsumption patterns in the United States, the risk estimate was around 1/1000. Although further researh is needed to validate these findings, measures to reduce arsenic levels in water supplies should be considered.

It has been suggested that the indigenous Atacameño people in Northern Chile might be protected from the health effects of arsenic in drinking water because of many centuries of exposure. Here we report on the first intensive investigation of arsenic-induced skin lesions in this population. We selected 11 families (44 participants) from the village of Chiu Chiu, which is supplied with water containing between 750 and 800 microg/L inorganic arsenic. For comparison, 8 families (31 participants) were also selected from a village where the water contains approximately 10 microg/L inorganic arsenic. After being transported to the nearest city for blind assessment, participants were examined by four physicians with experience in studying arsenic-induced lesions. Four of the six men from the exposed village, who had been drinking the contaminated water for more than 20 years, were diagnosed with skin lesions due to arsenic, but none of the women had definite lesions. A 13-year-old girl had definite skin pigmentation changes due to arsenic, and a 19-year-old boy had both pigmentation changes and keratoses on the palms of his hands and the soles of his feet. Family interviews identified a wide range of fruits and vegetables consumed daily by the affected participants, as well as the weekly intake of red meat and chicken. However, the prevalence of skin lesions among men and children in the small population studied was similar to that reported with corresponding arsenic drinking water concentrations in both Taiwan and West Bengal, India--populations in which extensive malnutrition has been thought to increase susceptibility.

No abstract