Water. from Horley. df
Importance: High
Hello — I'm going to send a series. of emails with materials you have asked for; as a way to organize them,
The first document attached to this.email is-our CLPPP updated analysis of the blood lead testing data we have for
children aged 0-46 . This isan update from what we sent to the Diréctar’s-office earlier in the year, in that we
added an additional year (2010-2011), and added data for May-August 2015 (per Géralyn’s request in-an emailtlate-last
week).
Regarding this data:
» We dre using the titneframé of May ~April for this chart, because the water source change in Flint happened
in April 2014. So, we started, by looking at the 12 manth time period from. May 2014 ~April 2015. Then we
went back ahd compared that same time frame to the 4 previous years, to see if the pattern was similar,
@. We intel all children with a Flint address, which may not-exactly conform to the, city boundaries.
« We only included first time blood lead fevels of» Smeg/dL, not all subsequent tests a child may have
received.
® We included all types of bladad samples — venous bleed draws, capillary samples, or uhknown {e.g. not
labeled as venous of capiflary}. Typically we would point to. vénqus samples as the best, most reliable, but
we had many nof-vehous samples, so to be inclusive added those in.
Looking at the charts, you can definitely see the seasonal impact associated with lead poisoning.
We do. NOT see a different pattern of results for the 2014-2015 year, right after the change in water saurce. That year
looks more like the data from 10-41, and 11-22.
For the fi! 5 years: worth of data, testing rates: were pretty consistent, so we don’t think that is driving the data.
However, note that testing levels: for May-August 2015 appear to be fower than in the. previous 5 years.
The sécond document | have attached is a presentation sent to.us this morning by Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, frara Hurley
Médical Center. She sharéd this related to-her data request that she sent to. our program. In scanning it, We noted that.
she is using different data than we did (by age, by zip code, time frames, which years she included, etc.}, so. comparing
6tiF data chart to her results is fike comparing apples and oranges. We have not run any analyses using her patameters.
We did néte some slides in her dacument that we might disagree with, for example her statement that’ ‘ater Is the
primary source of fead {in Michigan, it remains lead paint that is ourjprimary source of lead exposure),
xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs02_b0860_2950_2953_1
002951
PIGASe iat us WOW iF you Have questionsyyou have ebeut the dita charts we produced, Next enrail will re sionte Gf our
3
£
i
i
:
2
z
j
2
5
=
é
Naney:
LOR AAR ATOR SELESEOPESPEEEIPLOL LLL OLL ELEC CELE ee ee nnn eee eee ee eee ene nn nnn nn einen ess ness eee EE
xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs02_b0860_2950_2953_2
on
ite)
foo)
N
fo}
3
Lee
See
L6E
OLE
Sez
aay
EBE,
£9E BLE:
SCE 86E
68E BO
BEE Oke
is
Toe.
HOE
SLE
OLE.
ber
BE.
£LZ.
LEE.
She.
902
23g,
TRE
SOE
Tee.
ele
GEE:
AON
vag
ESE
ety
ote
eny
STE
BO:
AON
vBz
zy tor
ssp eS
CIS 808
vOS = Zee
ydeg “Sn
GbE.
GLE:
BLE:
vee
SLE
Ane
£62
OYE
TLE.
BE
Ose.
Rata
Kei
STOZ
storyide
PLOZ-ELOZ
ELOL-ELOE
CIOS T TOT
TWOZ ESE
ae josueak QT pen Bea] UMP “Gutpy {oO AUD
BiGel Ualuiseds pkayasnausiw A Bed SHH tpodnos:
S10,
St Jaquiagdag
UMCUIIUA Jo Auej/ides ‘snouas so addy Biduies-saprlouy
WW/EN G =< Sfann] Peay poolg ewh-lsuy AMO-sapaoUy
9593 ou Je BBE: yo sxeOA QE Ue SSB
SiLayy AHO Ra[g 03 ApDexa uGQUOD Jou Aguu-~,Juity,, SE BOIS! Si SSBIPPR Sseym uaup}ya,
6 5 5 i v £ £
$ Ee E £ + z 6
g Ei v £ v g €f.
£ Z. s or & ss a
¢ 6 a4 OG t th OTE
soy eA Gey ouar ag «AON «RO
#S|OAZT PRS] POO}
TE
S&S
6
Lib oY
we 68¢
6e Le
wag ny
ae:
at
at
OE
bE
Any
Te Oat
St OSE
Ot €%
aunp Agar
austy
YARIS BUN LISILa UNA
988 jo suw8A Gy DeYT S30) eipil 4D Gud go AND
§TOz
STOR -PLOE
PLOe-ET0E
LOC ZEST
CLOSE EOS
TIOT-OTO?.
ey,
xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs02_b0860_2950_2953_3
ie)
ive)
foo)
N
fo}
3
xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs02_b0860_2950_2953_4