Heavy metals in foods

[Todd Allen]

I've come to suspect my most recent significant lead exposure was due to home improvement projects I engaged in this spring and through the summer until August when I experienced rapid decline.  My house was built around 1900 and had acquired many coats of paint by the time I bought it in 1988.  I expect I got a good dose of lead in my 20s when I tore out much of the interior.  I had a brutal decline in my 30s and 40s and there is significant overlap between the symptoms of SBMA and lead poisoning.  I inquired then with my neurologist about testing for lead and he said it would be a waste of time and effort as we already had genetically identified the cause of my symptoms.  Having for the past few years focused obsessively on doing everything I could to maximize fitness and health I had recovered enough to once again engage in projects such as replacing windows and doors which put me in contact with the disintegrating paint on top of the exterior clap board but underneath the aluminum siding.  I wasn't eating paint chips but I suspect I have poor tolerance for limited exposures that others would find inconsequential.

[mccoy]

Todd, lead-containing old paint appears to be a more likely source of contamination.

I'm consulting the 2014 ACGIH booklet on occuaptional threshold values.

The threshold for blood lead is 30 micrograms/dL. This is called a BEI (biological exposure index).

BEI is a concentration value below which most workers are not expected to undergo deleterious effects.

I have to see if there is an update in the ACGIH BEI, its seems that presently there is more concern for exposures in children  which may be very detrimental at much lower concentrations.

[mccoy]

At long last I was able to test myself for urinary Cadmium and Lead. The reference values are those of the national society for the evaluation of risk of exposure on the jobsite.

Urinary Lead. value: 2.70 micrograms/g creatine  Reference values:  not exposed up to 3.50; exposed up to 50

Urinary cadmium. value: 0.18 mg/g creatine. Reference values: not exposed up to 1.50; exposed up to 5.

 

My interpretation fo the results:

1. Notwithstanding my consistent and significant consumption of cacao powder and dark chocolate, urinary cadmium is pretty low.
2. Urinary lead is not very low, although it's somewhat below the maximum threshold for non-exposed individuals.

I don't know where the non-trivial quantity of lead comes from. I can think about no sources.

 

The ACGIH value I posted previously of 5 micrograms/grams creatine for cadmium seems very low, since I would be very far above it with 180 micrograms/g creatine. Maybe there is some mistake in my report, where instead of milligrams they should have written micrograms....

Edited June 17, 2020 by mccoy

[Todd Allen]

23 hours ago, mccoy said:

Urinary cadmium. value: 0.18 mg/g creatine. Reference values: not exposed up to 1.50; exposed up to 5.

Hopefully that result is mistakenly reported in mg.  I'd contact the test facility for clarity.

Here was a recent test of mine:

CADMIUM/CREAT RATIO, UR RANDOM    1.1 mcg/g Cr    mcg/g Cr  Reference Range: <0.6

This looked fairly bad being twice the reference range.  Except due to having low muscle mass my creatinine is low.  So I got a 24 hour test which showed I was within the reference range.  Still higher than I'd like but not as scary.  I don't yet know the source but I cut back on cocoa with no noticeable effect.  I've read zinc supplements often have cadmium similar to calcium supplements being rich in lead.  I didn't previously consider the zinc supplement a contamination risk because the dosing is so small but now I'm looking for one with a certificate of purity from an independent testing lab to see if it lowers my cadmium level.

Mccoy, you might look at your blood and urine creatinine levels as they might be significantly higher than average due to higher than average muscle mass and/or exertion.  If so, that could bias your test results which are reported as ratios to creatinine to be lower than absolute measures such as a 24 hour urine test.

[mccoy]

Todd, yes, I'll have to ask the lab guys about the value but it really seems they wrote the wrong unit, otherwise I should be suffering cadmium intoxication, 90 times the occupational threshold!

Looking at your values, the 0.6 reference range reported in your test also would need more clarification. What reference does it represent? 50thpercentile? 95th? 5th? The occupational ACGIH 5 micrograms/gr creatinine threshold level value would put your value at one fifth the TLV, which is not bad. Also, the occupational threshold value in my test is the same as the ACIGIH TLV and the life-environment 1.5 reference value in my test is higher than your 1.1 value, which is good news. Probably the 0.6 is an over-conservative alert level,  I'm seeing studies with a 1 microg/gr creat alert level and a 3 microg/gr creat action level. I've noticed that the values are always expressed in micrograms units, so again this would suggest a mistake in my report. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by mccoy

[mccoy]

I'm scanning the reference values of various labs in Italy. The latest I saw reports <2 ug/gr creat as the reference value for the general population.

[Todd Allen]

9 hours ago, mccoy said:

Looking at your values, the 0.6 reference range reported in your test also would need more clarification.

I think 0.6 is the NOAEL (no observed adverse effects level) which is to say that below that level one would expect no symptoms from the exposure.  I think 5.0 is the occupational exposure limit, the level at which the risks of significant harm are too much to continue working a job with cadmium exposure.  

[mccoy]

Maybe the 0.6 refers to the NOAEL, maybe it refers to an accepted average value for the non-exposed population.

So far I only found the so-called BEI thresholds Biological Exposure Index) which are used in occupational medicine. They are 2 ug/g creat in Europe, 5 ug/g creat according to the American ACGIH. As you say, above that level the worker must wear exceptional breathing protection or must leave the task or must be rotated.

Edited June 21, 2020 by mccoy

[mccoy]

OK, the lab guys have told me that the Cadmium unit measure was wrong, being micrograms and not milligrams.

The above confirms that, notwithstanding the consistently large amount of cacao I ingest, my urinary Cadmium is very low, hence it is not necessarily a detrimental factor.

Of course, it may different for different individuals. I remember though that Ron Put had himself tested for cadmium and the concentration was not high, notwithstanding his regular ingestion of cacao products.

Edited July 1, 2020 by mccoy