Thousands of Los Angeles residents fled their communities in January as the Palisades and Eaton fires neared their homes. While they escaped the dangers of the flames, another danger was spewed into the air, affecting countless other people.
Airborne lead levels in the city were 110 times higher than usual during the wildfires, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Los Angeles’ “Atmospheric Science and Chemistry mEasurment NeTwork (ASCENT)” (sic) site measured the increase from Jan. 8 to 11, with lead amounts spiking on Jan. 9.
The CDC attributed the increased lead levels to the homes that burned, many of which were built before 1978 when use of leaded paint was still common.
“The presence of heavy metals such as lead is not unusual in urban fire emissions, particularly in California, where legacy pollutants from older infrastructure, industrial sources, and soils can be remobilized during fires,” the CDC’s report said. “For example, during the 2018 Camp fire, monitors recorded ambient PM2.5 lead concentrations that averaged 0.13 μg/m3 during a period of 17 hours.”
The health effects from the lead-heavy emissions won’t be specifically known for some time, but center officials said ASCENT’s real-time measurements of airborne lead and other chemical constituents from the wildfires will be combined with health data of smoke-exposed individuals to gain a better understanding.
Generally, increased lead levels affect nearly every human organ, accumulate in teeth and bones, and pose significant health risks, especially for children who are more vulnerable to the element’s neurodevelopmental effects, the CDC said.
“Measures including removing lead from gasoline and leaded pipes and the banning or limiting of lead in consumer products, such as residential paint, have led to a 97% decrease in airborne lead concentrations in the United States since 1980,” the report said. “However, unlike chronic lead exposure, which has been widely studied, the health effects of brief, elevated lead exposures, such as those described in this report, are not well understood. Additional health research is needed, because airborne lead levels alone do not necessarily indicate exposure.”
Click here to read the full report.
