An expert in toxic lead poisoning prevention asks why government officials continue to allow drinking water to be poisoned by lead.
Dr. Bruce Lanphear is a Health Sciences professor at Simon Fraser University. Bruce led influential studies used by federal agencies around the world to set standards for harmful levels of lead in air, paint, water, and house dust. His research convinced public health agencies that no safe level of lead could be identified. He is currently the principal investigator for a study examining fetal and early childhood exposures to prevalent environmental neurotoxins including lead, pesticides, mercury, alcohol, PCB’s and environmental tobacco smoke.
When my wife Nancy was pregnant with our second child, she did everything by the book. Nancy was a pediatrician at the university hospital in Rochester, New York. She knew the basics: eat well, rest, drink plenty of water. She made a point of getting her eight cups a day, often from the hallway drinking fountain near her office.
Then, at 14 weeks gestation, she had a miscarriage.
A year later, we found out that the water fountains she had been using tested positive for astronomically high levels of lead—between 700 and 1,500 parts per billion (ppb). That’s up to 300 times higher than Health Canada’s current guideline of 5 ppb.
“The toxicity of lead has been extensively documented in humans.”
Health Canada
It wasn’t a new problem. The hospital knew about the contamination for a decade. Someone had even taped cardboard over the fountains with a warning. But over time, the cardboard came off, people forgot, and the fountains went back into use. No one told hospital staff. No one told Nancy.
She kept drinking from them, assuming the water – in a hospital of all places – was safe.
Lead in drinking water is an old problem, but it keeps showing up in new places—schools, daycares, hospitals, public buildings. We’ve known for over a century that lead is a poison, especially harmful to children and developing fetuses.
And yet, here we are, finding unacceptable levels of lead across Ontario’s public schools.
Historian Werner Troesken showed that cities with lead service lines had 30% higher infant mortality rates in the early 20th century. Even back then, the connection between lead and harm was clear. But lead was cheap, malleable, and easy to work with. The lead industry pushed it hard. Cities bought it. Pipes were installed. And generations were quietly exposed.
These aren’t theoretical risks—they’re measurable, documented effects found in doizens of studies, including a study funded by Health Canada. We now know that even very low levels of lead—far below what many governments still consider “actionable”—are linked to serious health problems.
“Lead in bone is released into blood during pregnancy and becomes a source of exposure to the developing fetus.”
World Health Organization
Lead exposure hits developing brains hardest. In a Canadian study, our team found that small increases in blood lead levels in pregnant women were a risk factor for premature birth, and lower IQ in their children.
A small drop in IQ might not seem dramatic in an individual case, but at a population level, it has real consequences. It shifts the curve. It increases the number of kids who struggle in school and decreases the number who thrive.
The effects of drinking water from lead pipes aren’t evenly distributed.
Those living in older, poorly maintained housing are more likely to be exposed to Low-level lead, which is linked to hypertension, kidney disease, heart disease, and pregnancy loss in adults. Toxic lead drives up health care costs, decreases productivity, and worsens human suffering.
“Lead Exposure was attributed to more than 5.5 million deaths globally in 2019, primarily due to cardiovascular effects.”
Bjorn Larsen, Lancet Planetary Health, 2023
So why aren’t we holding building owners and public institutions accountable?
Part of the answer lies in outdated policy. Many health authorities still use an antiquated blood threshold – 100 ppb – to trigger concern. But research has shown harm at much lower values.
Wendy: Consider adding an abbreviated version of this back in: ABut acknowledging the risks of low-level lead poisoning doesn’t mean routinely screening children during a well-child visit. But when lead is found in blood samples, attention must turn to identifying and It means eliminating the sources. The better approach is not more blood tests—it’s less lead in the first place.
But the inconvenient reality is that no amount of lead is safe.
The harmful impacts on health from lead exposure are entirely preventable.”
World Health Organization
We don’t need more research to know what to do. We need leaders to act with urgency. Remove lead-containing pipes and water fountains from schools, hospitals, and public buildings. Replace lead service lines. Update guidelines to reflect current science. And stop pretending that flushing lead pipes will solve the problem. It won’t.
Harvard researcher Ronnie Levin found that for every $1 invested in removing lead service lines, society would gain $15 in benefits – like lower health care costs, improved childhood intellect, higher lifetime earnings and reduced cardiovascular disease and premature death.
The takeaway is clear: removing lead isn’t just good policy—it’s a high-return investment.
It’s time to stop debating what level of lead is “acceptable” and start asking why any lead is acceptable at all.
Check out lead levels in your school and daycare using the IJB Lead Tracker database.