Posted: December 3rd, 2022

Lead in drinking water

Nursing
Title: Lead in drinking water
Number of sources: 7
Paper instructions:
Submit a 6–10 page paper addressing a water quality issue you were provided from the list of approved topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s. To complete this assignment, you must find 6–10 recent (less than 5 years old) articles that support the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) of your Midterm Paper. A minimum of six of these articles must reflect primary peer-reviewed research. Beyond the minimum six primary research articles, you may add additional, high-quality secondary literature (reviews or meta-analyses), and you may use websites if from a scholarly and relevant source (e.g., EPA, CDC, NCHS, etc.).
Your Paper must include the following:
• A title page, in APA format.
• Cite all sources within your text and be sure to follow APA format.
Include section headers in APA format for each section below:
• Background of the water quality issue: Describe the water quality issue and highlight its unique attributes and why a public health response would be warranted. This should include a historical review of the water quality concern, as well as a review of the current state of the problem.
• Assessment of Exposure: Describe the potential human health effects and the environmental harm of this water quality issue. Your review should take into account the unique environmental health factors that influence human exposure and what challenges/barriers can you expect to face in addressing this issue.
• Assessment of Public Health Response Impact (locally and globally): Analyze the core public health impact of responding to this problem and how local, state and federal public health agencies may work together in controlling the outcome in the future. Your review should also take into account what other resources and/or partnerships may be needed to respond to this problem to better ensure a sustainable public health response both locally and globally.
• Current Status of Action and Proposed Action: Given your review of this water quality issue, what specific public health actions, laws and/or procedures/practices are currently in place? What else do you feel will best protect the community and why? Make sure that our review includes identified policy/regulation gaps, areas for improvement and opportunities for proactive public health hazard prevention.
• Provide a summary/conclusion adequately closing the paper and finalizing your thoughts on how these measures contribute to positive social change.
• APA formatted Reference List
—

Lead in Drinking Water
Introduction
Lead enters drinking water when plumbing pipes that contain lead corrode. It has significant health effects, including damage to the nervous system, learning abilities, impaired hearing, poor function, blood cell formation, and short stature (Roy & Edwards, 2019). Congress banned the use of lead pipes to carry pipes into people’s homes in 1986, but 15-22 million Americans still cook and drink tap water entering their homes through lead pipes. The purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to reduce and prevent lead in drinking water. One of the major challenges of addressing the problem of lead in drinking water is that the effects can take time before they are evident. The public health response impact will reduce the number of children who report to health facilities due to complications resulting from the side effects. The purpose of the paper is to examine the exposure, public health response, and current status of the water issue of lead in drinking water.
Background of the Water Quality Issue
Lead in drinking water is a health issue since that requires a response from multiple agencies. Lead enters drinking water when plumbing pipes that contain lead corrode. It occurs mostly in water areas containing high acidity that corrodes pipes, faucets, and fixtures (Roy & Edwards, 2019). The health risk occurs mostly in older cities and homes built before 1986. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prescribes the maximum allowable amount of lead in drinking water (Roy & Edwards, 2019). Lead has significant health effects, including damage to the nervous system, learning abilities, impaired hearing, poor function and formation of blood cells, and short stature.
A public health response is necessary since lead can cause cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure, hypertension, poor kidney function, and reproductive problems among both men and women (Levallois et al., 2018). People should check for symptoms to identify if they are exposed to lead in drinking water. Some of the symptoms include learning difficulties, weight loss, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, sluggishness, and developmental delay (Levallois et al., 2018). Residents living in areas with a high risk of exposure should take medical tests to determine their exposure.
Lead pipes had been in use in the United States to transport drinking water. In late 1800, it was identified that the pipes would expose people to lead. The health concerns were raised in 1859, but the government did not reduce the risk (Levallois et al., 2018). Concerted efforts to limit or reduce the amount of lead in drinking were made in the 1920s. Today, through multiple agencies and policies such as The Safe Drinking Water Act, the government has taken action to reduce and prevent lead in drinking water (Deshommes et al., 2016). Health agencies and activists sensitive the communities to check their water safety and take medical tests to ascertain their lead exposure.
Assessment of Exposure
Millions of Americans today are exposed to lead in drinking, bathing, and cooking water. The lead pipes are still carrying water to millions of Americans 30 years after being banned (Deshommes et al., 2016). Congress banned the use of lead pipes to carry pipes into people’s homes in 1986, but still, 15-22 million Americans cook and drink tap water entering their homes through lead pipes (Deshommes et al., 2016). Rather than taking an overhaul in the exposure to lead, the government has tried to monitor and limit lead contamination.
Statistics indicate that millions of people are at risk of exposure to the toxic metal that can affect various organs in the body. After they were banned, the use of lead pipes is a sign of the lack of commitment by the water companies to safeguard people’s health (Lee et al., 2016). The water companies have shown no commitment to remove the lead pipes they installed before the ban took effect. Through various agencies, the government has not taken adequate measures to hold the responsible people accountable (Lee et al., 2016). The lack of stringent measures continues to expose millions of families, including the elderly, parents, and children, to the negative effects of lead in drinking water.
One of the major challenges of addressing the problem of lead in drinking water is that the effects can take time before they are evident. Small amounts of lead can harm the body, and the effects are evident after a long time (Stanek et al., 2020). Convincing the communities and government agencies about the effects may become an uphill task. Another challenge is the lack of reliable data and research demonstrating the effects of lead in drinking water across various regions (Stanek et al., 2020). The available literature does not demonstrate the effects in specific cities. It is hard for cities to take action without reliable data. Lead pipes are buried under concrete pathways and roads, and thus people do not take notice of the risks they are exposed to. Unveiling the challenge may require unearthing the pipes, a tedious and costly activity (Stanek et al., 2020). The challenges undermine cities’ ability to deal with the rising challenge of health risks as a result of lead in drinking water.
The water department and companies are facing other significant challenges, such as water shortage. The government’s allocations are directed to urgent issues such as water shortage, especially in agricultural areas (Sweeney et al., 2017). Other significant issues include the impact of climate change on water sources. In some states, the rise in sea level is affecting the quality of drinking water. The mounting challenges plus the lead in drinking water require massive resources and personnel to handle them (Sweeney et al., 2017). The problem requires support and response from multiple agencies to provide a lasting solution.
Assessment of Public Health Response Impact
The public health response impact will transform all individuals’ health exposed to the toxic component in water. It will significantly reduce the number of children who report to health facilities due to complications resulting from the side effects (Sweeney et al., 2017). The response will reduce the number of people developing cardiovascular problems. It will reduce the hospitalizations associated with complications such as high blood pressure, hypertension, poor kidney function, and reproductive problems among both men and women (Lytle et al., 2019). The impact will reduce people seeking treatment due to symptoms such as learning difficulties, weight loss, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, sluggishness, and developmental delay.
The local, state and federal public health agencies can collaborate to eradicate the effects of lead in drinking water. One way of developing lasting and effective partnership is carrying out research (Lytle et al., 2019). The various levels of government can collect data and check for similarities among the data. The data and research will show the extent of the problem. When they identify the problem, they can collaborate in developing a strategic plan on how to eradicate the problem. For instance, they can start by recommending identifying and changing the lead pipes (Lytle et al., 2019). Local public health agencies should educate the public on the negative effects of lead. The various public health agencies should collaborate in carrying out massive tests for lead components in the body. The collaboration is necessary to ensure they develop a comprehensive response to the problem.
The public health agencies should collaborate in developing a policy framework that will ensure residential or commercial water supply is not exposed to lead. One of the ways is enhancing the act of the Congress of banning the use of lead pipes (Roy & Edwards, 2019). The focus involves identifying the weaknesses in the act and developing better measures to avoid loopholes that can cause future problems. The collaboration should involve inviting global stakeholders in the water and health sectors (Roy & Edwards, 2019). Adopting a local and global approach is effective in understanding how other countries are dealing with the problem. The lessons are effective in developing a lasting solution.
Current Status of Action and Proposed Action
The current status shows that Congress banned the use of lead pipes in distributing water. Water agencies did not follow the ban, and they continued to supply water using lead pipes (Levallois et al., 2018). A government agency developed a policy to prescribe the maximum amount of lead allowed in water (Roy & Edwards, 2019). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prescribes the maximum allowable amount of lead in drinking water. It was developed after the government realized that people were still exposed to the effects of lead.
The policy is not sufficient since even small amounts of lead in water can accumulate in the body. It can still cause health problems after a long time. It is the government’s responsibility to protect the citizens by developing effective measures (Levallois et al., 2018). Quality responses are necessary to ensure the nation has a lifetime solution to the water drinking problem. For instance, people will not notice the effects of the small amounts of the lead until they develop health complications (Deshommes et al., 2016). When the complications occur, they will create an irreversible health crisis. It is thus important to create a solution that will lead to a healthy nation.
The proposed action is to change the pipes transporting water to homes, institutions, and companies. The change will eliminate the problem and create a healthy nation. Communities should take the responsibility of reporting incidences of side effects of lead or the use of lead pipes in their areas (Deshommes et al., 2016). The solution will restore confidence among the citizens that they are drinking safe water.
Conclusion
The United States was using lead pipes to carry water to homes and institutions in the 1800s. The public health agencies noted that the lead pipes could create a health crisis. The government did not take action until the mid-1950s. In 1986, Congress banned the use of lead pipes. The damage was already done since 15-22 million homes were connected to water sources using lead pipes. Research shows that lead can cause health effects such as damage to the nervous system, learning abilities, impaired hearing, poor function, blood cell formation, and short stature. The development of the Safe Drinking Water Act is not effective since it still exposes people to the toxic component. A public health response is necessary to develop a lasting solution that will ensure all citizens’ safety and health.

References
Deshommes, E., Andrews, R. C., Gagnon, G., McCluskey, T., McIlwain, B., Doré, E., … & Prévost, M. (2016). Assessment of exposure to lead from drinking water in large buildings. Water research, 99, 46-55.
Lee, W. L., Jia, J., & Bao, Y. (2016). Identifying the gaps in practice for combating lead in drinking water in Hong Kong. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(10), 970.
Levallois, P., Barn, P., Valcke, M., Gauvin, D., & Kosatsky, T. (2018). Public health consequences of lead in drinking water. Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(2), 255-262.
Lytle, D. A., Schock, M. R., Wait, K., Cahalan, K., Bosscher, V., Porter, A., & Del Toral, M. (2019). Sequential drinking water sampling as a tool for evaluating lead in flint, Michigan. Water research, 157, 40-54.
Roy, S., & Edwards, M. A. (2019). Preventing another lead (Pb) in drinking water crisis: Lessons from the Washington DC and Flint MI contamination events. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 7, 34-44.
Stanek, L. W., Xue, J., Lay, C. R., Helm, E. C., Schock, M., Lytle, D. A., … & Zartarian, V. G. (2020). Modeled Impacts of Drinking Water Pb Reduction Scenarios on Children’s Exposures and Blood Lead Levels. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(15), 9474-9482.
Sweeney, E., Yu, Z. M., Parker, L., & Dummer, T. J. (2017). Lead in drinking water: a response from the Atlantic PATH study. Environmental Health Review, 60(1), 9-13.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Lead in drinking water