partner profile
to participants. Risk communication
can be challenging when different
languages and cultures are involved. In
these cases, we have to have consent
forms and other materials translated
into culturally acceptable languages. At a time when science is
being relegated to a secondary
position in policy circles, how can
APHL and CDC help the newly
launched National Biomonitoring
Network grow a nd flourish?
There are often unanticipated
complications when conducting field-
based studies. We once had to delay
a project because customs in the
Dominican Republic impounded our
sampling equipment. In another study,
we suspended hair sample collection
from children in East Baltimore because
many of the children had hair so short
we couldn’t collect it. Another study
involved communities in India that had
a religious prohibition against cutting
hair. So obviously it was unacceptable
to collect hair samples from them. The first thing is to better communicate
the need for exposure characterization
in addressing health concerns about
existing and emerging hazardous
exposures. In addition, we need to
be prepared to address a wide range
of possible exposures that might
arise from an emergency or terrorist
event. We can’t possibly deal with the
environmental challenges of the day
without high-quality laboratory capacity.
As NCEH/ATSDR director, you have been
involved in high-profile environmental
health investigations. How important
is biomonitoring in such situations?
Our goal is to prevent exposures from
happening. But if they do happen,
the goal shifts to assessing the extent
of the exposure. In many cases,
biomonitoring plays an important role
in this assessment. Lead is a perfect
example. We wouldn’t have been able to
characterize the risks during the Flint,
Michigan, water crisis if we didn’t have
blood lead levels and national reference
blood lead data from biomonitoring.
PublicHealthLabs
@APHL
Formalizing the National Biomonitoring
Network is critical to expanding
laboratory capacity to deal with the
myriad of exposure challenges we face
today. We hope to broaden the use of
high-quality biomonitoring to increase
state’s ability to conduct routine
surveillance, support health investigations
and respond to emergencies. We want
biomonitoring to be more readily
available, so we can improve the quality
of exposure and health assessments.
What are your ultimate goals
for environmental health?
How can people limit their exposure
to environmental toxicants?
We all face potentially hazardous
environmental exposures in our homes,
our workplaces and the communities
we live in. There are often simple things
we can all do to reduce or eliminate
hazardous exposures in our everyday
lives. But in order to do this, we must
be better informed about the sources of
exposure, the routes of exposure (i.e.,
how they get into our bodies) and the
potential impacts. For example, if you
have a house built before 1978, you are at
risk for lead-based paint exposure. As a
result, you should not renovate without
taking precautions like keeping your child
away from any repair work that disturbs
paint and hiring a qualified contractor
to do the work. In addition, you should
consult with your pediatrician about
blood lead monitoring to assure your
children are safe. If you have asbestos in
your house, simply knowing where it is,
and not disturbing it, can be extremely
important. Knowledge is power; knowing
what’s in your environment and how
you might be exposed can take you a
long way down the path of minimizing
your exposure and reducing any possible
health effects. If there are easy things you
can do to lower your exposure, do them.
This is prudent public health practice. ■
The overall goal is to anticipate, identify
and prevent hazardous exposures in
order to improve health and wellbeing.
To do that, we need to know how and
when hazardous exposures occur. This
work requires a wide range of expertise,
including toxicologists, clinicians,
epidemiologists, engineers and chemists.
APHL.org
Fall 2017 LAB MATTERS
13