ZIP code
49753
in Lachine, MichiganPopulation 1,706
45.33/ 100
Ranked #22,070 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 31%)
Ranked #780 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 20%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
27.4 mi
in the top 2.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.6%
in the top 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST13thUS7thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.0%
in the top 9.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.4%
in the bottom 10.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
15.9%
in the bottom 25% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS25thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›The read
Lachine, Michigan (ZIP 49753), overall, ranks in the bottom 31% nationally (22,070th) and the bottom 20% of Michigan (780th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: distance to a hazardous-chemical facility lies in the top 2.5% nationally, modeled disaster risk stands in the bottom 7.5% nationally, and modeled arsenic rests in the bottom 10.1% nationally. Floodplain exposure registers in the bottom 10.9% nationally, homeownership resides in the top 12.7% nationally, and modeled humid heat settles in the bottom 15% nationally. On the other side, modeled coronary heart disease is in the top 6.0% nationally, and hearing disability sits in the top 9.4% nationally. Modeled stroke lands in the top 12.8% nationally, and high blood pressure lies in the top 15% nationally.
Defined simply, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. ZIP 49707, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 98%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 84%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 96%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 54%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 20%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 19%
8%
Disability
healthier than 21%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 96%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 61%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 92%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 49%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 51%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 19%
16%
Disability
healthier than 12%
7%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 97.6 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 9.2 (bottom 10%) — 88 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #164 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
48728
Michiganshares a border
Score 40.58
Closest healthier
49707
Michiganshares a border
Score 47.01
Similar health profile
48632
Michigan100% similar profile
Score 44.90
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 38.6% | 34.4–42.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.1% | 39.4–48.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 12.1% | 11.0–13.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.0% | 10.6–13.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.6% | 9.4–11.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.3% | 10.6–14.1 |
| Depression among adults | 27.5% | 23.5–31.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.4% | 13.2–17.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.0% | 36.3–45.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.3% | 32.8–50.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.1% | 4.6–5.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 13.5% | 10.8–16.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.8% | 5.4–8.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.9% | 79.1–84.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.5% | 79.3–85.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.6% | 87.0–90.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.3% | 63.0–73.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 66.5% | 62.8–70.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.7% | 67.7–82.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.4% | 11.7–17.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.9% | 15.1–20.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.2% | 24.2–34.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.8% | 26.1–39.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.4% | 20.0–26.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.6% | 15.5–19.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.4% | 15.2–19.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.7% | 13.6–17.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 38.4% | 33.5–43.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.2–12.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.8% | 17.1–22.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.4–7.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.8% | 18.3–25.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.2% | 12.5–18.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.6% | 12.9–18.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.5% | 8.7–12.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 6.9–9.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.8% | 25.5–36.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.2% | 7.0–9.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 19.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 12.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 10.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 7.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 92.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 64.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 34.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 55.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $57,292 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $152,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $920 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $972 ($719–$1,368) n=849 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.2 yr ± 0.65 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.6 yr (75.7–81.6) n=940 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.65 years of 79.2, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured