Read 'n' Seed 5: Fourth Quarter of Environmental Epidemiology: Epidemiological Investigation of Community Environmental Health Problems

For the final quarter of my book I read chapters 17 through 24, which were pages 197-253.

Chapter 17 was about young drunk drivers in Michigan and the accidents caused by it. Deaths due to external causes are the highest causes of deaths for people aged 15-24 and car accidents is number one on that list. They talked about raising the legal limit for purchasing alcohol from 18 to 21, in hopes of it decreasing the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. This study was done in the late '70s and since then, they have found a significant decrease in drunken driving since raising the age.

Chapter 18 was just a review of the past five chapters, mostly talking about how it is hard to conduct these studies based on long term effects, so they are using the short term effects to hypothesize what the long term effects will likely be.

Chapter 19 was very interesting. It talks about a chemical, 1,2-dibromo-3chloropropane, also known as DBCP. They found that men who worked with this chemical (used on some crops to eliminate nematodes), became sterile. The longer they were around this chemical, the lower their sperm count. If someone had worked with it a shorter period of time, their count was lower than normal also. They found that if they stayed away from this chemical for a long time, they would regain their ability to reproduce. I found it interesting because there were no birth defects out of the ordinary, just less pregnancies.

Chapter 20 was about reproduction in relation to being exposed to anesthetic gases. Female anesthetists being exposed to this gas had results of spontaneous abortions. "The findings are sufficient to indicate three things: women should not be exposed to work involving exposures to waste anesthetic gases during early pregnancy; waste anesthetic gases can and should be controlled in order to protect the health of all operating room personnel; prospective monitoring of reproductive outcomes of nurses and of operating room personnel is needed to assure that unfavorable effects do not continue to occur" (p. 231-232).

Chapter 21 was a review of chapters 19 and 20. It mostly just talked about being adequately ventilated in work places, as to not be exposed for long periods of time to gases that can affect the body.

Chapter 22 starts to wrap up the entire book. It talks about the community studies that they wrote about in the previous chapters and how we learn from them to make health better. "Environmental health decisions reflect political, historical, and economic considerations as well as what is known and/or suspected about the impact of environmental exposures on health" (p. 240). He talks about how people who run farms and factories do not intend to cause damage to the health of the affected communities. It's important to learn from our experiences and make the changes necessary to protect ourselves for the future.

In chapter 23, he talks about the unintended effects of technological change, and how it not only affects humans, but our natural world around us that sustains our life, and how we must take responsibility for it. I thought it was very interesting because we talked about these things in class. We need to make changes before things get too out of hand and we lose all our resources.

The final chapter, chapter 24, is the historical postscript. He mentions the late Arnold Toynbee, who was dean of historians back in 1971. Toynbee says "Is it not an atrocity, to produce children who will have been condemned in advance to lifelong suffering and misery by the pollution of the world that is mankind's habitat?" (p. 253). It is so true and we need to do something to change our planet soon.

Goldsmith hopes that this book can teach people to alter their judgment and make the changes necessary to make our world last for generations to come. Like I said before, we need to make the changes necessary to overcome this. Not just a select few, but everybody. It's the only way we can make a difference for the future of this planet.

Eco-chic Lifestyle Change Week 8: Weekly Update

MY SMART GOAL
My SMART goal is to use a reusable water bottle instead of plastic bottles. It is very unhealthy for the environment and for me to be using plastic water bottles over and over.

"I will use a reusable water bottle 100% of the time 7 days a week for the next 10 weeks"

SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES

I've still been remembering to bring my bottle to work! I haven't forgotten since I last updated and I'm doing very well with it. I don't really give in to drinking pop when I have my bottle full of water. I am now back home for Thanksgiving and I had my bottle next to me in my car for the 2 hour drive. The only thing was that I gave in and filled it with pop instead of water. I wanted something with a little flavor and there was a 2-liter of soda in my fridge so I just used it. But since I've been home I've been using it for water, especially next to my bed like usual.

FEELINGS

I'm feeling really good about my goal. I've been remembering to bring it to more places, more often. It's very useful when I have it around and I know I didn't just waste money on it. I feel really good about that. I don't like to spend money, unless it's something I will actually use. I like how it's been going. I know that I'll keep using it even after the complete ten weeks is up. It's just a habit now :)

PLANS FOR NEXT WEEK...

Definitely going to keep my goal the same. I like how it's going and I know I will keep remembering it. Once I get into the habit of something, I usually keep at it. Most definitely going to bring it to work with me for Black Friday. I will be exhausted that day!


Blogged for the Eco-Chic Lifestyle Change Week 8 hosted by Amy@Eco-Chic With Amy.

Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Introduction
What is the issue/problem? As a consequence of raised bacteria levels in the water, beaches are shut down to protect the health of the public. Closure could be due to many reasons, such as, pollution or transfer of pathogens by infected swimmers.
What current legislation has been proposed to address this? H.R.2093 Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009

Who is affected by the issue?
Who is affected the most? Swimmers who get illness and infections due to the bacteria. Government is also affected, having to spend money to have the water tested in chemicl labs, and sending someone to collect the samples.
Who loses, and what do they lose? The swimmers lose by getting ill, and by not being able to use the beaches for recreation due to closures, and the government loses money by doing the testing of the safeness of the water. Also, at times, the aquatic animals in the area can suffer consequences, as well as carry bacteria and infection into humans who eat the fish.
Who gains, and what do they gain? The chemists doing the testing gain by finding new advances and resources to make our waters safer. Animals gain by getting the bacteria in the water getting taken care of so they can live in healthy waters.

What are the consequences of the issue?
For the individuals mostly affected? Swimmers get infections and illnesses, if not taken care of, serious illness or death could occur. Fish and other aquatic animals in the area can suffer from disease and death as well.
For their families? While taking care of the ill person, the infections could be passed on. If someone is fishing in an affected area, they could be feeding the infection to their families.
For society? It can affect the purchasing of fish in stores and markets"Any fish (store-bought or sport-caught) could contain contaminants such as mercury and PCBs that can harm human health - especially the development of children and fetuses. You can't see, smell, or taste the mercury or PCBs in fish. That's why it is important to know which fish are safer than others to eat" (Minnesota Department of Health).

What is the economic impact of the issue?
What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? Most of these beach monitoring programs are federally funded. Many local health departments monitor the water quality of beaches.
What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits? Health care and insurance companies benefit from the people getting sick from the contaminated water.

What is the social impact of the issue?
What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? The activities at beaches can drop, losing money at resorts and other beach companies.
What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits? If we do have testing of the bacteria in the water at beaches, it can help the resorts and beaches, reducing the number of days the beaches are closed.

What are the barriers?
What are the barriers to addressing this issue? Well, first of all, it's almost winter right now. People aren't swimming at beaches (hopefully). There might not be people in power who support the issue. They might not think it's important enough to act on.
How can they be overcome? Although, most people don't swim in the winter time, people still fish. Fish can be contaminated in the waters, and people can still be eating them. We just need to inform people in power and convince them this is important enough to act upon. Show cases of illnesses that were due to poor water conditions.

What are the resources?
What resources will we need to address this issue? Access to people with power, people who can make a change. Making the public aware of the issue
Where and how can they be tapped? Sending letters to editors, to policy-makers, putting up posters around town and near beaches, educating people on the issue.

What is the history of this issue?
What is the history of the issue in the community? According to the Minnesota Department of Health, in 2001 there were hundreds of laboratory confirmed cases of infectious disease. One outbreak was sourced back to children with diapers.
What past efforts were made to address it? The BEACH Act was made to standardize the levels of bacteria in the water, and testing them on a regular basis.
What were the results? "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended criteria for beach water monitoring. Congress has recently enacted the BEACH Act that requires states to adopt EPA’s recommended standard and encourage states to monitor and notify public when health standards are exceeded" (Minnesota Department of Health).

Allies & Opponents
Who would support this issue? People who swim at the beaches that are contaminated, people who eat the fish from contaminated waters, environmentalists, public health officials.
Who would oppose this issue? Government agencies who don't want to fund for the issue. Those who don't think it's important enough to worry about.

Your Recommendation
How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? Policy-makers should vote yes for this issue. It is important for the health of our environment, as well as the health of humans and animals.