User:Freyachun/sandbox

Lead section draft

Health implications of environmental policy refer to the diseases and even death associated with environmental policies established in the United States since the 1900s. The environment affects our health in a variety of aspects, either through direct ways of exposing people to harmful chemicals or indirect ways of disrupting the ecosystems. Although it is difficult to determine the exact relationship between environmental risks and the development of death and disease, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately thirteen million deaths per year are related to preventable environmental causes. Environmental policies play a significant role in environmental development and public health in the United States in the past century. The health implications of each policy often affect different communities disproportionately.

[Insert brief summary of the health implications of CAA, CWA and CERCLA]

Although the 1972 Clean Water Act has been effective in increasing the amount of sophisticated water infrastructure, regulating source contamination, and protecting public health, drinking water-related problems still exist. Rarely any research focuses on examining disproportionate release of contaminations in low-income or minority communities, and study shows that in small water systems, larger percentages of Latinos receive drinking water with higher nitrate level. This suggests that environmental inequality does exist and has significant health implications.

The Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act is a federal law in the United States intended to reduce air pollution. It was created in response to a series of pollutant-related deaths, specifically in Donora, Pennsylvania, where over 20 people were killed and many more became ill due to heavy air pollution. The Clean Air Act is understood to have improved population health of Americans. Among the groups most impacted by the Clean Air Act are African Americans, who are disproportionately exposed to air pollution in the United States. Specifically, health conditions such as asthma and are known to disproportionately impact African Americans, with an estimated 17% of African American children impacted by the disease. The Clean Air Act is associated with significant improvements in African American health, including reduction in asthma rates, heart and respiratory disease, cancer, and birth defects. By improving air quality, the Clean Air Act helped reduce the negative impacts of air pollution in African American populations. [will provide citations] [will discuss specifics re minority health and clean air act -- detail re unequal exposure; health disparities; long-term impacts].

Threats to the Clean Air Act

The Trump administration has critiqued the Clean Air Act and expressed possible rollbacks in the policy. Possible implications of this repealing or rolling back components of the Clean Air Act include a rise in pollutant-related deaths and disease, and decreased overall health of Americans, specifically minority groups who are disproportionately impacted by the effects of air pollution. [will provide citations] [will discuss specifics re Trump's threats, possible policy implications, and possible subsequent health implications]. Air pollution is understood to cause diseases including asthma, lung disease, and cancer all of which are disproportionately found in African American communities due to higher exposure to air pollutants. If the Clean Air Act is repealed, the quality of air will decline leading to a subsequent rise in these diseases.

The Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs water pollution in the United States, and has been amended three times, in 1977, 1981, and 1987. The Act didn't reach its potential results partly because before 1987 the EPA was putting an emphasis on the point-source pollutants, which can be tracked fairly easily. However, there were large amounts of pollution coming from non-point sources, which are not easily identified. Therefore, the EPA has spent years implementing programs targeting some major non-point sources. Because large-scale experiments were involved, the implementation of the Clean Water Act has slowed down, and the environmental risks were't resolved as efficient as planned to be. Moreover, income and racial disparities are clearly presented in not only drinking water quality but also water infrastructure.

Water Infrastructure and Environmental Disparities

Having access to adequate supplies of clean water is essential to public health; however, very few studies have focused on examining income or racial disparities in drinking water infrastructure. Several case reports documented that there's a lack of piped water and poor water quality problems existing in low-income and minority communities. Some examples of the communities are tribal lands, colonies along the U.S.-Mexico border, and small communities in rural areas. In order to better understand disparities associated with water infrastructure, more sociodemographic data regarding populations served by each water system needs to be gathered. That's the first step for solving the inequalities existing in the water systems.(try to find disparities related to CWA)

Trump and the Clean Water Act

The Trump administration plans to roll back the environmental rules under the Clean Water Act. On February 28, 2017, Mr. Trump already signed documents directing EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review and rewrite the Obama administration's "Waters of the United States" rule. Mr. Trump orders them to assess the rules in consistent with promoting economic growth and minimizing regulatory uncertainty. Although the executive orders have no legal impact at all, it's still hard to determine what consequences the actions under Trump administration will lead to if they continue taking the legal process of revising/eliminating these rules. (research on Justice Antonin Scalia's case in 2006)

Superfund and CERCLA

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a policy that establishes the Superfund program of the US federal government to clean up sites with toxic contamination. There is much nuance in the health implications of this environmental policy. In certain case studies, the implementation of Superfund is able to prevent or improve public health conditions, yet in others the health implications are still unclear. The amount of resources dedicated to Superfund sites is disproportionately less in ethnic minority communities than in white communities. There are many case studies that explore the nuances of the impacts of Superfund sites.

Implementation of CERCLA

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) added amendments to the existing CERCLA to improve its function. There are currently 1388 existing Superfund sites in the U.S. and approximately 12 million people (4% of the U.S. population) live within a 1 mile radius of a Superfund site. The health risk imposed by these sites is measured by performing a risk assessment, which follows the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS).

Health Impacts of CERCLA Implementation

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) exists to investigate the health effects of toxic substances, especially at contaminated sites. ATSDR is required to complete health assessments for all sites listed on the National Priority List (NPL) and tries to standardize the results across multiple sites. ATSDR has estimated that around 80% of NPL sites allow for human exposure to hazardous substances. Furthermore, ATSDR has estimated that 10% of all NPL sites allow for exposure concerning enough to authorize further health studies. ATSDR has determined health risks at most individual Superfund sites, but it has not yet compiled and analyzed this data across all sites nationally. There is also no information available about the number of health advisories issued by ATSDR, although ATSDR has recommended emergency action at several sites. 

However, if we examine individual cases, there are site-specific health impacts of Superfund cleanups.

In Minority Communities

Superfund sites have been shown to impact minority communities the most. [CITE] Of the populations living within 1 mile radius of a Superfund site, 44% of those are minorities despite only being around 37% of the nation's population. It has also been shown that the government responds slower to community demands from minority communities than from white communities. Superfund sites near white communities have seen better clean up and harsher penalties for the polluters than minority communities. Specific examples allow a further exploration of the ways in which the EPA responds to Superfund sites in minority communities.

In African American Communities

In 1978, residents of the rural black community of Triana, Alabama were found to be contaminated with DDT and PCB, some of whom had the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in human history. The DDT was found in high levels in Indian Creek, which many residents relied on for sustenance fishing. Although this major health threat to residents of Triana was discovered in 1978, the federal government did not act until 5 years later after the mayor of Triana filed a class-action lawsuit in 1980.

In West Dallas, Texas, a mostly African American and Latinx community, a lead smelter poisoned the surrounding neighborhood, elementary school, and day cares for more than five decades. Dallas city officials were informed in 1972 that children in the proximity of the smelter were being exposed to lead contamination. The city sued the lead smelters in 1974, then reduced its lead regulations in 1976. It wasn't until 1981 that the EPA commissioned a study on the lead contamination in this neighborhood, and found the same results that had been found a decade earlier. In 1983, the surrounding day cares had to close due to the lead exposure while the lead smelter remained operating. It was later revealed that EPA Deputy Administrator John Hernandez had deliberately stalled the clean up of the lead-contaminated hot spots. It wasn't until 1993 that the site was declared a Superfund site, and at the time it was one of the largest ones. However, it was not until 2004 when the EPA completed the clean-up efforts and eliminated the lead pollutant sources from the site.

The Afton community of Warren County, North Carolina is one of the most prominent environmental injustice cases and is often pointed to as the roots of the environmental justice movement. PCB's were illegally dumped into the community and then it eventually became a PCB landfill. Community leaders pressed the state for the site to be cleaned up for an entire decade until it was finally detoxified. However, this decontamination did not return the site to its pre-1982 conditions. There has been a call for reparations to the community which has not yet been met.

In Native American Communities

One example is the Church Rock uranium mill spill on Navajo Nation. It was the largest radioactive spill in the US, but received a long delay in government response and cleanup after being placed as a lower priority site.

Further Threats to Superfund Communities

Cuts to the EPA's funding and resources would hinder the regulation and remediation of Superfund sites. This would perpetuate the exposure to health risks that adjacent communities face from proximity to the Superfund site. Delays in government response to Superfund conditions increases the exposure of health risks to proximate communities.

Freya's input

Since we are creating a brand new article page (Infant Mortality and Environmental Policy), there are really tons of subtopics we can consider. I'm planning to focus on the relationship between U.S. infant mortality and the President's party (for example, infant mortality rates were below trend when the President was a Democrat and above trend when the President was a Republican), and also the relationship between causes of infant mortality and particulate air pollution. U.S. would definitely be the largest component of my analysis, but I'll also do research on other polluted areas such as London and Beijing.

Bibliography

Rodriguez, J. M., J. Bound, and A. T. Geronimus. "US Infant Mortality and the President's Party." International Journal of Epidemiology 43.3 (2013): 818-26. Web.

Woodruff, T J, J Grillo, and K C Schoendorf. “The Relationship between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 105.6 (1997): 608–612. Print.

Landrigan, Philip J et al. “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110.7 (2002): 721–728. Print.

Mika's input

I intend to discuss the relationship between the Clean Air Act and infant mortality rates (IMR). Specifically, I will discuss how the Clean Air Act significantly reduced infant mortality rates in disadvantaged communities, which are disproportionately impacted by the negative effects of air pollution. Further, I will discuss the Clean Water Act in relation to its impact on infant mortality rates; this act also significantly reduced IMR in disadvantaged communities. Since both acts are at risk of repeal, I will discuss the potential implications of their repeal.

Bibliography

Chay, K. Y., & Greenstone, M. (2003). Air quality, infant mortality, and the clean air act of 1970. [electronic resource. Cambridge, Mass. : National Bureau of Economic Research, c2003.

Ross, K., Chmiel, J. F., & Ferkol, T. (2012). The impact of the Clean Air Act. The Journal of Pediatrics, 161(5), 781–786. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.064

Paul, J. F., McDonald, M. E., & Hedtke, S. F. (2008). Stream Condition and Infant Mortality in U.S. Mid-Atlantic States. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 14(4), 728-741. doi:10.1080/10807030802235144

Eva's input

I will work on a section of our page detailing the health implications of CERCLA and Superfund sites on different marginalized communities such as African American, Asian American, Latinx American, and Native American. I will give specific examples in each of these communities of health impacts, and highlight the impact on children's health in these communities as an indicator of threats to the community.

Bibliography

Bullard, Robert and Wright, Beverly (2012) The Wrong Complexion for Protection: Response to Toxic Contamination. The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response To Disaster Endangers African American Communities (pp. 100-125) New York: NYU Press.

Crawford, Colin. "Strategies for Environmental Justice: Rethinking CERCLA Medical Monitoring Lawsuits." Boston University Law Review 74.2 (1994): 267-326.

Siegal, M.R. Integrating Public Health Into Superfund: What Has Been the Impact of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry? https://elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/20.10013.htm.

Stretesky, P., and M. J. Hogan. 1998. Environmental Justice: An Analysis of Superfund Sites in Florida. Social Problems 45:268–287.