You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Environmental Health' category.
by Kas
Approximately 100 people from Washington, DC-area universities, local government, and private industry shared an organic experience at the 2009 Policy Greenhouse held this morning at The George Washington University. The Greenhouse provided a forum for people to present, in five minutes or less, their ideas for innovative, sustainable solutions for local problems. The solutions may be addressed now, using some portion of the millions of stimulus dollars received by DC, or in the near future through changes to existing or development of new DC-specific environmental policies. The presentations were directed to The Committee on Government Operations and the Environment from the Council of the District of Columbia (who co-sponsored the event with the Office of Sustainability at GWU). Read more about the Greenhouse and the solutions that were pitched here and at the Greater Greater Washington blog.
The Greenhouse was an innovative forum and, one could surmise, left attendees with “good” feelings about DC government initiatives, some DC government offices, and how the community, DC government, and area universities are trying to capture sustainability’s gestalt. Attendees probably left with a brain full of high impact ideas for solutions that can “do good” and make people “feel good.”
I left the meeting not feeling so good and asking myself two questions:
Mining’s environmental costs are high, but many residents of coal-mining communities support continued mining because they rely (directly or indirectly) on mining jobs. Now, reports Ken Ward Jr. of the Charleston Gazette, two researchers have put price tags on the economic costs and benefits of coal mining in Appalachia, and found that the benefits don’t even come close to covering the costs:
It might seem obvious that having an entire town heavily contaminated with asbestos and hundreds of residents sickened by asbestos-related illnesses would constitute a public health emergency. Getting the federal government – specifically, the EPA – to actually declare a public health emergency in Libby, Montana took years of effort, though. Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson finally announced that a public health emergency exists at the Libby asbestos site, and the declaration will allow it to get more resources for cleanup and healthcare.
Andrew Schneider (who’s now blogging at Cold Truth – update your bookmarks and RSS feeds!) wrote last month about the need for this declaration:
We wrote last month about the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control’s withdrawal of a report that omitted important information about the contamination of the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina – a move that seemed to indicate better prospects for the hundreds of former base residents who used contaminated water and are seeking damages for health problems. On Saturday, however, the National Research Council released a report (commissioned by the U.S. Navy at the direction of Congress) that concludes it may be impossible to know whether contaminants can be linked definitively to diseases like birth defects, childhood leukemia, liver damage, and breast cancer.
Now, five scientists who have served on committees advising ATSDR about how to move forward with Camp Lejeune health studies have come out with a statement saying the NRC report “reached puzzling and in some cases erroneous conclusions.” Here is their complete statement:
The 1,050 State public health experts who make up the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) is urging the States and CDC to adopt a new case definition for adults of elevated blood-lead levels (BLL) and to require laboratories to report ALL blood lead test results to NIOSH’s Adult Blood Lead and Epidemiology (ABLES) Program. CSTE recommends the definition of an “elevated BLL” change from 25 ug/dl and greater, to 10 ug/dl and greater.
The CSTE’s policy statement is grounded on the growing body of evidence linking “low” levels of lead in adults with decreased kidney function, cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment. A mini-monograph published in 2007 in Environmental Health Perspectives provides some of the most recent evidence cited by CSTE to support its recommendation. The group identified a number of occupations for which workers are at particular risk of lead poisoning such as construction involving paint removal; demolition and maintenance of outdoor metal structures (e.g., bridges, water towers); and battery manufacturing and recycling. (I’ve written previously about mine workers with lead poisoning.)
As the public health community mourns the loss of a great scientist and colleague, The Pump Handle would like to share some of what has been written about Kate Mahaffey. Please leave your own remembrances in the comments section below.
“I have known Kathryn as a colleague for more than a decade, but most recently have been impressed with her steadfast scientific integrity while at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She always managed to honestly communicate scientific findings that while unpopular with some, were critically important to protecting public health. …Kathryn is a role model for the next generation of environmental public health practitioners. [The skills she developed were] often learned through ‘trial by fire’ and Kathryn has certainly experienced that, but has always maintained her scientific integrity grounded in the best science available.” Henry A. Anderson, MD, chief medical officer, state environmental and occupational disease epidemiologist, Wisconsin Division of Public Health.
It is with deep sadness we inform you of the sudden passing of Kathyrn R Mahaffey, PhD. Kate had an exceptional and diverse career, with appointments at FDA, NIOSH, NIEHS and EPA. Most recently, Kate served as a Professorial Lecturer at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
Her husband, David Jacobs offers the following remembrance and tribute to her significant contributions to the public’s health. Information about a memorial service appears at the end of this post.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey passed away peacefully in her sleep June 2, 2009 after decades of work that advanced the nation’s health and environment. She is remembered as a beloved wife, mother, scientist and community member who served as a source of inspiration with her principled and tireless intellect. She was the rare scientist who knew how to apply the lessons from academic research to protect the public heath. Her work changed the face of epidemic heavy metal poisoning, endocrine disruptors and many other environmental pollutants that afflict children, pregnant women and at-risk populations. Literally millions of children have avoided the tragedy of lead and mercury poisoning as a consequence of her work.
by Kas
Introduction
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) coordinates Federal R&D activities related to nanotechnology. Currently, the NNI involves the activities of 25 Federal agencies, 13 of which have budgets planned for 2010. Four of these agencies have specific responsibilities to address environmental, health, and safety (EHS) nanotechnology research needs as outlined by the 2008 NNI publication Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. The four agencies are: USEPA, NIOSH, NIST, and NIH (that’s the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and National Institute of Health). Four other Federal agencies have EHS budgets, but are not appointed with specific EHS nanotechnology research priorities by NNI. These agencies are: NSF, DoD, DOE, and USDA (National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and United States Department of Agriculture).
Methods
Using publicly available NNI budget data, we evaluated the planned investments for nanotechnology EHS research in 2010. The data for the USEPA, NIOSH, NIST, and NIH were assessed to determine the percent of the Agency’s budget dedicated to nanotechnology EHS research and the status of the budgets as compared with 2009 data. Finally, the total NNI EHS budget was examined to help to provide a sense of perspective.
by Kas
The USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) will receive nutrient-rich fertilizer that will keep it from becoming obsolete. IRIS provides an overall characterization of the public health risks for a given chemical in a given situation. It is the place to go to find noncancer effects (reference doses (RfD), reference concentrations (RfC)) and cancer effects (cancer slope factors and unit risks) that may result from exposure to various substances in the environment. These kinds of numbers go into the calculations for remediation goals at Superfund sites.
IRIS values drive regulatory and policy decisions. For example, IRIS is the primary source of toxicity values used to develop remediation goals and screening levels at both the State and Federal level.
As of May 21, 2009, there is a new IRIS process in place. A seven-step assessment development process should be more responsive to the needs of the USEPA and other government public health partners. It is expected to shorten the assessment turnaround time to 23 months —and, frankly, even if it takes them 46 months per assessment, that would be a huge improvement on the unhurried, glacial pace we’ve grown accustomed to in the last decade. The new process promises scientific quality, public comment, independent external peer review, and transparent and documented judgments.
Grow, baby, grow.
Kas is an industrial hygienist studying public health in the DC metro area.
In honor of the Washington, DC Area Bicyclist Association and their annual Bike to Work Day (Friday, May 15)
by Reut Tenne
A couple of days ago, I announced to a few friends that I regret not participating in the District of Columbia’s (DC) bicyclists’ movement. I am not sure that there is such a thing, but I sure would have liked to create one. For the past two years, I have gotten myself everywhere with my little old bike, and it has become my pride and joy. When I bike down a street crowded with cars, I feel superior to all the drivers; I see them as trapped in their big polluting vehicles while I get to enjoy Mother Earth’s mood for the day, rain or shine. My feeling of superiority, however, is quickly removed by the drivers and urban planners who make city biking complicated and dangerous.
