NEHA's Annual Educational Conference Recap

Here is a video that gives you an idea of what it was like to attend the June Annual Educational Conference in Columbus Ohio, presented by the National Environmental Health Association.

River Flooding: Man-made or Natural Disaster?

The wild weather and disasters that have struck the U.S. this spring have been awesome and disturbing. Many have lost lives,homes, and livelihoods. The flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers has been at historic levels. People have always feared flooding and for good reason. Floods account for a large toll of lives lost every year. Are the floods we are experiencing man-made or natural disasters?

I think a case can be made that much of the flooding is a man-made event. Obviously, humans don't control the rain and snow melt (I won't consider the effects of humans on climate change at this time). However, humans have made grand designs and structures to control the rivers.* We have channelized the rivers with levees and controlled the flow with dams. This has resulted in people settling and building near the rivers and in areas that would be threatened regularly by flood if not for the built features. Humans also influence the amount of land area available to absorb the runoff from rains and snow melt. Reductions in undisturbed land, vast areas of pavement, and features that channel storm water all affect the amount and rate that water joins streams. The flooding waters carry bacteria, viruses, and parasites as well as an array of chemicals into the affected areas (Black 2008).

The strategies that we use to control flooding are changing. Communities and government officials are realizing that old "nature taming" approaches have been flawed and can make the results of floods even worse while not allowing the natural role of flood waters to be realized. We humans need to be more intelligent in designing our built environment to work with nature, knowing that nature's powerful forces cannot always be overcome. Listen to a discussion among experts about the Mississippi River and flooding broadcast on May 13 on National Public Radio here.

Environmental health professionals often play an important role in preparing for and responding to floods and other natural disasters. It seems time for EH to also become involved in influencing the design of communities and built environment features that influence the frequency and severity of the flooding.

*Everyone knows about the Continental Divide? All of the water that falls on the east side runs to the Atlantic and all that falls on the west side runs to the Pacific, right? This is not correct, due to man made intervention. In 1890, engineers in Colorado's high country built the "Grand Ditch" to capture water on the western slope and carry it to the eastern slope and thus supply thirsty Front Range communities! Water that has fallen on the western slope crosses the divide and flows east in the Ditch!

References
Black H 2008. Unnatural Disaster: Human Factors in the Mississippi Floods. Environ Health Perspect 116:A390-A393. doi:10.1289/ehp.116-a390. Accessed June 6, 2011.
"Struggling To Contain A Rising Mississippi." National Public Radio. May 13, 2011.

There is a new buzz-term in the politicosphere-- "The New Normal." Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is one leader who uses this term. Gov. Christie calls for dramatic cuts in government spending and services. He touts zero-based budgeting as a solution. Apparently in New Jersey, every year they ask all over again- do we keep the schools open? Do we have roads, sewers, parks, and water running in the pipes? Should we fund police, fire, and of course public health? This is the New Normal.

Should we accept drastically reduced resources for vital government programs as "normal"? What about the role of programs like public health in maintaining our communities as a healthy place, with healthy people? Have the responsibilities and workload of public health decreased in proportion to the cuts? Has the burden of disease and health disparities been reduced sufficiently to warrant the reductions? The statistics and common sense both tell us they have not.

Sorry, I have to label this as bizarre, not normal. I view this as accepting that many people will continue to have reduced life spans and lower quality of life due to inadequate provision of services and features that provide safe, healthful, and decent living conditions.

The role of government has evolved and mostly grown in part because of the success in improving people's lives and longevity. I am completely supportive of examining where we are going as a Nation and conducting our government in a sustainable way, without an undue burden on the next generations. But we have our current health status because of the health-promoting features in our communities, and many are government responsibilities- roads, water supplies, sewerage, oversight of the food supply, environmental monitoring, and public safety are a few, not to mention national defense and homeland security. Should the level of environmental and occupational health and safety be left to employers' discretion and not government regulation? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviewed the achievements of the 20th Century that led to a greatly improved health status compared to 1900, and CDC named ten that had the greatest improvement to public health. (read at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm). Nearly all of the achievements, like improving water systems to provide a safe drinking water, were organized or run by government at either the national, state, or local level.

Should we cut government to the point where our health status may actually slide back to the levels before the 20th century? I believe that poor health for more people is the likely outcome of the "new normal" as it is being implemented. If people consider the consequences, they will reject this approach.

Altanta Brownfields Redevelopment and Public Health

On Saturday March 19, nearly 100 persons met to learn about and discuss the problem (and opportunities) posed by Brownfields sites in Atlanta. The group was comprised of a good mix of residents, government officials, academics (I am still getting used to this label), business owners, and students. The City has a redevelopment project underway to find ways to get these sites addressed and re-integrated into the neighborhood in a healthy and sustainable way. A brownfields site may or may not be significantly contaminated, but all represent a burden on the community and a lost opportunity.

I was asked to participate in a panel discussion of brownfields and public health. I have been involved with the South Atlanta for the Environment (SAFE) project to inventory and prioritize environmental health concerns. We reviewed data about brownfields as part of the project.

Some of the key questions from a public health standpoint include the following:

Is chemical, biological, or radiological contamination present on the site?

What are the levels and properties of any contamination present?

Who might be affected? Children, workers, and the elderly present special concerns.

How would people come into contact with the contamination? (breathing, eating, drinking, or direct contact)

Could the contamination spread off the site to expose even more people? This might be from blowing dust, tracking on pets, or through water, as examples

How much of the substances from contamination might people receive and for how long (dose)? It is the dose that makes the poison.

What are the potential health effects? These are specific to the type or contamination and the dose.

What physical hazards are present (cuts, falls, drowning, unstable structures, etc)?

What would be the future risk to health if contamination remains?

In addition to chemical contamination, other health issues should be considered:

Does the presence of the site contribute to stress among residents?

Does the site encourage criminal behavior or interpersonal violence?

Does the site harbor insects, rodents, aggressive dogs, or noxious plants?

Does the presence of a brownfields site contribute to the decline of a community? Blighted conditions cause lack of opportunity and increased deterioration of the neighborhood.

What else could be done with the property that would encourage the community as a healthy place? Can smart growth principles incorporate urban gardens, well-run greenspace, playgrounds, and other sustainable uses.)

What concerns have community members expressed that should be addressed?

We know that low income, minority, and disadvantaged communities suffer from a burden of environmental neglect and lack of amenities, and the environment contributes to the level of poor health. Redeveloping brownfields is an important aspect of overall neighborhood improvement.

The Federal Budget and Environmental Health Services

As most people who follow the news know, the House of Representatives, with a majority of Republican members, are legislating big reductions in the federal government budget. In addition, the President's budget for 2012 also proposes budget reductions. Environmental health services (EHS) is not spared from the budget axe.

EHS, a relatively modest program at CDC, is among those to be reduced by the President. EHS is targeted for a cut of about 1/3 of their budget. EHS provides significant expertise and technical assistance to state and local environmental health programs. It runs a leadership program that brings together a number of state and local personnel to help them develop more effective programs. It maintains expertise in areas like lead poisoning, rat control, reducing bed bugs,food safety, and bioterrorism that it uses to help state and local programs. It helps universities find opportunities for students to start environmental health careers.

The implementation of the food safety modernization efforts, the childhood lead poisoning program, and the healthy places programs are also threatened with severe reductions. These are the efforts most needed to improve Americans health status by eliminating environmental causes of disease and disability.

The National Environmental Health Association has responded to these concerns with letters to Congress and to the agencies. You can get more information about NEHA's responses at http://tinyurl.com/neharesponsetobudgetcuts.

This is only a first step. If you are concerned about maintaining expertise at the federal level to prevent illness, consider contacting your State's senators and your representative. The House has a web page to make this easy at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. Senators contact information is found here.

Have you seen the new video about public health? Environmental health is highlighted as one of the main aspects of protecting and promoting public health.

The National Environmental Health Association ballot for the offices of Second Vice President and Region 7 Vice President will be open to all NEHA members on March 1. The online balloting period will take place until March 31.

You can view information about all of the candidates at http://tinyurl.com/nehaelection2011. NEHA has posted a short statement about me. I have an expanded statement of my candidacy on this blog.

To explain: the NEHA Board of Directors consists of the National Officers (President, President Elect, 1st Vice President, 2nd Vice President, and Immediate Past President) and the 10 Regional Vice Presidents. The RVP's serve 3 year terms and may be re-elected. The national officers ascend through a 5 year process then rotate off the board.

Please take the few minutes to vote if you are a NEHA member. If you need information about the voting process, contact the always helpful Denver staff at 303-756-9090 or nehaelections@neha.org.