4.2 Article

Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Perpetual Environmental Justice Issue?

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000891

关键词

childhood lead poisoning; environmental justice; environmental justice framework

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the amount of lead in the environment has significantly decreased with the removal of lead in gasoline and paint, the United States has made great strides in preventing lead poisoning or reducing levels of lead in young children's blood. Even so, lead exposure is not equal for all children-low-income and minority children continue to bear a disproportionate burden of exposure primarily through contact with deteriorating lead-based paint from older housing and potentially through drinking contaminated water resulting from failing leaded pipes, as evidenced by the recent events in Flint, Michigan. These facts suggest that childhood lead poisoning is an environmental justice issue worthy of public health consideration and action; environmental justice is focused on identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects of environmental hazards on low-income and minority communities. The question remains, however, as to whether addressing the quality-of-life risk factors associated with lead poisoning might eventually lead to reduction in exposure, as well as potentially resulting in adverse health effects. Utilizing an environmental justice framework and examining this issue through a multidimensional environmental justice lens, we contemplated the quality-of-life factors that may essentially predispose minority children and their families to lead poisoning. Specifically, we examined American Community Survey data (2012-2016) focused on comparing race/ethnicity with other sociodemographic variables known to be associated with risks for childhood lead poisoning. The results provide thought-provoking context for making progress toward eliminating lead poisoning as a major environmental justice concern.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据