Murez, Cara. “In U.S., Minority Communities More Likely to Have Water Contaminated by Toxic Metals.” US News & World Report, HealthDay, 28 Dec. 2022, https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-12-28/in-u-s-minority-communities-more-likely-to-have-water-contaminated-by-toxic-metals. 

Water metal concentrations, specifically arsenic and uranium, were found to be significantly higher in the drinking water of minority communities, especially Hispanic and African American. With more “residents from communities of color relying on public drinking water,” they have a heightened risk for arsenic and uranium exposure which can result in adverse, often fatal, health outcomes such as cancer and heart disease. The study tested 2,585 counties for arsenic and 1,174 counties for uranium.

This is incredibly saddening, across all incomes and classes we should strive as a society to provide at least the bare necessities, such as clean drinking water, to everyone; However, especially to people who are systematically disadvantaged due to (racial/ethnic/cultural) biases in society. Perhaps governmentally funded filtration systems are needed to keep heavy metal concentrations low as the alternatives, having low-income families buy bottled water or to have them buy their own filtration systems, is costly and far more time consuming in maintenance for each household. It is unfortunate how our most vulnerable, those of low socioeconomic status, are paying the price for the reckless or ignorant actions of polluting larger corporations and businesses.

McVan, Madison. “Agriculture Pollutes Underground Drinking Water in Minnesota. Well Owners Pay the Price.” The Minnesota Reformer, Investigate Midwest, 17 Jan. 2023, https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/01/17/agriculture-pollutes-underground-drinking-water-in-minnesota-well-owners-pay-the-price/.

Excess levels of nitrogen (22 ppm over the EPA’s safety standard of 10 ppm) are rendering the well water of Weaver, Wabasha County undrinkable. Although the water is “crystal clear, refreshing, and odorless,” the nitrate rich water can cause a multitude of health issues, often fatal ones. For instance, nitrate consumption is not only “linked to thyroid disease and certain cancers,” but additionally can cause methemoglobinemia, also known as “baby blue syndrome,” which affects the blood’s ability to carry oxygen throughout the body. This excess of nitrate (formed from nitrogen and oxygenated water) commenced from the nitrogen-rich fertilizer used in high doses in farming practices that, after precipitation, flows as agricultural runoff into watersheds and aquifers, and thus, are contaminated with unhealthy, undrinkable fresh water. Not only does this issue strike low-income rural families in Minnesota, but also solutions to the issue: installing a filtration system for purchasing bottled water, can be costly to already struggling families.

When looking up methemoglobinemia, the “baby blue syndrome,” although written in the name of the condition, I was still so surprised to see visuals of people’s skin developing a dark purple-blue hue, it seemed almost alien. I can’t even begin to imagine how terrifying it would be for your skin to change color, I don’t know why this issue hasn’t reached and shocked more people. As what seems an incessant trend, not just limited to the United States’ capitalist society but globally, that large scale business ventures, in this case agricultural corporations, shove the environmental burden onto low-income families, usually in terms of bad air quality or contaminated soils and water.

LaMotte, Sandee. “Locally Caught Fish Are Full of Dangerous Chemicals Called PFAS, Study Finds.” CNN, Cable News Network, 17 Jan. 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/health/freshwater-fish-pfas-contamination-wellness/index.html.

Manufactured additives, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals” because of their resistance to decomposition, are being found in dangerously high levels across the streams, rivers of the nation, along with the Great Lakes. The synthetic toxins were extensively used in the 1950s and beyond to make “consumer products nonstick and resistant to stains, water, and grease damage.” PFAS leached into public water systems and private wells and further “accumulated in the bodies of fish, shellfish, livestock, dairy and game animals that people eat.” The EPA recommended standard of PFOS in drinking water is 70 ppt (parts per trillion) but has been lowered to 0.02 ppt  for growing public health concerns. Astonishingly, the level of PFOS in the contaminated water is 8,000 ppt, meaning that, in comparison, a single contaminated locally caught freshwater fish contains the same level of PFOS as a month’s worth of drinking contaminated water. “Chronic diseases, high cholesterol, and cancer, as well as a reduced antibody response” to vaccines has been linked to chemicals in the PFAS family.

I wonder that, in wake of this new research of the potent danger that locally caught freshwater poses to human health, if new governmental laws and regulations emerge? I am conflicted, I both hope that there will be in order to halt consumption and spread awareness about the imminent dangers of such innocuous fish, and thus, save human lives; However, I could see many small businesses being decimated by such an action which would, once again, target lower or middle class families. It is surprising to me that PFAS is still being used, now in Teflon and other non-stick cookware (in products that you cook with!), despite the adverse health effects. In this modern era, we should be investing more heavily into newer technologies and easily biodegradable substances, why are we still using “1950’s” chemicals widely studied to be dangerous?

Gerretsen, Isabelle. “How Microplastics Are Infiltrating the Food You Eat.” BBC Future, BBC, 3 Jan. 2023, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230103-how-plastic-is-getting-into-our-food.

An environmental non profit, the Environmental Working Group, divulged astonishing findings that sewage sludge has “contaminated almost 20 million acres of US cropland and PFAS, synthetic toxins most commonly found in plastic products and resist normal environmental conditions to decompose. After municipal wastewater is cleaned, the byproduct is sewage sludge which is both rich in nutrients, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, and costly for disposal, hence leading sewage sludge to be used most commonly as an organic fertilizer in the United States. Hundreds of millions of microplastic enter wastewater treatment which thus leads microplastic particles to contaminate sewage sludge, and by extension, agricultural soils. Additionally, according to agronomist Mary Beth Kirkham at Kansas University, “plastic serves as a vector for plant uptake of toxic chemicals such as cadmium.” Moreover, microplastics both stunt the growth of earthworms and cause weight reduction because microplastic obstruct earthworm digestive tracts. During the creation of plastic, chemicals are included that “disrupt the endocrine system and the hormones that regulate our growth and development” while also having been linked to cancer, heart disease, cell damage, and poor fetal development.

It seems that excess nutrient use in fertilizers is the root cause of many issues, stemming from eutrophication to microplastics to nitrate contaminated water. Sewage sludge, in this case, needs to be more properly regulated, perhaps by stricter government enforcement or economic incentive, because not only is this excess nutrient surge contaminating water, but also hammering soil health, soil dependent creatures, crop quality, and human health being that we all rely on the agricultural system which envelopes all the aspects previously listed (the soil, water, micro biome, and soil organisms). Although sewage sludge is often not disposed of due to its expensive nature, it seems that it is only expensive when not considering external costs to the health of the ecosystem and humans which depend on (stated prior) healthy ecosystem services. I hope in the near future large scale businesses are able to view economically profitable in terms more than just monetary value, but intrinsic and in terms of retaining the health of the natural and human world.

Cullen, Cait. “20,000 Premature Us Deaths Caused by Human-Ignited Fires Each Year.” ScienceDaily, IOP Publishing, 16 Jan. 2023, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230116112413.htm.

Human-ignited fires are accounting for the death of 80% premature deaths by smoke particles according to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Moreover, the level of dire activity has only risen over the years with 2018 marking some of the most frequent, and substantial, fire events. Degraded air quality, as a result of higher concentrations of smoke PM2.5 in the air, has caused respiratory infection and long term illnesses, lung cancer, heart disease, and premature deaths as stated prior. The proposed solution would be to “restrict the ignition of agricultural fires to periods when weather conditions would minimize health impacts” as well as to prevent fires from getting out of hand.

It was especially concerning considering the recurring trend that a single human-made action, in this case fire ignition, set into motion a detrimental domino effect. It perpetuates the pattern that the youngest generations are truly paying the price for the reckless industry and pollution that the older generations admit into law, even babies in the womb, not yet independent, are being condemned to death due to the air polluting actions of agriculture and human-lit fires, not to mention the emotional toil on the parents. I can recall living through the frequent and extreme fires during the spring/summer of 2018, I can still remember how thick the air and red was and the smell of the smoke caked our clothes in nose blinding smog. I was thankful to have an air conditioned house with air purifiers while I also feel so sorrowful for lower income families who are left within such amenities, not only the inconvenience that a smoke ridden house produces, but also the negative effects on their health.

Heavy metals, pesticides, and plastics are common soil pollutants that are known causes of cardiovascular diseases such as chronic ischaemic heart disease, heart attack, stroke and heart rhythm disorders by “increasing oxidative stress in the blood vessels,” causing inflammation, and disturbing the body’s circadian rhythm. Contaminated soil may enter the body through inhalation of desert dust, fertilizer crystals or plastic particles. Environmental contamination of lead from mining smelting manufacturing, and recycling, and cadmium from industrial and agricultural sources, are two particularly toxic heavy metals that are linked to cardiovascular disease. Although soil pollution has been typically and systemically an issue for low and middle income families, the globalization of the modern era and “of food supply chains combined with the uptake of these heavy metals with fruits, vegetables and meat” widens the population at risk of being exposed.

This article is related to environmental science as it conveys the science behind soil contamination’s adverse effect on cardiovascular ability, hence emphasizing environmental impact on society. The question at hand now becomes what can we do to prevent and regulate soil pollution? The author noted how exposure to noxious metals “increases due to industrial processes and using contaminated water to irrigate crops.” In such a globalized era, one would worry about the contamination of agricultural trade: the likely possibility of businesses prioritizing profit over quality. I also wonder about how inconsistencies in laws, regulations, and enforcement in lesser developed countries may exacerbate this issue. On a related note, I also wonder what preventative measures can we take to ensure the well being of “employees in the agricultural and chemical industries” being that they “face the greatest exposure.”

Even though Massachusetts meets federal clean air guidelines, air pollution remains a persistent and profound invisible epidemic within the state, engendering around 2,780 deaths yearly due to illnesses such as lung cancer, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, and strokes. Unfortunately, the consequences are widespread, additionally impacting childhood cognitive development by reducing on average 2 IQ points per child. All areas of society were reached, inadequate air quality proving detrimental to people mentally and physically “regardless of demographics or income level,” however disproportionately impacting the “most economically disadvantaged and socially underserved cities and towns.” Who is found culpable? Well, a staggering 95% of air pollution emerges from the combustion of fossil fuels from transportation, power plants, and industrial facilities. 

This article sheds light on human-health related consequences attributable to environmental factors such as air pollution. It is concerning how current EPA air pollution standards are not adequately protecting public health especially at a local level where the level of fine particulate pollution across Massachusetts “ranged from a low of 2.77 micrograms per cubic meter in Worcester County to a high of 8.26 in Suffolk County.” The varying degree of air quality can be correlated to socioeconomic status and demographics, which begs the question: how do we implicate regulations on air quality at a more local level? Since “all of these health effects occurred at pollution levels below current EPA standards,” those who are unprivileged are being disportionately affected with the cognitive and physical liabilities of poor air quality and thus, makes me realize that this problem is not only one of environmental and human health, but one rooted in inequity.

Wrought on by a hazardous abundance of greenhouse gasses (methane and carbon dioxide most prominently), the unprecedented weather patterns of climate change – rising global temperatures and extreme heat thereof – targets our most vulnerable: children and newborns, even in the womb. For infants, heat exposure heightens potential risk of pre-terms births, low birth weights, hyperthermia, death, and other adverse birth outcomes along with promoting kidney disease and heat stress in older youth. Notably, severe heat also has a profound correlation to “developmental problems and learning difficulties,” especially within children. Furthermore, with the pernicious increase in natural disasters and their intensity, due to climate change, a “reduction of food and livestock production and problems with water quality” is to be expected in which a child’s “nutritional and hydration intake could be compromised, and this could affect growth of the body and brain development.” Another byproduct of climate change, wildfire smoke, has a direct relationship in the causing/exacerbation of bronchial, respiratory, and cerebral issues such as “reduced cognition, attention problems, attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder, and autistic traits” in children.

This article is related to environmental science as it not only addresses, broadly, the science behind climate change but more significantly illuminates the direct relationship between one’s environment and its, often adverse, repercussions on human health. It is quite saddening, yet unfortunately not shocking that those we put most at risk are also our most youthful and vulnerable. As the article briefly touches on, access to adequate air, water, food, and shelter are disproportionately limited in “poor and marginalized communities,” as explicated by Dr. Ruth McDermott-Levy, a professor and co-director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health. And thus, “all of the climate change-related challenges will be compounded” for those in indigent circumstances; those devoid of resources and underprivileged face the brunt of adapting. I think many Americans fall short on the realization that climate change is not solely a political affair – some “black and white” 2D narrative limited to large industries and business corporations – but deals heavily in morality and humanitarian means on a global scale.

Raising temperatures send over 67,000 people to the emergency room yearly and cause an estimated 5,609 fatalities most of whom are over the age of 50. With the process of aging, our body loses the ability to dissipate heat and, a notable mention, the elderly typically endure more chronic health problems and thus take more medications that affect the body’s capacity to manage excessive heat. Such medications include antihistamines, certain antidepressants, and blood pressure medications. Moreover, sweat glands, our body’s primary way of cooling us down, loses effectiveness with age and “can’t pump out as much sweat as quickly.” Lastly, extreme heat exacerbates the severity of heart conditions and diabetes while also increasing risk of other organ problems as a result of dehydration which targets older adults as a “decreased sense of thirst that sets in as you age.”

This article relates to environmental science because it directly highlights the relationship between the environmental factors and concerns, such as climate change, and its effect on human well-being. It is concerning how the climate crisis impacts our most vulnerable disproportionately: the young and the elderly. I think many people, especially Americans, feel unfoundedly complacent thanks to our undue reliance on air conditioning and the fact that the heat issue is like an “invisible epidemic,” it may be hard to notice the difference in a few degrees in areas seasonally known to become very hot. As much as optimal temperatures are convenient and impactful to human productivity, comfortability, and even health, it remains a privilege that many do not have, especially those in lower-income households: a fact many people cease to realize.

“The relationship between human health and the environment is complex, dynamic, and multifaceted,” frequently dabbling in politics and ethics. The emergence of innovative and “evolving technologies,” including pesticides, genetically modified organisms, and biofuels have severe repercussions on the environment, its delicate ecosystems and human society. Pesticides, one one hand, pose serious risks (in extreme cases even fatal) to human health and to an environment surrounding wildlife and fauna, however, on the other hand, their purpose of increasing crop yields lowers food prices and increases overall food availability. Banning or severely restricting the use of pesticides would lead to food shortages that increase “starvation, malnutrition, and food insecurity,” disproportionately affecting lower income families and drawing up ethical questions between environment and equity regarding solutions. A common trend is revealed, socioeconomic inequalities are often “related to proximity to environmental hazards (such as waste sites, landfills, and sewage treatment plants) and inequalities related to environmental risks arising from exposures to environmental hazards such as pollution, lead, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.”

Where other articles hinted at, this piece directly highlights the ethical, political, and social dilemmas that arise not only from environmental problems itself, but also the obstacles that varying solutions produce. I think this article’s emphasis on an underrepresented yet crucial element of environmental justice allows a fuller, more “3D” view into tackling ecological crises in order to obtain, as the author states, a “fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens.” Thus, relating to environmental science by illuminating human interactions with nature.