M3.2 Vulnerable Populations
Everyone is vulnerable - however, people of color, lower income, women, children, infants, elderly are populations who face the worst exposure and outcomes.
There are a number of exposures we face from the moment we begin growing in the womb until the day we die. From embryonic development, we start absorbing chemicals via our mothers through the products they use. The fetus is at its most vulnerable in just the few days of life. If a fetus happens to be born "healthy," the baby has already been exposed to more than 200 chemicals. Once the child grows into adolescence and adulthood, the exposures to these chemicals and our "natural" environment can affect reproductive systems. I can think mostly air and water quality, if you're exposed to asbestos, lead, mercury, etc., there are a multitude of negative health outcomes that can arise such as asthma, lead poisoning, and cancer.
We can't escape these exposures, they are found in our food, storage containers, and everyday products. And it brings up the question -- why are we not looking at ways to decrease exposures to chemicals that may be contributing to the obesity epidemic? I think it mostly has to do with education. People are unaware of what is in their products, and if they cannot see immediate negative effects, then it is considered safe and people move on.
According to the Public Health Institute, for California specifically, the environment contributes to 30% of childhood asthma burden and 15% of childhood cancer burden. These environmental hazards can be preventable. Preventable environmental hazards costs California $254 million every year - funds that could be used for other issues such as air quality, increasing transportation, etc.
As Rishi Manchanda said, we need to be upstreamists - we need to find the root of the problems, not just focus all our resources to fixing the outcome. It is important to see what initiates the core of the problem to tackle it appropriately to prevent future incidents from occurring, especially for the populations who are impacted by the detrimental effects.
There are a number of exposures we face from the moment we begin growing in the womb until the day we die. From embryonic development, we start absorbing chemicals via our mothers through the products they use. The fetus is at its most vulnerable in just the few days of life. If a fetus happens to be born "healthy," the baby has already been exposed to more than 200 chemicals. Once the child grows into adolescence and adulthood, the exposures to these chemicals and our "natural" environment can affect reproductive systems. I can think mostly air and water quality, if you're exposed to asbestos, lead, mercury, etc., there are a multitude of negative health outcomes that can arise such as asthma, lead poisoning, and cancer.
We can't escape these exposures, they are found in our food, storage containers, and everyday products. And it brings up the question -- why are we not looking at ways to decrease exposures to chemicals that may be contributing to the obesity epidemic? I think it mostly has to do with education. People are unaware of what is in their products, and if they cannot see immediate negative effects, then it is considered safe and people move on.
According to the Public Health Institute, for California specifically, the environment contributes to 30% of childhood asthma burden and 15% of childhood cancer burden. These environmental hazards can be preventable. Preventable environmental hazards costs California $254 million every year - funds that could be used for other issues such as air quality, increasing transportation, etc.
As Rishi Manchanda said, we need to be upstreamists - we need to find the root of the problems, not just focus all our resources to fixing the outcome. It is important to see what initiates the core of the problem to tackle it appropriately to prevent future incidents from occurring, especially for the populations who are impacted by the detrimental effects.
Hi Daisy,
ReplyDeleteYou raise a very interesting point, "People are unaware of what is in their products, and if they cannot see immediate negative effects, then it is considered safe and people move on." Most people dont realize the things they have been exposing themselves to are dangerous until its too late. I think education is a great idea and showing them what the effects could be before they even experience them.
Great post!
Kera
Hi Daisy,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up several valid points. I think that besides teaching the public about illness prevention, we should also focus on educating them on the environmental impact of the products we use and other pollutants. We may very well find that the root of most illnesses and disorders come from the toxic chemicals and pollutants in our environment.
Carmen
Hi Daisy,
ReplyDeleteIt is so hard to comprehend just how many chemicals we are exposed to throughout our life. You are so right that in order to address the silent epidemic we face it needs to start with education. I was completely unaware that we are exposed to so many chemicals while in the womb and also that chemicals like BPA can cause obesity. I am sure a lot more people are unaware and we need to prioritize educating the public and bring this issue to light. Great point you make about how many of the environmental hazards we face are preventable. I also agree that we need to be upstreamists and that we need more upstreamists in the health care field.