People in these locations are not only exposed through the air where the air smells terribly, and allergens are present in abundance, but also through water and the soil. Most compounds produced in the refinery are non-degradable hence rest in soil or in bodies of edible animals like fish. When ingested, the hazardous compounds ingested in the foods accumulate in the body and lead to cancers and hypertension disorders (Nickens, 2006). Difference between a scientific study and anecdotal reports
A scientific study is one where data is reported after conducting research through experimental designs that seek answers to a research question. For instance at the perception that particulate matter is responsible for respiratory illnesses, a scientific study would first justify the existence of particulate matter, then find out about its related health risks through performing experiments by applying relationship variables. A scientific study takes a long time and the experimental procedure can be repeated severally to ensure that the data presented is valid.
On the other hand, anecdotal reports give an immediate reaction to the phenomena observed. The information can be formulated from opinions or through relating similar phenomenon in various places. For instance, if it is observed that mortality and morbidity rates are high in areas near refineries all over the world, an anecdotal report would conclude that the refinery environ is responsible for the deaths, while a scientific study would carry out research based on empirical evidence to validate the claim.
Why the communities living close to refineries and/or the harbor/ports might actually experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality due to such confounders as age, race/ethnicity, social economic level, and access to care Contribution of particulate matter of the adverse health effects of communities living close to refineries, ports and harbors cannot be denied (Pastor, Sadd & Morello-Frosch, 2002). However, there could be other accelerators of the high morbidity and mortality rates.
For instance, the community of Hispanics and Blacks occupying the Californian port regions are from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They have to depend on the same refineries and ports for income, therefore increasing exposure and further health risk. Moreover, their access to quality health care is limited by the low income background, and this definitely increases the morbidity and mortality rates. The low income background could also mean that they are unable to uphold measures that can prevent adverse health risks to their children.
A better way of looking at it is would the mortality and morbidity rates still be high if the community involved were from middle and upper socio economic classes? Then some the community members are elderly and it is known that cardiovascular and cancerous diseases become highly prevalent as people age. It therefore becomes hard to determine whether the illnesses are caused by the preexisting conditions among the elderly or is as a result of the exposure to particulate matter.
It can be said that the high mortality and morbidity rates is due to cumulative impacts (Sardar et al. 2004) and therefore a thorough risk analysis needs to done in order to distinguish facts How Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA) could change the decision-making process concerning plans for the refinery or port MIRA helps decision makers to come up with informed environmental decisions including concerns from stake holders through a ten- steps process. MIRA is a new approach that includes more valid approaches as compared to the traditional methods of analysis (Bose & Chakrabarti, 2003).
As an expert in community health management, I would advise the concerned stakeholders to carry out a MIRA process in deciding whether the expansion of the Californian sea ports is necessary, and the kind of plan to take in controlling emissions. MIRA would enable the policy makers from the concerned agencies to come up with policies that are valid, carry evidence and give directions to the way forward (Stahl, Cimorelli, & Chow, 2002).
References
Bose, P. & Chakrabarti, R. (2003). “Application of optimized multi-criteria decision-making in an environmental impact assessment study. ” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 20: 31-48 Environmental Health Center (EHC). (1999, May). Guides to chemical risk management: Evaluating chemical hazards in the community. WA: EPA, Pastor, M. , Sadd, J. & Morello-Frosch, R. (2002). Who’s minding the kids? Pollution, public schools, and environmental justice in Los Angeles. ” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 83(1): 263-280. Nickens, A. (2006).
“Safe: Protecting ports with shipboard fuel cells. ” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114 (4): 236-239 Sardar, S. , Fine, P. , Yoon, H. & Sioutas, C. (2004). “Associations between particle number and gaseous co-pollutant concentrations in the Los Angeles basin. ” Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 54: 992-1005 Stahl, C. , Cimorelli, A. & Chow, A. (2002). “A new approach to environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). ” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 22(6): 443-459.