Search

Editor's Note: The National Environmental Health Association strives to provide up-to-date and relevant information on environmental health and to build partnerships in the profession. In pursuit of these goals, we [...]

Monitoring drinking water quality is essential to protect people's health and wellbeing. In the United States, the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database records the occurrence of a drinking water violation regulation in public water systems. A notable shortcoming of SDWIS is the lack of the contaminant concentration level about the allowable maximum contaminant threshold. In this study, we take advantage of both the SDWIS violation database and the contaminants sampling database at the state level to examine the drinking water quality of all kinds of drinking water systems in detail. We obtained sampling data (i.e., the concentration level of contaminants) of public water systems (PWSs) in Tennessee and explored the statistical distribution of contaminant concentration data in relation to the enforceable maximum regulatory contaminant level). We use both SDWIS violation records and actual concentrations of contaminants from the sampling data to study the factors that influence the drinking water quality of PWSs. We find that different types of violations were more frequent in (1) specific geological regions, (2) counties with PWSs that serve a larger population (10,000 to 100,000 people), and (3) places with abundant surface water, such as near a lake or major river. Additionally, the distribution of measured concentrations for many contaminants was not smooth but was punctuated by discontinuities at selected levels, such as at 50% of the maximum contaminant level. Such anomalies in the sampling data do not indicate violations, but more investigation is needed to determine the reasons behind the punctuated changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervical cancer is widely preventable through screening, but little is known about the duration of protection offered by a negative screen in North America. A case–control study was conducted with records from population‐based registries in New Mexico. Cases were women diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2006–2016, obtained from the Tumor Registry. Five controls per case from the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry were matched to cases by sex, age and place of residence. Dates and results of all cervical screening and diagnostic tests since 2006 were identified from the pap registry. We estimated the odds ratio of nonlocalized (Stage II+) and localized (Stage I) cervical cancer associated with attending screening in the 3 years prior to case‐diagnosis compared to women not screened in 5 years. Of 876 cases, 527 were aged 25–64 years with ≥3 years of potential screening data. Only 38% of cases and 61% of controls attended screening in a 3‐year period. Women screened in the 3 years prior to diagnosis had 83% lower risk of nonlocalized cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.12–0.24) and 48% lower odds of localized cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38–0.72), compared to women not screened in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Women remained at low risk of nonlocalized cancer for 3.5–5 years after a negative screen compared to women with no negative screens in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Routine cervical screening is effective at preventing localized and nonlocalized cervical cancers; 3 yearly screening prevents 83% of nonlocalized cancers, with no additional benefit of more frequent screening. Increasing screening coverage remains essential to further reduce cervical cancer incidence. What's new? Screening is an effective means of preventing cervical cancer in women. However, while a negative screening result affords protection against cervical cancer, little is known about how long this protection lasts or when a woman should be screened again. Here, the authors estimate the impact of cervical screening at a state‐wide level, linking a U.S. population‐based screening registry with a SEER cancer registry. The results show that screening once every three years prevents 83 percent of stage 2+ cervical cancers, with no additional benefit from more frequent screening. The findings may help improve adherence to U.S. screening guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have recognised a climate gap, wherein poor communities face disproportionate impacts of climate change. Others have noted that climate change and economic globalisation may mutually affect a region or social group, leading to double exposure. This paper investigates how current and changing patterns of neighbourhood demographics are associated with extreme heat in the border city of Juárez, Mexico. Many Juárez neighbourhoods are at-risk to triple exposures, in which residents suffer due to the conjoined effects of the global recession, drug war violence, and extreme heat. Due to impacts of the recession onmaquiladoraemployment and the explosion of drug violence (2008–2012), over 75% of neighbourhoods experienced decreasing population density between 2000 and 2010 and the average neighbourhood saw a 40% increase in the proportion of older adults. Neighbourhoods with greater drops in population density and increases in the proportion of older residents over the decade are at significantly higher risk to extreme heat, as are neighbourhoods with lower population density and lower levels of education. In this context, triple exposures are associated with a climate gap that most endangers lower socio-economic status and increasingly older-aged populations remaining in neighbourhoods from which high proportions of residents have departed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Water security and climate change are important priorities for communities and regions worldwide. The intersections between water and climate change extend across many environmental and human activities. This Primer is intended as an introduction, grounded in examples, for students and others considering the interactions between climate, water, and society. In this Primer, we summarize key intersections between water and climate across four sectors: environment; drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene; food and agriculture; and energy. We begin with an overview of the fundamental water dynamics within each of these four sectors, and then discuss how climate change is impacting water and society within and across these sectors. Emphasizing the relationships and interconnectedness between water and climate change can encourage systems thinking, which can show how activities in one sector may influence activities or outcomes in other sectors. We argue that to achieve a resilient and sustainable water future under climate change, proposed solutions must consider the water–climate nexus to ensure the interconnected roles of water across sectors are not overlooked. Toward that end, we offer an initial set of guiding questions that can be used to inform the development of more holistic climate solutions.This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Engineering Water > Water, Health, and Sanitation Human Water > Value of Water [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]