Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Establishing a Baseline
Pages 11-22

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 11...
... population have experienced the same advances in health status and gains in life expectancy. Racial and ethnic minority groups, individuals of low socioeconomic status, and medically underserved populations, among others, face lower life expectancies and greater health problems than the middle- and upper-class U.S.
From page 12...
... In general, African Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics are dramatically disadvantaged relative to whites in terms of most health indices, whereas Asian Americans appear to be as healthy, if not healthier, than whites in terms of some indices. These overall group differences, however, mask important differences in the health statuses of subgroups.
From page 13...
... . The infant mortality rates among American Indian women and Hispanic women with similar levels of education were 8.1 and 5.8 per 1,000 birds, respectively (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998b)
From page 14...
... The major finding of these studies was that communities that had one or more commercial hazardous-waste facilities had significantly higher proportions of racial minority TABLE 2-1 Examples of Potential Sources of Environmental Health Hazards Sources Substances Agricultural runoff Incinerators Industrial facilities Landfills Toxic-waste sites Waste treatment facilities Allergens Heavy metals Paints and oil wastes Particulate matter Pesticides and herbicides Radioactive wastes Solvents Volatile organic compounds
From page 15...
... 18~. Using that level of analysis, Anderton and colleagues found that populations of the areas surrounding TSDFs have higher mean percentages of African Americans (24.7 percent, compared with 13.6 percent in census tracts outside the larger unit of analysis)
From page 16...
... The economics of land values, job opportunities, and transportation undoubtedly assert a strong influence on these outcomes, and the circumstances undoubtedly vary greatly from locale to locale. For the purposes of this report, however, the committee did not believe Nat it was essential to try to reach conclusions about causality or motivation; no matter how a particular condition came to be, if it represents an environmental health hazard and if the burdens of such a hazard are borne inequitably, then it is appropriate to assess the scope and severity of the health burden and to evaluate potential means of ameliorating it.
From page 17...
... . Increasing evidence of certain contaminants such as mercury in the wild food supply of these Alaskan Natives has been exhibited by methyl mercury levels that exceed those provisionally established as safe by the World Health Organization.
From page 18...
... In spite of the general lack of published research linking disparate exposures to disparate health outcomes, some well documented links do exist. One such study used field epidemiology methods combined with a prevention intervention trial to document definitively a link between disparate exposure to dimethylformamide and disparate prevalence of toxic liver disease (Friedman-Jimenez and Claudia, 1998; Redlich et al., 1988~.
From page 19...
... Although the biological basis for such associations is largely unknown and there is limited scientific information about the specific types of particles that cause these health effects, the results of these epidemiologic studies have been relied upon by EPA in setting national ambient air quality standards (National Research Council, 1998~. Thus, at least for some air pollutants and lead poisoning, there is strong evidence to support He connection between disproportionate exposure and disproportionate health outcome.
From page 20...
... The prevalence of asthma appears to be more strongly correlated with lower socioeconomic status than with race and ethnicity (Institute of Medicine, 1993~. However, the use of data on numbers of hospitalizations, or emergency room visits or even the rate of morbidity due to asthma as a measure of the relative impact of environmental hazards on those with low socioeconomic status is problematic, because these indicators may be strongly influenced by other factors such as lower rates of health insurance or lower levels of access to highquality primary health care.
From page 21...
... population have benefited to the same extent from advances in health status and gains in life expectancy. Racial and ethnic minority groups, individuals of low socioeconomic status, and medically underserved populations, among others, face lower life expectancies and greater health problems than the U.S.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.