Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The concept of environmental justice is being increasingly
embraced in other countries with regard to communities
with perceived disadvantages (for instance, because of their
race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status,
lack of land ownership, geographic isolation, formal educa-
tion, occupational characteristics, political power, gender,
or other characteristics) that put them at disproportionate
risk for being exposed to environmental hazards (Claudio,
2007). Internationally, environmental justice has also been
extended to scenarios such as exporting of wastes and pol-
luting industries by industrialized countries to the devel-
oping nations. Increasingly, environmental justice is being
synergized with human rights as a means for: (a) reinforcing
the normative claims of international environmental health
laws, (b) strengthening advocacy for rights to a clean envi-
ronment, and (c) bridging the divide between environmental
health practitioners and human rights advocates in contem-
porary public health domains (Nixon and Forman, 2008).
It is clear from the defi nitions above that the concept of
environmental justice is still evolving as different actors and
researchers weigh in on the debate (Payne-Sturges and Gee,
2006). The diverging views on environmental justice encom-
pass, to differing degrees, three important elements: eco-
nomic, environmental, and policy (legal or political). People
who view environmental justice through the environmental
lens emphasize the balancing of benefi ts and burdens, bet-
ter environmental health, and overall improvement in the
quality of life, and elimination of health inequalities that
characterize environmentally devastated neighborhoods
and poor or minority communities (Solitaire and Greenberg,
2002). As an economic discourse, environmental justice has
been contextualized in terms of increase in number and
type of jobs, an increase in the tax base, or an improvement
in infrastructure and education in marginalized commu-
nities. From the policy perspective, environmental justice
embraces the empowerment of the disenfranchised in ways
that include the legitimization of community knowledge
and partnerships, community-based planning and participa-
tory research, and an increase of community-driven decision
making that is supported by elected leadership, the busi-
ness community, and middle-class residents (Solitaire and
Greenberg, 2002). This chapter views environmental justice
primarily through the environmental lens.
Many aspects of mercury pollution, from distribution
of sources to differential vulnerabilities and heightened
exposures and impacts can be contextualized within the
policy framework of environmental justice as contained
in the Executive Order 12898 (Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations) issued on February 11, 1994, by
President Bill Clinton. The Presidential Memorandum
accompanying the Executive Order provides that exist-
ing laws can be used to meet the environmental jus-
tice objectives. Specifi cally, President Clinton noted
that. “Environmental and civil rights statutes provide
many opportunities to address environmental hazards
in minority communities and low-income communities.
Application of these existing statutory provisions is an
important part of this administration's efforts to prevent
those minority communities and low-income communities
from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse
environmental effects.” According to this Executive Order,
environmental justice populations can be regarded as com-
munities that are most at risk of being unaware of or unable
to participate in environmental decision making or to gain
access to federal or state resources. From the perspective
of environmental justice communities, mercury is clearly
an exemplary case. Any group that relies on fi shing for
dietary sustenance, cultural identity, spiritual well-being,
or economic prosperity is more vulnerable to mercury pol-
lution. It has become ironic that some programs under the
Executive Order have the unintended consequence of exac-
erbating environmental injustice in the at-risk populations.
The risk of exposure of women to methylmercury is of
heightened concern because of the potential for damaging
the developing brain of the fetus. The disparity in blood
mercury levels remains a matter of health and reproductive
inequality of global proportion.
Populations at Risk
Consumption of fi sh represents the primary means by which
humans are exposed to mercury. The general population of
the United States consumes an average 17.5 g of fi sh per day
but certain groups consume more (Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], 1999; USEPA, 2000).
Recreational anglers consume 30 g of fi sh per day; subsis-
tence fi shers consume 142 g of fi sh per day. These two groups
consume signifi cantly more fi sh than the average U.S. citi-
zen and are therefore vulnerable to fi shborne mercury. Vari-
ous ethnic populations, such as Asians, Pacifi c Islanders, and
Indigenous peoples of North America, also rely heavily on
fi sh for sustenance (Hightower and Moore, 2003; Hightower
et al., 2006). Not surprisingly, the groups that consume the
highest amounts of fi sh are disproportionately exposed to
higher levels of mercury (this topic, chapters 11 and 12).
Over 20 states and 1 tribe have issued advisories covering
every one of their lakes and/or rivers, while 12 states and 1
tribe have advisories that cover their entire coastal waters
(O'Neill, 2004). These advisories are symptomatic of exten-
sive contamination of the aquatic resources of this country
with mercury and suggest that the number of communities
that depend on these waters for subsistence fi shing are dis-
proportionately at risk of exposure to high levels of mercury.
The biomonitoring data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) carried out by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
during 1999-2002 showed that 16.6% of adult female
participants who self-identifi ed as Asian, Pacifi c Islander,
Native American, or multiracial had blood mercury levels
3.5 µg/L. By com-
parison, 5.1% of the entire survey population (n
5.8 µg/L, while 27.3% had levels
3497)
