Topic: Everyday Exposure to Toxic Pollutants
By: Wayne R. Ott & John W. Roberts
Date: February, 1998
http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/everyday_exposure_to_toxic_chemicals.pdf
Date: February, 1998
http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/everyday_exposure_to_toxic_chemicals.pdf
Summary
Many of the U.S. Environmental Laws were more like it was designed to control the release of the dangerous mounting of pollution into the air and water rather than giving any attention to the people who were actually contacting and having it. The focus to reduce emissions instead of the "exposures" separates the fact that how are health problems associated with the body if it goes there. For a very long time, we have been informed of information that was mostly related to that of "outside" quality but not the "inside" quality which makes it understandable as to why this issue still persists. The ones that are regulating the environment and as well as others in the higher authority do not have much knowledge as to how much, what kind, and where on the chemical to comprehend on its severity. In addition, the failure to address the important but less obvious sources of the chemicals is also another problem. By the year 1980, Lance A. Wallace of the U.S. EPA made its efforts to assess-everyday exposure of the general population to toxic substances. Later on, it reached to 14 states. The investigating instruments/devices they used in this procedure were to spot which pollutants are nearby and mostly in what area. these studies produced results that were disturbing: most citizens were very likely to have the greatest contact with potentially toxic pollutants not outside but inside the places they usually consider to be essentially unpolluted, such as homes, offices and automobiles. In 1985, Wallace discovered that the average concentration of benzene they inhaled was nearly three times higher than typical outdoor levels. It is shown that people are being harmed by toxic chemicals in where they live and what they use. It is noticeable that having less of these toxic volatile organic compounds than more of it is better and that people can limit their threats of these chemicals but only to the extent of what they can do about it. For example, Better airflow can also help lower exposure to carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete combustion that robs the blood of oxygen and can be particularly harmful to people with heart ailments when inhaled at levels often found indoors. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the ubiquity of indoor pollution or of how to reduce it. In fact, they are right under people’s noses—moth repels, pesticides, solvents, deodorizers, cleansers, dry-cleaned clothes, dusty carpets, paint, particle board, adhesives, and fumes from cooking and heating, to name a few. Sadly, most people—including officials of the U.S. government—are rather complacent about such indoor pollutants. That effort would surely be substantial, both to recast a large body of legislation and to monitor how well the laws work to reduce exposure. But the pay off would be a dramatic reduction in health costs as well as an improvement in the economy and effectiveness of environmental regulation.
Reflection
Its heartbreaking to see that we are really fighting our government to promote a healthier and safer lifestyle for all of us. These people aren't doing their job right and what they're suppose to do. By not informing the public of something dangerous or even making sure what each product contains that we may be on the verge of purchasing is totally wrong. I think that its not just a right but that it is extremely necessary to be enforced so that all are protected. No one should be dealing with someone's else mess and having to pay for it dearly. It all starts with us because the more of us in numbers the stronger we are and our voice can be heard. This can be done with our book of education. Toxic is everywhere and we need to stop it. We need greener products and a greener environment.
Many of the U.S. Environmental Laws were more like it was designed to control the release of the dangerous mounting of pollution into the air and water rather than giving any attention to the people who were actually contacting and having it. The focus to reduce emissions instead of the "exposures" separates the fact that how are health problems associated with the body if it goes there. For a very long time, we have been informed of information that was mostly related to that of "outside" quality but not the "inside" quality which makes it understandable as to why this issue still persists. The ones that are regulating the environment and as well as others in the higher authority do not have much knowledge as to how much, what kind, and where on the chemical to comprehend on its severity. In addition, the failure to address the important but less obvious sources of the chemicals is also another problem. By the year 1980, Lance A. Wallace of the U.S. EPA made its efforts to assess-everyday exposure of the general population to toxic substances. Later on, it reached to 14 states. The investigating instruments/devices they used in this procedure were to spot which pollutants are nearby and mostly in what area. these studies produced results that were disturbing: most citizens were very likely to have the greatest contact with potentially toxic pollutants not outside but inside the places they usually consider to be essentially unpolluted, such as homes, offices and automobiles. In 1985, Wallace discovered that the average concentration of benzene they inhaled was nearly three times higher than typical outdoor levels. It is shown that people are being harmed by toxic chemicals in where they live and what they use. It is noticeable that having less of these toxic volatile organic compounds than more of it is better and that people can limit their threats of these chemicals but only to the extent of what they can do about it. For example, Better airflow can also help lower exposure to carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete combustion that robs the blood of oxygen and can be particularly harmful to people with heart ailments when inhaled at levels often found indoors. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the ubiquity of indoor pollution or of how to reduce it. In fact, they are right under people’s noses—moth repels, pesticides, solvents, deodorizers, cleansers, dry-cleaned clothes, dusty carpets, paint, particle board, adhesives, and fumes from cooking and heating, to name a few. Sadly, most people—including officials of the U.S. government—are rather complacent about such indoor pollutants. That effort would surely be substantial, both to recast a large body of legislation and to monitor how well the laws work to reduce exposure. But the pay off would be a dramatic reduction in health costs as well as an improvement in the economy and effectiveness of environmental regulation.
Reflection
Its heartbreaking to see that we are really fighting our government to promote a healthier and safer lifestyle for all of us. These people aren't doing their job right and what they're suppose to do. By not informing the public of something dangerous or even making sure what each product contains that we may be on the verge of purchasing is totally wrong. I think that its not just a right but that it is extremely necessary to be enforced so that all are protected. No one should be dealing with someone's else mess and having to pay for it dearly. It all starts with us because the more of us in numbers the stronger we are and our voice can be heard. This can be done with our book of education. Toxic is everywhere and we need to stop it. We need greener products and a greener environment.