Abstract
While conducting a school health needs assessment in a small rural town in the Midwestern United States, our research also revealed an environmental injustice. Until the mid-1980s, the town was the site of a zinc smelter. When the smelter closed down, large amounts of materials from the site were distributed to community members for use in residential construction projects, without regard for possible health hazards this posed for town residents who, quite literally, now had contaminated materials in their backyards. It wasn’t until 2009/2010 that sampling of residential properties was conducted to reveal high levels of antimony, arsenic, lead, and zinc. While limited cleanup efforts were subsequently carried out, community members’ accounts indicate that the way and extent health hazards have been communicated leaves much to be desired. It appears that testing was kept to a minimum and health hazards were downplayed. However, community stakeholders do not seem to be interested in pursuing the matter further. As researchers, we face a predicament: What do we do when we stumble across an issue that – at the very least – warrants further investigation when the communities we serve have little interest in such an investigation? What does this mean for our mission to improve health outcomes for children in our service region? Is it not part of our ethical responsibility to protect the health of future generations even if those who make decisions for and on behalf of children do not think contaminated soils and residential building materials warrant further investigation?
Digital Media
This presenter hasn’t added media.
Request media and follow this presentation.
