Saturday, Feb. 26, 2022 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
In the United States, many disadvantaged communities — particularly Black and Indigenous peoples — have fought for decades for the right to clean, safe and healthy surroundings. Decades of systemic racism have led to inequities that have a devastating impact on health. Black Americans are 75% more likely to reside near oil and gas plants, which generate dangerous air pollutants; as a result, these neighborhoods frequently have higher incidences of cancer and asthma, and according to researchers, Black children are twice as likely as their peers to acquire asthma.
As the term implies, environmental racism refers to the unequal cost that environmental dangers inflict on members of historically underrepresented groups. This discrimination is frequently systemic, either directly or indirectly, resulting from policies and practices that effectively position low-income and communities of color in close proximity to polluting industries such as power plants, plastics plants, and methane gas pipes, as well as to critical infrastructure such as major highways. This results in significantly higher rates of serious health problems in communities of color, including cancer, lung disease and heart attacks, as well as a higher prevalence and severity of asthma, lower birth weights and a higher prevalence of hypertension.
Numerous issues jeopardize minority populations’ well-being, including biased enforcement and housing availability, but environmental discrimination is a leading cause of death for these residents. For a long time, businesses have opted to position industrial locations in underdeveloped areas. Typically, this is the quickest route for chemical producers. Low-cost land and labor are the norms in these locations, as are lax or easily influenced environmental standards. Locals also have no say in any of this. The persons enforcing environmental restrictions in some locations are either directly linked to the polluters or have close ties to the polluters themselves.
Many of the long-term health impacts of major industrial hazardous byproducts are severe. Filtration, treatment, incineration, disposal, emissions, and the usage of poisonous or harmful products must all be done properly if companies are to avoid these health risks. There are numerous harmful substances that have been dumped by the industrial sector, including PCBs, dioxins, furans, furanocoumarins, benzophenone, polyfluorinated biphenyls (PFAS), uranium, and heavy metals which can affect more people than any other pollutant, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
An understudied global health hazard is the inhalation of natural desert dust containing heavy metals generated by human activity and dust storms. Mineral dust emissions have increased dramatically in the Nevada region due to meteorological conditions and human activity. This type of exposure can have serious health effects when inhaled into the lungs. Studies have connected inhalation of desert dust to higher mortality, cardiac emergencies, asthma-related hospitalizations and stroke occurrence.
The Carson River Mercury Site is one of the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. While gold and silver were extracted from raw ore using mercury in the 18th century, 14 million pounds of mercury were released into the surrounding environment. As a very poisonous metal, mercury has the potential to harm humans and endanger wildlife. As a result, the state puts warnings reminding tourists to stay away from fish because of its high mercury content. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the Carson River site as one of its national priorities in August 1990, and since the mining companies responsible for the site’s contamination no longer existed, the agency assumed responsibility for the cleanup and worked closely with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to complete it.
On federal land alone, Nevada contains 22,835 open and abandoned mine sites, which is more than any other state. Ten toxic substances are anticipated to be found at many of these locations. This poses an enormous threat to Nevada’s ranching and farming industries, and to some areas’ drinking water. The vast majority of these sites have yet to be assessed by the EPA, which is assessing the environmental and health concerns they pose.
According to the American Lung Association, 92% of Nevadans reside in counties that received an “F” on an air quality index. Reports on air quality in Nevada’s two most populous areas have classified both as among the worst in the country. In terms of ozone pollution, Las Vegas/Henderson came in at No. 10, while Reno-Carson City-Fernley was 10th for short-term particle pollution. White Pine County obtained a D grade, while Lyon received a C and Carson City and Churchill each received a B in the State of the Air report for their ozone levels. Carson City, Douglas, and Washoe County all received an F,while Clark received a D. Counties in the rest of the state didn’t keep track of particle pollution.
Measures must be taken to minimize or remove harmful community exposure in areas where it has gone uncontrolled. Stricter regulations, greater and more uniform enforcement, and heavier fines are some of the policy changes needed. An ineffective strategy is one in which a company’s only option is to pay fines and ignore its responsibilities under environmental regulations.
As of recently, things seem to have started moving in the right direction concerning this issue, but we still have a long way to go, and enforcement varies greatly from place to place despite recent EPA regulations requiring adequate testing and documenting random inspections, and heavier fines. The Biden administration has committed to taking an aggressive and broad-based strategy to achieving environmental justice. Among a slew of climate-related executive actions signed by Biden, there was one establishing a White House council on environmental justice, as well as a pledge that 40% of the benefits from federal investments in clean energy and clean water would go to communities that bear disproportionate pollution burdens.
Environmentally poor communities will benefit from long-term jobs and improved quality of life as a result of a strong policy structure and increased pressure on polluters. From both a scientific and societal perspective, the longer we allow this to go on, the more difficult it will be to right.
Jonathan Sharp is the chief financial officer of Environmental Litigation Group, a law firm in Birmingham, Ala., that helps vulnerable communities struggling with illnesses caused by heavy metals toxic exposure.
