MOD 5 - Milestone Four
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
250
Subject
Medicine
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by bunkerwolfe78
Discussion Section:
Integration of Results:
Integrating results from the three primary sources provides a comprehensive
understanding of the safety levels of arsenic in public drinking water. The hypothesis (H1)
posited that arsenic below a certain threshold does not seriously threaten public health. The
findings from Bae and Lynch's study (2023) reveal significant disparities in enforcing Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations across ethnic and socio-economic groups. Adherence to
safe levels varies among communities, potentially influencing public health outcomes.
Nawaz et al. (2023) contribute valuable insights into urban areas' water quality index
(WQI) and associated human health risks. Variations in WQI and identified health risks (Figure
2) underscore the importance of monitoring and maintaining safe levels of arsenic to safeguard
public health. The results suggest that exceeding certain thresholds can lead to unsafe drinking
water, emphasizing the need for stringent regulations.
Shaw et al. (2005) research on well water treatment in arsenic-contaminated areas
provides a nuanced perspective on mitigation strategies. While certain treatment systems
effectively reduce arsenic levels (Figure 3), persistent health risks indicate the complexity of
ensuring safe drinking water. This reinforces the importance of ongoing monitoring and research
to enhance treatment methods and address emerging health concerns.
Address Discrepancies:
According to Bae and Lynch (2023), there are discrepancies, particularly in enforcing
water quality regulations. The socio-economic disparities revealed in their study may contribute
to variations in the effectiveness of regulations, impacting certain communities
disproportionately. This underscores the need for targeted policies to address these discrepancies.
Exploring the potential reasons behind the uneven distribution of violations is essential to
address these discrepancies. Infrastructure disparities, enforcement practices, and community
awareness may contribute. Future research should investigate these aspects to formulate more
precise recommendations for improving water quality enforcement.
Suggestions for Future Research:
Future research efforts should focus on understanding the root causes of the identified
disparities in Safe Drinking Water Act violations. Investigating the impact of infrastructure
development, community engagement, and policy effectiveness on water quality will provide a
more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, exploring the long-term health effects of
arsenic exposure in areas with persistent violations is crucial. This could involve longitudinal
studies to track health outcomes in affected communities over time. Such research will contribute
to developing targeted interventions to mitigate the health risks associated with arsenic
contamination.
Abstract:
This combined research abstract synthesizes findings from three studies. Bae and Lynch
(2023) investigate the county-level distribution of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations
from 2016 to 2018, revealing a "contaminated drinking water belt" in the Southwest and South
regions with a significant association between SDWA violations and the percentage of Hispanics,
as well as a co-occurrence with persistent poverty. Nawaz et al. (2023) evaluate drinking water
quality in Lahore, Pakistan, finding elevated levels of arsenic, fluoride, total dissolved solids, and
residual chlorine, indicating significant health risks and unsuitability for drinking in most areas.
Shaw et al. (2005) focus on the impact of the Safe Drinking Water Act on public and private
water sources, emphasizing the heightened health risks associated with elevated arsenic levels in
private wells in rural areas, particularly in Churchill County, Nevada. The studies underscore the
critical need for proactive measures, regular monitoring, and understanding of risk perceptions to
ensure safe drinking water in urban and rural contexts.
References:
Bae, J., & Lynch, M. J. (2023). Ethnicity, Poverty, Race, and the Unequal Distribution of US
Safe Drinking Water Act Violations, 2016-2018.
Sociological Quarterly, 64
(2), 274–295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2022.2096148
Nawaz, R., Nasim, I., Irfan, A., Islam, A., Naeem, A., Ghani, N., Irshad, M. A., Latif, M., Nisa,
B. U., & Ullah, R. (2023). Water quality index and human health risk assessment of
drinking water in selected urban areas of a Mega City.
Toxics
,
11
(7), 577.
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11070577
Shaw, W. D., Walker, M., & Benson, M. (2005). Treating and drinking well water in the presence
of health risks from arsenic contamination: Results from a U.S. hot spot.
Risk Analysis
,
25
(6), 1531–1543.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00698.x
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help