“those who had low levels of four bacteria were more likely to develop asthma by the time they were 3 years old.”
“If the results are confirmed by additional studies, Finlay and Blaser [researchers on this project] say doctors could one day test babies to see if they're missing key microbes and replenish them, if so.”
The main point of this article is that researchers say that they have found a link between asthma prevalence in children and the concentration of certain bacteria. This is supported by looking at one year old children who showed signs of asthma, such as wheezing. They saw a low concentration of four bacterial genuses: Lachnospira, Veillonella, Faecalibacterium and Rothia. Most of these children ended up with full-blown asthma by age three. Another test was conducted where mice bred to have a condition resembling asthma in humans were given the four missing bacteria. The bacterial injection reduced inflammation in the lungs, which is a sign of asthma. It is unknown how these bacteria help prevent the onset of asthma, but it seems that there is a link between the two.
Many of the authors in the report are from the University of British Columbia, including Brett Finlay, who was interviewed in this article. He runs a research lab at the university and publishes many papers a year on e.coli and microbiota, among other things. Another person interviewed was Martin Blaser, a microbiologist at New York University who wrote a commentary on the original report. Is lab also publishes papers on microbiota and respiratory diseases.
The article suggests that antibiotic use, breast feeding vs. bottle feeding, and method of delivery all contribute to the state of the microbiota. Feeding babies by bottle and delivery by C-section all led to an increased rate of asthma.
The factors discussed in the article are not exclusive to any one social group. With the information, parents can switch to breast feeding, though perhaps richer communities may have to reduce antibiotic use, since they have easier access to them.
I first followed up on the report itself, which was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine (http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/307/307ra152 ). Unfortunately, all that I could get access to was the abstract of the paper, which did not give any more information than what is already mentioned in the article. Next, I looked at the author's profile to see what other articles he has published. Rob Stein had written for over 25 years on science and health topics, first at the Washington Post before joining NPR. That he works at NPR means that this writer likely has a liberal bias when referring to politics. Finally, I looked at the commentary written by Martin Blaser, but once again, only the abstract was available (http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/307/307fs39)
“The move fulfills a long-delayed campaign promise by President Barack Obama, but sets up a fresh confrontation with Republicans already angry about the administration’s plans to curb carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and regulate small streams and wetlands.”
“'The level chosen of 70 parts per billion simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health,' said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.”
The main point of the article is to report on the recent adjustment of the national ozone standard from 75 billion ppm to 70 million ppm, and provide some commentary on the decision by non-profit groups that championed for the change.
The president of the American Lung Association, Harold Wimmer, gave a statement about how the new ozone standards are not strict enough, saying that the statistics are there for the government to base their decisions, and that it was disappointing for the government to not set the standards based on that information. Another statement was given by the head of The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, expressing a similar sentiment that while this is a move in the right direction for combating air pollution, this was not enough of a restriction to really help those with lung ailments. No specific statements were given from the corporate or business side, except that that standard was superfluous and could risk cutting jobs.
It's implied that this bill is meant to target coal plants and cut down on the pollution produced by them.
Health disparities are not directly addressed in the article, but many of the coal plants in Texas are in areas where approximately twenty percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Since lower income families are more likely to have asthma, this is a way to alleviate some of the burden by forcing nearby plants to pollute less.
I first decided to take a look at the comments to see how the mostly Texas-based viewership reacted to the news. The comments that were there seemed skeptical of the new ozone standard to wonder why pollution from plants was being targeted, fearing that the economy may be hurt by this new standard. Some suggested that ethanol in fuel should have been regulated instead, claiming that reducing ethanol would have a bigger impact on ozone pollution. Next, I took a look at the EPA's website to see their statements on the new ozone standard (http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001overviewfs.pdf ). One overview published by the group specifically mentioned the benefits for those suffering from asthma, saying “The standard is especially important for children and people with asthma, who are at increased risk from ozone exposure, and will prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks”. It also mentioned the cost saving benefits as well, citing the potential to save billions of dollars. Finally, I took a look at an article also from the Dallas Morning News to see what areas will be affected by the new ozone standards. Some new areas in Houston are now in violation of the new standards, though there were more areas surrounding Houston and Galveston that were already in violation of the old ozone standards. Many regions in the Dallas-Fort Worth area will also be affected by the new ozone standards (http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/new-epa-ozone-standards-will-squeeze-north-texas.html/ )
“While Harris County might be the first to bring a local suit against the car maker, it surely won’t be the last.”
“It’s not clear how Harris County reached its estimate of $100 million in damages. The suit represents 2,434 total days of violations...Using that figure, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that even at the low-end range of $50 fines, Harris would be poised to recoup $730.2 million for all 6,000 vehicles (or $121,700 a car).”
The purpose of this article is to chronicle Harris County's lawsuit filed against Volkswagen in response to the revelations that Volkswagen cars were releasing pollutants far in excess of the EPA's limits. This is supported by giving the statements presented by the county attorney about why they are filing the suit, saying that the company released harmful levels of Nitrous Oxide, which severely hampered the county's attempts to combat air pollution.
County Attorney Vince Ryan's press release is used in the article. Richard Mithoff is a lawyer representing Harris County, who previously reached a $2.2 billion dollar settlement with the tobacco industry in 1998. The article did not mention who would be representing VW. The petition to sue VW was filed by Harris County and the State of Texas.
It blames Volkswagen's emission scandal, saying that by releasing many times more Nitrous Oxide and ozone, as well as other pollutants, into the atmosphere than allowed by environmental standards, and that this damages the health of its citizens suffering from lung ailments like asthma and COPD.
The article does not address health disparities directly. However, ti will be interesting to see how much this lawsuit increases taxes in Harris County across all demographics, and where the settlement money will go, assuming that Harris County wins.
I first took a look at the petition filed by Harris County against VW (http://www.harriscountytx.gov/cmpdocuments/caoimages/150929HarrisCountyvVolkswagenPetition.pdf ).It gave the specifics of why the county is suing VW, as well as other legal details, such as the venue of the lawsuit, which will be in Harris County. Next, I searched for any press statements given by higher ups at Volkswagen. I did find an article that cited the former CEO's resignation press release, where he accepted responsibility for the company's misconduct, while still saying that he had no part in making the decision to plant the devices in the cars (http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/volkswagen/volkswagens-emissions-cheat-software-scandal-an-explainer/ ). Finally, I took a look at the lawyer representing Harris County in the case, Richard Mithoff. He previously represented Harris County in a case against the tobacco industry in 1998, as well as a lawsuit against the London Interbank Offered Rate when it was revealed that bankers were colluding to fix interest rates in 2013. He has also represented BP shareholders in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010. He primarily specializes in injury compensation, and has been ranked as one of the top lawyers in Texas for the past decade.
"'We're going to work right at the grassroots level, with schools, events such as Walk Across Texas, such as the Master Gardener Program and other events that Health Science does in terms of screening events. For example, screenings at flea markets for diabetes and so forth'”.
“While the health initiative is starting in South Texas, the overall goal is to reduce diabetes in the region by 25 percent in a 10-year period, before expanding the initiative to the rest of Texas”.
The purpose of the article is to announce the launch of the “Healthy South Texas Initiative”, which seeks to educate families in rural South Texas about common chronic diseases affecting the Rio Grande Valley area. This is supported by the many other groups that have successfully educated the population on chronic diseases and seen improvements in general. The program will hire health and nutrition experts to educate people at public events, as well as offering health screenings as well.
The Texas State legislature is providing $10 million in funding for the program. The initiative is also being sponsored by Texas A&M University.
It is implied that a lack of education is the reason for all of these chronic diseases affecting so many people and costing the state millions of dollars in healthcare expenditures.
The program aims to educate rural areas in the south, which can also mean poor areas in the south. This program is addressing health disparities by targeting what it perceives as the poor and uneducated parts of Texas.
I first looked at Texas A&M's website to see how they were pitching the program. The university does not offer much advertising for the program, just a news release and statement by the John Sharp, Texas A&M chancellor, about how proud and optimistic he is of this program (https://news.tamhsc.edu/?post=texas-am-launches-healthy-texas-initiative-a-land-grant-approach-to-healthier-lives ). Next, I took a look at Senator Juan 'Chuy' Hinojosa, the state senator sponsoring this initiative. A Georgetown graduate, he passed a bill to create the Regional Academic Health Center (RAHC) to train physicians on the Texas/Mexico border. He represents a region on the Texas/Mexico border (http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist20/dist20.htm ). Finally, I looked at the author to see what other work she has done. She mainly writes articles about areas on the border, and doesn't specialize in one topic area otherwise.
“Lately, while taking my habitual evasive actions around the potholes I've memorized, I've been thinking a lot not only about the worsening condition of our bad streets, but also about the pope and how enslaved we are by our cars. All are connected.”
“Our motor vehicles cause 80 percent of our air pollution.”
The purpose of this editorial is to provide commentary about Pope Francis I's visit and how American society is enslaved by its obsession with cars, and that obsession is destroying the environment. He supports this viewpoint by bringing up the statistic that 80% of all air pollution is created by automobiles, and also commenting on the damage that heavy cars do to roads.
It refers to Pope Francis I as the person planting the idea in the author's head. It also refers to a conference at Texas A&M Corpus Christi as a source for some of his facts.
He places the blame for air pollution on humans and their obsession with cars and the freedom and power they symbolize.
The author does imply that having a luxury SUV is a vain purchase and conflicts with the Pope's message about modesty and humility, along with the arguments about large cars polluting the atmosphere and ruining roads.
I first looked for the Pope's speech where he talked about cars. While he never specifically said that we are 'slaves to cars', he has made statements urging priests to 'buy humble cars' and has ditched the Popemobile for a small Fiat during his visit to America (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/06/pope-cars-idUSL5N0FC0IR20130706 ). Next, I looked for confirmation of that “80% of all air pollution comes from cars” quote. According to the DOT, however, that figure is too high, as on-road vehicles only account for 55% of carbon monoxide emissions and 35% of nitrous oxide emissions. Finally, I looked to see what other articles this author has done. He mostly writes editorials like this, on comparing New York City to Texan cities and how much more pedestrian friendly the former is, or a piece on his dog getting injured on a hunting trip. He does not seem like the most credible writer, though it is an editorial, so taking liberties with the facts and writing fluff pieces is to be expected.
“Because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the current releases of methane are estimated to have the same impact on climate disruption as 160 coal-fired power plants. Methane is 86 times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.”
“EPA’s goal is to reduce methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2025. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the industry now wastes enough methane annually to provide 5 million homes with gas for heating and cooking.”
This article is reporting on the recent EPA hearings in Dallas and Denver. The hearings featured testimonials from citizens worried about methane emissions from gas and oil drilling. They talked about how the current regulations in Texas are insufficient and leave them exposed to methane venting from these drilling sites. This is backed up by citizen testimonials that bring forth real world experiences about living near drilling sites.
The EPA is implementing new rules to curb methane emissions. The article borrow statistics from the Environmental Defense Fund about current methane emissions, and criticisms from the Texas Sierra Club, Earthworks, and the Clean Water Action Fund about the proposed regulations and how little they will accomplish have been paraphrased.
It implies that oil and gas drilling operations, especially older ones, are responsible for polluting 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Health disparities are addressed by focusing not on social and ethnic groups, but on the cities surrounded by oil and gas drilling sites, since the EPA primarily wants to protect them. There is nothing special in terms of the ethnic or social make up of these cities otherwise. The president of the NAACP branch of Odessa, Texas expressed his displeasure at the fact that many of the proposed changes are merely voluntary guidelines, though.
I first looked into the proposed changes to get some actual statistics about the proposed methane emission changes. A fact sheet on the EPA's website says that this reduction will be accomplished by requiring oil drills to collect waste natural gas, for instance. The proposes changes also offer a set of guidelines for state agencies to use when determining if existing gas and oil drills are doing enough to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/og_fs_081815.pdf ). I also looked at HB40, a piece of Texas legislature that stripped away some of the regulating power on oil and gas drills so that they could not apply to subsurface activity or be commercially unreasonable. One citizen mentioned his displeasure with HB40, and stressed that the EPA needed to take action with these regulations (http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20150502-hb-40-could-set-off-change.ece ). Finally, I looked at a letter of reprimand from the EPA to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that was mentioned in the article. It scolded Texas for not having an adequate program to deal with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of greenhouse gases, and for being unwilling to create an adequate one as well. This means that the EPA will have to inspect and issue permits for industrial facilities regarding to PSD, though this does not seem like much of a punishment for dereliction of duties (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/12/22/document_gw_01.pdf ).
“If the results are confirmed by additional studies, Finlay and Blaser [researchers on this project] say doctors could one day test babies to see if they're missing key microbes and replenish them, if so.”
“'The level chosen of 70 parts per billion simply does not reflect what the science shows is necessary to truly protect public health,' said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.”
“It’s not clear how Harris County reached its estimate of $100 million in damages. The suit represents 2,434 total days of violations...Using that figure, back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that even at the low-end range of $50 fines, Harris would be poised to recoup $730.2 million for all 6,000 vehicles (or $121,700 a car).”
“While the health initiative is starting in South Texas, the overall goal is to reduce diabetes in the region by 25 percent in a 10-year period, before expanding the initiative to the rest of Texas”.
“Our motor vehicles cause 80 percent of our air pollution.”
“EPA’s goal is to reduce methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2025. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the industry now wastes enough methane annually to provide 5 million homes with gas for heating and cooking.”