When carving out policy, leaders at the federal, state and local levels must make public health a primary consideration. In the long run, practices that undermine that health prove costly to the economy and a region’s quality of life, regardless of what might be short-term financial gains.
This comes to mind with the release of a new study from state agencies, the University of Washington and advocacy groups. Using state and national data, researchers ranked areas all the way down to the neighborhood level in assessing health risks for residents. It is important work that eventually can be used in shaping public policy.
One local example that relates to this was a proposal for an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver. The proposal was rejected last year by Gov. Jay Inslee following a lengthy environmental assessment and years of public comments. While many local citizens rightly decried the proposal for various reasons, we must reiterate the negative health impact the terminal would have had on the region. Even the most diligent process for transferring crude from one vessel to another leads to emissions that have a long-term impact on the health of residents, particularly those in close proximity to the facility.
That is the kind of thing the new, ongoing study is attempting to assess. Environmental factors include items such as lead risk and exposure, proximity to Superfund sites, local diesel emissions and traffic density. Among population factors, researchers looked at infant birth weight, prevalence of death by heart disease, and burdensome transportation or housing costs.
