The potential human health hazard of nitrates in drinking water: a media discourse analysis in a high-income country.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies linking low levels of nitrate in drinking water to colorectal cancer have raised public concerns over nitrate contamination. The aim of this study was to analyze the media discourse on the potential human health hazard of nitrates in drinking water in a high-income country with a large livestock industry: New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: Searches of media sources ("major newspapers") held by the Factiva database for the NZ setting in the five-year period 17 December 2016 to 20 December 2021. RESULTS: The largest number of media items was observed for 2017 (n = 108), the year of a NZ general election, with a notable decrease in 2020 (n = 20) that was likely due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which dominated health media. However, the percentage of these media items with a health focus steadily increased over time, from 11.1% of all articles in 2017 to 51.2% in 2021. The most commonly mentioned health hazard was colorectal cancer, followed by methemoglobinemia. The temporal pattern of media items suggests that the release of scientific studies and scholarly blogs was associated with the publication of subsequent media items. Major stakeholders involved in the discourse included representatives of local and central government, environmental and recreational interest groups, researchers, local residents, agricultural interest groups, and health organizations. Maori (Indigenous New Zealanders) values or perspectives were rarely mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of major newspapers for a five-year period indicated that a wide range of expert comment and opinions were made available to the public and policy makers on the issue of nitrates in water. While many different stakeholder views were captured in the media discourse, there is scope for the media to better report the views of Maori on this topic. There is also a need for articles detailing the health issues to also refer to the environmental, recreational, and cultural aspects of protecting water quality to ensure that the public, policy makers, and regulators are aware of co-benefits.

Health and related economic benefits associated with reduction in air pollution during COVID-19 outbreak in 367 cities in China.

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Chinese government implemented nationwide traffic restrictions and self-quarantine measures from January 23 to April 8 (in Wuhan), 2020. We estimated how these measures impacted ambient air pollution and the subsequent consequences on health and the health-related economy in 367 Chinese cities. A random forests modeling was used to predict the business-as-usual air pollution concentrations in 2020, after adjusting for the impact of long-term trend and weather conditions. We calculated changes in mortality attributable to reductions in air pollution in early 2020 and health-related economic benefits based on the value of statistical life (VSL). Compared with the business-as-usual scenario, we estimated 1239 (95% CI: 844-1578) PM2.5-related deaths were avoided, as were 2777 (95% CI: 1565-3995) PM10-related deaths, 1587 (95% CI: 98-3104) CO-related deaths, 4711 (95% CI: 3649-5781) NO2-related deaths, 215 (95% CI: 116-314) O3-related deaths, and 1088 (95% CI: 774-1421) SO2-related deaths. Based on the reduction in deaths, economic benefits for in PM2.5, PM10, CO, NO2, O3, and SO2 were 1.22, 2.60, 1.36, 4.05, 0.20, and 0.95 billion USD, respectively. Our findings demonstrate the substantial benefits in human health and health-related costs due to improved urban air quality during the COVID lockdown period in China in early 2020.

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.