Jacobs, D. E., Kelly, T., & Sobolewski, J. (2007). Linking Public Health, Housing, and Indoor Environmental Policy: Successes and Challenges at Local and Federal Agencies in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(6), 976–982. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4139322
The article talks about the many variables that impact the quality of indoor air such as lead paint, radon, and mold. It talks about how investments into improving indoor air quality are helpful and could generate up to 200 billion dollars. It also talks about the response to public/outdoor air quality and how indoor air has yet to receive the large-scale intervention that outdoor air has had. The article blames this on a lack of a perpetrator, such as a polluting company, and says that legislation has been difficult due to this obstacle. However, it points to lead poisoning prevention as a successful journey in at home atmosphere regulation. It provides an example of these many indoor atmosphere pollutants and effects with Cuyahoga county, Ohio. Finally it lists the many failures of the current policy, pointing to a lack of research, and poor delivery of aid. However, it provides hope as government subsidies to move families out of high poverty areas to lower poverty areas causes the health of the movers to improve significantly. This source is a report that compiled many different studies to generate a comprehensive report on the indoor air quality of America. It wasn’t much help unfortunately as much of the information provided I either already knew the information or it didn’t relate to my topic. It did give me a better understanding of all factors that impact the indoor air quality but didn’t go in depth on lead paint. This source is reliable as it was published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, a very respectable organization that prides itself in scientific research on the impact of the environment on organisms. The authors are also all highly respected in their respective fields: two head scientists and a successful legal advisor/lawyer. Their goal was to provide the interested public with a comprehensive list of the successes and challenges with indoor air quality while persuading policy makers to adopt a multidisciplinary, preventative approach to indoor air quality. This source was fairly comparable to my other sources as it was one of many studies/reports dealing with lead paint. It was less helpful than most other sources but was still somewhat helpful. I was hoping to learn of examples of lead paint poisoning solutions in communities but, sadly, failed to find any examples of successes of lead paint in the article. However, I thought the article was interesting and provided a good general overview of pollutants inside and the effects they have on people. It also provided great ideas on policy when dealing with pollutants indoors. It hasn’t really impacted my thinking much as most of the articles didn't directly relate to my topic. While some things were helpful they didn’t strongly impact my thinking and instead simply added to my known information.
Campbell, C., Himmelsbach, R., Palermo, P., & Tobin, R. (2005). Health and Housing Collaboration at LAST: The Philadelphia Lead Abatement Strike Team. Public Health Reports (1974-), 120(3), 218–223. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20056781
The article outlines how the Lead Abatement Strike Team (LAST) helped Philadelphia reduce its lead levels significantly in a variety of ways. They cracked down on lead paint violations resulting in 752 being resolved through court action. They also provided temporary housing for residents in lead paint environments, allowing them to complete the repairs needed more efficiently without the residents slowing down construction. It also talked about how LAST was a result of community led protests. This caused the city to hire more workers and put in place this system. Finally the article outlines what worked and what didn’t, stating that it was slowed by the interdependence different agencies involved had with each other and that it was aided by the great support from the community and the mayor's office as well as the collaborative efforts of a multi-agency approach. This source’s purpose was to report on the lead problem in Philadelphia and how it is currently being approached. For this reason I would say that the article is mostly about Philadelphia’s response to the lead paint problem and how LAST worked to reduce dangerous lead paint environments. This source is a report within Public Health Reports which is the official journal of the U.S. Public Health Service. It was fairly helpful as it provided me with new ideas on how to help the situation, specifically by focussing on temporary housing for families currently undergoing remodeling to remove lead paint. It was better than many of my other sources as it gave me an example of a response to lead paint that yielded helpful results. Its information is fairly credible as it is published by the U.S. government and all the authors are tenured doctors that now manage health programs or teach medicine as professors. The goal of this source is to provide the medical community with an example of a successful lead abatement program, the vital components of such, and how it could be improved. This source was incredibly helpful as it gave me a new avenue to go down: temporary housing. It had reputable information that gave me a strong sense of how LAST reduced lead poisoning. It solved my problem of lacking a good example of how lead paint poisoning can be remediated and shifted my focus to possibly identify a new crack. All in all, this source was incredibly helpful and I’m glad I found it.
Goldstein, G. W. (1990). Lead Poisoning and Brain Cell Function. Environmental Health Perspectives, 89, 91–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3430903
This article explains how neurons usually send signals, how lead disrupts it and how lead can cause brain damage if introduced to the blood-brain barrier. It also talks about where information lacks in this subject such as with a scarcity of studies involving complete brains and not just singular cell systems. The point of this article is to inform the reader of how lead impacts the brain in a very scientific way. The article is part of Environmental Health Perspectives volume 89. That magazine is peer reviewed and supported by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It focuses on the health effects of lead poisoning much like the beginning of my other sources. It has little bias in this article as it is simply a scientific report detailing biochemical processes. The author is part of John Hopkins board and is an esteemed professor of neurology. The source was helpful with detailing the specifics of how lead poisoning impacts the brain, allowing me to gain a better understanding of the issue, which will help me explain it to those who don’t know. Its audience is those who deal with health issues on a daily basis and have a strong understanding of medical sciences. The source has helped with my understanding of the specifics of the issue and will allow me to better explain it as it has developed my thinking. It solved the issue I was hoping it would, that being my lack of knowledge on the specifics of lead poisoning. I thought it was interesting but lacked a larger focus and it has enhanced my thinking to allow for stronger explanations and understanding. It solved the problem of my lack of knowledge on the specifics of how lead affects the brain.
Farr, N., & Dolbeare, C. N. (1996). Childhood Lead Poisoning: Solving a Health and Housing Problem. Cityscape, 2(3), 167–181. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868427
The main argument is that more needs to be done to combat lead poisoning. It starts by outlining the problems associated with lead paint and some statistics of who is affected by lead paint. These statistics are no longer helpful as this source was published in 1996. It also outlines the many bonuses that would come with the removal of lead. It specifies preparing children for an education, reducing crime, and increasing earnings as the main effects of removing lead in the U.S. It says that through the spending of 500 billion dollars (1 trillion when adjusted for inflation) by the U.S. government we can completely eliminate lead poisoning. It then lays out a potential permanent solution, pointing to Title X and outlining the task force that it suggests. It lists things to do or avoid when removing lead and pushes for government subsidies for the highly impoverished in order to allow them to renovate their homes and remove lead. It also talks about rejuvenating insurance programs for landlords in order to restore the industry. It makes sure to place those with/expecting children in lead safe buildings to the extent that they can. It then points to the many issues that remain: cost, capacity, effectiveness, testing, documentation, and ongoing monitoring. This is a government document that focuses on advising policy. It was fairly useful and will aid in some of the decisions I make while working on my project. It, like another of my sources, is made by the US government and like two of my sources it focuses on policy rather than research. It is very reliable as it was made by the late Cushing Dolbeare who was one of the leading experts in low income policy. It has a little bias as it is seeking to influence a policy. However, the bias doesn’t overpower the truth in the text’s words. The goal of the source is to outline a policy that will then be put in place to reduce lead poisoning nationwide. Overall this text has a little bias but is focussed primarily on the facts. I thought this article was a great outline for a policy and included very persuasive facts that would inspire people to deal with this issue. The only downside about this article is that it was published in 1996 so many of the facts are inaccurate in today's world. Its policy pointed to a piece of legislation so it was a little bit difficult to understand but it helped me understand how to better make long-lasting change in my community. Its exhibits were the most helpful as they outlined some practices even individuals could do to reduce their risk of lead poisoning. It didn’t necessarily solve a problem but it broadened my understanding of the issue, allowing my decisions to be better informed and my solutions stronger. It focussed more on solutions dealing with the law rather than the type of community efforts that I wish to pursue. Overall it is a wonderful source that helps my understanding of the problem but lacks knowledge on how individuals can best reduce lead poisoning.