Environmental geology, like hydrogeology, is an applied science concerned with the practical

application of the principles of geology in the solving of environmental problems. It is a

multidisciplinary field that is closely related to engineering geology and, to a lesser extent, to
environmental geography. Each of these fields involves the study of the interaction of humans
with the geologic environment, including the biosphere, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and to
some extent the atmosphere. In other words, environmental geology is the application of
geological information to solve conflicts, minimizing possible adverse environmental
degradation or maximizing possible advantageous condition resulting from the use of natural and
modified environment.

Environmental geology includes:

 managing geological and hydrogeological resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, water
(surface and ground water), and land use.
 studying the earth's surface through the disciplines of geomorphology, and edaphology;
 defining and mitigating exposure of natural hazards on humans
 managing industrial and domestic waste disposal and minimizing or eliminating effects
of pollution, and
 performing associated activities, often involving litigation.

Fundamental Concepts
1) human population growth
2) sustainability
3) Earth as a system
4) hazardous Earth processes
5) scientific knowledge and values Advertisement )
Fundamental and concept of environmental geology

1. 1. Environmental Geology • Environmental Geology - the study of Earth's natural

systems and their interactions with humans. It is applied geology. • - Help solve conflicts
in land use • - minimize environmental degradation • - maximize the beneficial results of
using our natural and modified environment. • - Includes the study of: • - Natural Hazards
(such as floods, landslides, earthquakes, and volcanic activity) • in order to minimize loss
of life and property. • - Landscape for site selection, land-use planning, and
environmental impact • analysis • - Earth Materials (such as minerals, rocks and soils) to
determine their potential • use as resources or waste disposal sites and their effects on
human health. • - Hydrologic processes of groundwater and surface water to evaluate
water • resources and water pollution problems. • - Geological processes (such as
deposition of sediment on the ocean floor, the • formation of mountains, and the
movement of water on and below the • surface of the earth) to evaluate local, regional,
and global change Fundamental concepts of environmental geology · Humans are agents
of geological change. · The Earth is unique. · The Earth is a closed system. · Materials
and energy tend to cycle from one reservoir to another.
2. 2. · The physical structure and chemical composition of the Earth affect our lives in many
different ways. · Geologic processes and human beings operate on different time scales. ·
Hazardous geologic processes are natural and have always existed. · Risk is characteristic
of the human-planet relationship. · We are fundamentally dependent on Earth resources
for the conduct of modern society. · Earth resources are limited. · Earth resources can be
managed properly in a sustainable fashion. · There is no "away" to throw things to; our
garbage and pollution remains with us. · Managing the environment means managing
human behavior. · Restoration and preservation are also part of the human-planet
relationship. Concept Nine: Geology as a Basic Environmental Science - The
fundamental component of every person’s environment is the geologic •component, and
understanding our environment requires a broad-based •comprehension and appreciation
of he earth sciences and related disciplines.

GEO-113: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY

BASIC CONCEPTS AND POPULATION GROWTH

LECTURE NOTES

 
I: Environmental Geology: relationship between humans and their earth environment.
This can be either positive or negative in nature.

A synthesis of all the major geology sub-disciplines and how they relate to human
existence, particularly geologic resources and hazards.

Five basic concepts that will reappear throughout the semester:

1) Human population growth: Number one environmental problem. Impacts all

other issues we will discuss. Increases our exposure to hazards, demand for
resources,

and amount of pollution we produce (and our impact on earth systems).

2) Sustainability: Long-term objective that may not be entirely possible.

3) Systems and change: Earth environment is made up of many different.

interconnected systems, many (if not all) capable of being changed by human
activity.

4) Hazardous earth process: Have always occurred. Are hazardous to us only if

we

allow ourselves to be affected by them. Need to recognize, assess, and plan for or

avoid them

 
 5) Scientific knowledge and values: Scientific study may provide numerous

alternative solutions. Which one(s) we choose depend on our values.

Almost everything we do or use is based on geology. It impacts our economy, foreign

relations, politics, society, culture, and day-to-day lives. Everything from the food we
eat to the clothes we wear to when we go to war.

II: Most problems created or exacerbated by overpopulation-ever expanding population

on a planet with limited space and resources (Basic concept 1).

Leads to the concept of Carrying Capacity - population capable of being supported by

the earth's available resources. Number depends on what standard of living is
considered acceptable. Estimated to be between 10 billion and 100 billion people.
However, above 15-20 billion, standards of living drop dramatically.

III: Present earth population is approximately 6.5 billion. Increasing at 1.3%/year.

Doesn�t seem like much. However this will double the population in about 55 years.
Result of exponential growth. Increase is very slow to start, but very rapid later on (J-
shaped growth curve).

Doubling Time: - time it takes in years for population (or anything else) to double in
size. Calculated by dividing 70 by the % growth rate (rule of 70).

 
1.3%/year gives a doubling time of 55 years. 2% gives a doubling time of 35 years. Even
a growth rate of 1 percent (approximate US growth rate) means a doubling time of 70
years.

Populations and growth rates not evenly distributed around the world.

North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan - have low populations and growth rates
(often less than 1%; Europe has a growth rate near 0) and high productivity: First
World. Twenty percent of the population uses ninety percent of the resources and
produces ninety-five percent waste.

South America, Africa, Asia - have high populations and growth rates (often as high as
2%) and low productivity (Third World).

IV: Can we attain a Sustainable Society (Basic concept two)?

Population does not outstrip resources. The idea of spaceship earth - conservation, sharing,
recycling. We need to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources.
How do we do this while maintaining our standard of living and allowing the third world to
develop and for populations to rise? If the entire world has the U.S. standard of living we would
need 5X the resources (more if population growth is factored in). Need to develop alternative
energy sources such as solar, nuclear, wind, biomass, geothermal, etc. Can't just keep throwing
things away. There is no away!

V: Geologic processes are not inherently good or bad- no such thing as �fury of the
earth.� This depends upon our interactions with the process. Many environmental
problems are hazards created by us, either by what we do or due to human exposure to
natural processes. We control the nature of the relationship between humans and the
natural environment (Basic concept four). Geology�s interaction with humans is a two
way street. It impacts us and we impact it, often at the same time.

Hazards: are destructive to life, property, and/or environment.

Resources: provide needed materials or energy for society or life

Decision as to which one a process is (could be both at the same time) requires an
evaluation of the process (i.e. scientific information or Basic concept five), real or
perceived benefits, risk, and prediction of future behavior. This assumes
uniformitarianism; earth processes operate basically the same over time (present is the
key to the past or present is the key to the future).

Need to evaluate processes using scientific methods. Observation of process leads to a

hypothesis to explain it. Acquire data to test (the hypothesis must be falsifiable) the
hypothesis. If hypothesis is supported by multiple tests and is generally accepted then
becomes a theory. Important to remember that a theory is not just some wild guess or
speculation, rather it is an idea supported by all available data. May alter theory as new
data is acquired. May also have to discard it if new data refutes it. Eventually a theory
may become a law if shown to be universally true, such as Newton�s Law of Gravity.

Most sciences work in the forward direction (run the experiment, observe the results).
Geology often is done in reverse (observe the results and try to figure out what
happened). Makes it more difficult, but sometimes more fun.

2. Cultural environmental literacy

Cultural literacy refers to the ability to understand the significance that society attaches to
cultural icons. Such icons include, of course, living natural objects: national parks; the
Californian redwood; the English oak. An increased cultural environmental literacy would be
gained by a reading of Schama's Landscape and Memory, in which the author discusses a series
of landscapes of rich significance to contemporary societies (including part of the Eastern
European forest, the English Greenwood and the Californian redwoods) in terms of cultural
history with respect to the ways in which these landscapes have been viewed, used and reshaped
over a millennium. One of the abiding impressions gained from a reading of Landscape and
Memory is that the landscapes in question have often been strongly shaped by cultural and
social forces throughout the period in question. Schama effectively dispels the still partly-held
misconception, for example, that much of England was covered with virgin forest until the last
couple of hundred years.

On one level, a degree of cultural environmental literacy merely enables one to recognise the
significance of natural images in human culture, along with some recognition of why and to
whom they are significant: the American bald eagle, or the white dove of peace, for example.
However, it also allows for an understanding of why the landscape itself is as it is, shaped not
merely by climate, glaciation and topography, but by arguments about enclosure, the need for
timber and patterns of land ownership dating back many centuries. While functional
environmental literacy develops knowledge of what natural things are, cultural environmental
literacy enables us to explain why they are there when the causes are clearly not simply
geological or climatic with no apparent human intervention.

Cultural literacy depends on a degree of acceptance of cultural hegemony: it links the learner
with a dominant value system. The culturally literate individual in England will know what is
implied by the term "heart of oak", or understand the English Lake District as a kind of symbol
of Wordsworthian Romanticism, even though these conceptions may be more associated with
English "high culture" than with popular culture, as well as having no scientific basis. Cultural
literacy refers more to cultural heritage than to cultural analysis. The subtitle of Hirsch's book is
"What every American needs to know". Insofar as cultural literacy is empowering, it empowers
by giving the learner access to socially powerful perspectives; cultural literacy alone does not
enable the learner to act upon that knowledge, once acquired. Effective action requires critical
literacy.

CHAPTER THREE

HAZARD FORECASTING AND RISK ASSESSMENT

 
In this chapter - Certainty and probability | Hazard prediction - trend projection | Hazard prediction -
magnitude/frequency analysis | Hazard forecasting | Risk and uncertainty | Catastrophes | Some
complications

Home | Chap 1 | Chap 2 | Chap 3 | Chap 4 | Chap 5 | Chap 6 | Chap 7 | Chap 8 | Refs | Web links

Certainty and probability

Uncertainty surrounds all aspects of natural hazards. Particularly important are the actual
uncertainty of the environmental processes and events, and our perception of uncertainty in the
absence of perfect knowledge about how the environment operates. The assessment and
management of environmental risk are areas of growing importance.

Some events (such as volcanic eruptions and river floods) appear to be largely random in timing
and occurrence, whereas others (such as prolonged drought) might appear to be cyclical,
although they are not so regular as to be predictable. Yet other events (such as tornadoes and
hurricanes) follow seasonal patterns of occurrence, even though their spatial patterns will vary.

However, all natural hazards pose some degree of uncertainty about where and when the next
occurrence can be expected, and how large that event might be. We can never be certain (except
in the short term for certain types of hazard), so that people are often unprepared when the event
does happens. As a result contingency plans (like evacuation), designed to minimise risk to
people and property, are often not put into practice.

Uncertainty can be expressed as a probability function - that is, in terms of the probability (or
likelihood) that a hazard event of a given size will occur at a given place within a specified time
period. Estimates of the likely occurrence of events in the future have to be based on experience
of past events; the past is the key to the future, in hazard terms. If there is information available
about past events, it can be used to predict the likelihood of hazard occurrences in the future,
based on probability estimation.

Detailed forecasting of when the event is likely to occur is much more elusive. It is not unknown
for forecasts to turn out wrong; the Meteorological Office issued incorrect short-term forecasts
about the severe storm over southern England on 16th October 1987 and people were caught
unawares. Nonetheless a number of hazards (like river floods) are understood enough to allow
warnings to be given, even if only a day or two before the event. Some hazards (like weather
changes and air quality) can be anticipated as they start to occur, and appropriate remedial action
taken or started.

Hazard prediction; trend projection

Long periods observations (such as climatological records) can be used to detect periodicities or
long-term trends in hazard events. These can then be used to anticipate future events by
extrapolation (projecting past trends into the future). For example, the Icelandic volcano Hekla
appears to have erupted roughly every seventy years since the sixteenth century. The most recent
eruption, in 1991, is entirely consistent with this long-term pattern.

Simple extrapolation is possible only if we can safely assume that no progressive or sudden
changes occur through time in the nature, timing and periodicity of the hazard events. This is
clearly not always a safe assumption; for example, upstream land-use changes can radically alter
the magnitude and frequency of river flooding.

Hazard prediction; magnitude/frequency analysis

The laws of probability tell us that the commonplace event is frequent and moderate in size,
whereas extreme events are big but rare. Thus quite high discharges which just overtop river
banks occur fairly regularly (about once in 1.5 to 2.3 years on average in many natural rivers),
but severe overbank flooding or prolonged drought are less common. Thus the magnitude (size)
and frequency (regularity) of events are closely inter-related for any given type of hazard
(Figures 4a and 4b).

Figure 4. Magnitude/frequency relationships in natural hazards.

a. Large events are infrequent but catastrophic, whereas most hazards are of moderate size
and common occurrence.
 b. Some natural hazards such as floods and droughts form a continuum of events, with
catastrophes occurring with both extremes: normality in this case occurs frequently, and
relates to moderate size events.
c. Hazards vary in the probability distribution of events; hazard B has high frequency of
relatively small events (eg river flooding), whereas hazard A has much larger events with
similar probabilities.
d. Probability distributions of many natural hazards can be plotted on special probability
graph paper to allow extrapolation or prediction of events beyond the range of observed
conditions. The graph relates to river flooding, and the points represent the annual peak
flows from the streamflow records. They are plotted after ranking by size, according to
the formula R.I.=(n+1)/m, where n is the number of years on record and m is the rank of
the flood (flood 1 being the largest flood in that record).

The nature of this relationship becomes clearer if we look at the probability distribution of
hazard events, based on past experience or records (Figure 4c). The long-term average time
interval between two successive hazard events of a similar size is known as the return period, or
the recurrence interval (R.I.), of an event of that specified size. Thus, for example, a particular
site on a river may have an estimated R.I. of 10 years, for a discharge of 200 m3s-1 (cumecs). This
means that over the long term the river can be expected to flow at this discharge once every ten
years, on average, at this site. The return period is a long-term average based on past events; it is
not a definite prediction of when the next event will occur.

Realistic probability estimates can only be made within the range of conditions experienced in
the past, so the most reliable estimates are derived from long periods of records. But in many
situations such records simply do not exist, so probability estimation and rational design of
control structures often have to be done with caution and professional judgement.

Probability distributions of natural environmental processes (like river flooding; see Figure 4d)
are needed in the design of control structures (like river walls, bridges and dams), which must be
large enough and strong enough to protect people and property. Structures are usually designed
to contain an event of a stated recurrence interval. For example, major dams in the headwaters of
rivers upstream of towns and cities might be designed to withstand a 1 in 500 or 1 in 1,000 year
flood. Complete protection against a hazard is unattainable, and control structures must be
designed to balance cost against benefit. Even protection against the 20 or 30-year event may be
uneconomic. Some rare events are worth massive investment; the Thames flood barrier, designed
to protect London against the 1000-year storm surge, cost over £400 million!

The magnitude/frequency approach to prediction highlights two important aspects of the hazard
problem. First, all occurrences of a particular hazard at a given location are, in effect, part of a
continuum of events which follow a pattern which can be described in probability terms. The
corollary is that an event of greater size than all recorded occurrences of a given hazard at a
given place is likely to happen sometime in the future (ie "the best (or worst) is yet to come!").
For example, before the 1984 explosion at the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal in India (which
killed more than 2,500 people), the largest toxic gas disaster anywhere in the world had killed 60
people.
Hazard forecasting

Ability to forecast the arrival time, location and potential magnitude of hazardous events is
clearly necessary if disasters are to be avoided and emergency plans implemented. But such
forecasting is generally possible only over short time periods, and for certain types of hazard.

Forecasts of river flooding can be made if information on the upstream generation of floodwaves
is available, and it can be communicated downstream efficiently. Telemetric systems, based on
river gauging stations which can be interrogated by telephone or satellite from water authority
offices, are being installed in many developing countries. Limited prediction and forecasting of
earthquake events and volcanic eruptions (such as Mount St Helens in 1980) is also possible,
based on monitoring changes in the frequency of small seismic events, tilts and strains in
epicentre regions, and changes in the physical properties of rocks near faults as they are strained.

Ideally we would like to be able to predict three things about a likely hazard event - where,
when, and how big it might to be. Place is relatively easy to predict for many hazards, both
natural and technological. Major earthquake and volcano zones are well known from past
experience and geological mapping; floodplain topography and past flood history gives many
clues to areas prone to river flooding; industrial accidents are concentrated in major industrial
areas. Time is much more difficult to predict, except for events with some detectable periodicity,
or short-term predictions when precursors (initial diagnostic stages) are evident. Size is more
difficult again to predict, although precursor conditions can throw some light on the probability
of events of a given size.

Risk and uncertainty

The UK Health and Safety Executive (1989) make an important distinction between risk and
hazard. Risk refers to the likelihood (probability) of a harmful event, such as injury or death from
a particular hazard; hazard refers to a situation with a potential to cause harm (regardless of the
likelihood of it actually happening).

Considerable uncertainty surrounds any forecasting of rare events, for various reasons. Often
reliable data are lacking. Proper evaluations of the health risk to humans is only available for a
tenth of the 65,000 chemicals and 18 percent of the drugs in common use today, for example.
Uncertainty also arises through the difficulty of identifying all possible causes and consequences
of particular hazard events. This is particularly true for technological hazards, where possible
failure rate data are limited if not unavailable; human error - which cannot be forecast - might be
involved (as in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, which was caused by the failure of an
unauthorised experiment in the reactor core); and possible injury assessments are difficult (it
depends on precisely what happens in the accident).

The Health and Safety Executive also distinguish between individual risk and societal risk -

 Individual risk relates to the likelihood that a particular person may be harmed by a
particular hazard. It is usually expressed as the probability that a typical person may be
harmed in one typical year by that type of hazard. For example, the risk of being killed in
 a road accident in Great Britain is around 100 per million (or 10,000 to one) per year, on
average. This can be compared with some other typical risks shown in Table 4.
 Societal risk refers to the likelihood of major events involving mass death and injury. For
instance, there is a risk of about 1 in 10 in any one year of a major air travel disaster in
Britain. Societal risk is closely related to the prospect of catastrophes.

Table 4 Risk assessments for Great Britain

Figures are quoted as the chance in a million that a typical person will die from that cause in any
one year, averaged over a whole lifetime; the figures are averaged over the whole population of
Great Britain except where there is a specific small group exposed (eg rock climbers).

Cause Risk

(per million per year)

   

all causes (mainly illnesses from natural causes 11,900

cancer 2,800

   

(a) all violent causes 396

road accidents 100

accident in private home 93

fire or flame (all causes) 15

drowning 6

excessive cold 8

lightning 0.1

   

(b) accidents at work (risks to employees)

Deep-sea fishing (UK vessels) 880

coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels 106

construction 92
 all manufacturing industry 23

offices, shops, warehouses inspected by Local Authorities 4.5

   

(c) leisure (risks to active participants during active years)

rock climbing (assumes 200 hours climbing per year) 8,000

canoeing (assumes 200 hours per year) 2,000

Hang-gliding (average participant) 1,500

SOURCE: Health & Safety Executive (1989)

 Catastrophes

The most extreme hazard events create catastrophes, or disasters, which normally arrive without
warning. White and Haas (1975) define a catastrophe as any situation in which the damages to
people, property or society in general are so severe that recovery and/or rehabilitation after the
event is a long and difficult process.

The magnitude/frequency associations of hazard events mean that catastrophes must - by

definition - be expected to occur at some time wherever minor events are experienced.

Catastrophic situations are often associated with flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis,
volcanoes, earthquakes and large fires (see Table 1). Other processes (like landslides) generally
affect smaller areas and have only moderate catastrophe potential. The same is true of drought,
which can cover a massive area but generally allows fairly long warning times (although
prolonged drought, as in north Africa during the 1980s, can create a major catastrophe).
Processes like coastal erosion, frost, lightning strikes and expansive soils have low catastrophe
potentials (Table 1).

People often view the sudden, dramatic disaster - with its immediate impact - differently from
the ongoing natural hazard which might well kill or injure many more people over a longer
period of time. Disasters are usually focussed on one community, which experiences collective
shock and sense of loss (such as Lockerbie in Scotland, after the plane crash in 1988 and the
1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster which affected Liverpool more than anywhere else).

Many disasters (like the 1988 Armenian earthquake) capture news headlines, and thus public
interest and concern, around the world. Most disasters are followed by detailed enquiries into
causes, and public and official demands that action be taken to reduce such risks. Such collective
actions distinguish genuine societal risks from other types of risks (such as road accidents), even
if the latter cause more deaths in a typical year (see Table 4).
Some complications

The concept of uncertainty in hazardous events is important, and different types of hazard follow
different probability distributions. Most natural hazards (especially the geophysical ones) can be
described by probability functions of the type shown in Figure 4d. However, such an approach is
not suitable for technological hazards (like an explosion at a chemical plant, or the release of
radiation from a nuclear plant), where the continuum concept of occurrence is not appropriate;
events like these are discrete in timing and location. The approach is not appropriate either in
situations where the environmental systems which give rise to hazard events are themselves
changing; examples include the long-term changes associated with global warming, and changes
in fault line dynamics and risk distributions associated with major expansions of human
populations (eg the San Andreas fault).

It must be stressed that magnitude, threat and impact of individual hazards are not the same
thing. A hazard event might be large and cause much environmental change, but cause little
damage to people or property. For example, a severe earthquake in a sparsely populated area
poses less threat than a small earthquake centred on a populated area (like Tokyo city). Even a
relatively small events (like a typical river flood) may have lasting and wide-ranging effects in a
heavily populated area.

With advance warning potential it is possible to reduce injury and loss of life by evacuation and
contingency planning. The Biblical tale of Noah's Ark and The Flood, for example, illustrates
how advance warning allows forward planning and promotes initiatives to minimize hazard
threat and impact.

PERCEPTION OF HAZARDS AND EXTREME EVENTS

 Perception, filter and partial views

Human response to hazards usually fails to match the real probability of being affected by that
hazard; our perception of risk normally differs from the reality of risk because we receive, filter
and distort information (Figure 5). An individual's understanding is always less than perfect. This
creates perceptual uncertainty, which - coupled with environmental variability - means that our
views of hazard risk and damage potential are at best partial and selective.
Figure 5. The individual and their cognitive environment. Every individual receives signals and
stimuli from the environment around them, and uses these in building up an understanding of
that environment and in deciding how best to respond and behave in relation to that environment.

Kates (1971) sees hazards as the outcome of interaction between human use systems (like land-
use) and natural event systems (the natural environmental processes which give rise to hazards)
(Figure 6). This interaction promotes actual hazard events which we perceive and then respond
to. The way we react can in turn modify the human use system (for example by changing land
use), the natural events system (for example by changing the magnitude/frequency relationship
for river flooding), or both.

Figure 6. Model of human perception and response to natural hazards.

Source: after Kates (1971)

Influences on perception

Perception of hazards is a key ingredient of the model (Figure 6), and a number of studies have
explored what factors control this. Socio-economic variables like age, sex, occupation and
educational attainment tend to have relatively minor influence overall; experience of past events
seems to exert most influence on accuracy of perception, and thus on confidence and ability to
predict future events.
Kates (1971) stresses the "prison of experience" and the way in which our past experiences
influence our view of risk and hazard threat. His studies of the perception of storm hazards by
residents on the east coast of the United States show that past experience does not lead to
realistic assessment of future hazard potential, because we underestimate hazard risk. Nine-
tenths of the residents he interviewed had experienced storms in the past, but only two-thirds
expected them to recur in the future; half of the residents had suffered some property damage
from the storms, but only a third expected damage from storms in the future.

Kates's research revealed how people are unwilling to draw logical conclusions from their own
experience and they underestimate hazard risk. Saarinen (1966) has shown how perception
grows more accurate and discriminating when people have greater direct experience of specific
natural hazards. His study of the perceptions of drought hazard amongst farmers in the American
Great Plains revealed the most realistic perceptions amongst people with more extreme
experiences of drought conditions. Wheat farmers had keener awareness of the possibility of
drought than cattle ranchers, because the farmers were tied more closely than the ranchers to the
vagaries and extremes of weather. Farmers were also found to suppress their own experiences of
past drought, and to over-emphasise hazard-free periods (apparently in an attempt to play down
the hazard threat by adopting unrealistically optimistic attitudes). Saarinen also noted the
tendency for farmers to favour an opportunist (or gambling) philosophy when faced with the
drought hazard; it was there to be beaten, and the good farmer would be the one who managed to
survive through it!

The evidence in numerous studies of how residents in hazard-prone sites cope mentally with risk
suggests that there are at least five common reactions;

1. some people deny the existence of the hazard and switch off to the prospect of being
threatened in the future
2. others doubt that the hazard will recur, argue that "lightning never strikes twice in the
same place" and put past experience behind them
3. others attribute responsibility for future events to some higher power or authority (such as
God, fate or national government), and adopt a fatalistic attitude of having no control
over their own future
4. another common device is to perceive a regularity in irregular events (for example by
speculating that a river will flood every five years and then falsely assuming that there
will be five years of peace and safety in between successive events)
5. some optimists convince themselves that a particular hazard is becoming less frequent
over time - even when the evidence reveals otherwise.

Consequences of perception; decision-making

The way we interpret risk and uncertainty from hazards is interesting and important, for
individuals and society at large. It shapes how we cope with hazard events when they happen,
and influences the ways in which we try to minimise the threat of future damage to people and
property. In a broader context, it also influences decision-making about the location and
distribution of resource-using activities (like industrial and residential location)(see Chapter 6).
Threshold of perception

The continuum of the hazard event system is mirrored in a continuum of people's perception of
hazard events. This perception continuum stretches from complete ignorance, through growing
awareness to complete intolerance of a hazardous environment.

Three thresholds can be identified along this spectrum of environmental stress (Figure 7). The
first is the threshold of awareness. Up to this point we are simply not aware that we are operating
in an environment with hazards - either because the hazard threat is a slow and pervasive one
(like the build-up of atmospheric pollution), or because there is no history of previous hazard
events at that place (as with long-dormant volcanoes). "Ignorance is bliss" is a typical reaction
when faced with limited hazard risk.

Figure 7. Absorption of and adjustment to environmental stress

Once we cross the threshold of awareness, we are conscious of the hazard threat. How we
respond, in terms of taking action to minimize risks to people and property, depends on our
position relative to two higher thresholds - those of action and intolerance (see Chapter 6). Kates
suggests that our threshold of awareness is a product of three main factors. These are the
personality, the hazard experience and the perceptive capacity of the individual. Perception will
also be influenced by how long we intend to spend in the hazardous area; usually, the longer the
stay the more realistic our perceptions.

Comparative risk assessments

Faced with risks and threats from all aspects of life, we tend to cope with uncertainty by
favouring certain criteria, which really reflect our perception of risk rather than the reality of it.
Sprent (1988) highlights ten common distortions of risk;

1. we regard concentrated risks (like Bhopal) as worse than diffuse risks (like road
accidents), even though the latter may have a much higher annual death toll
2. we regard risks to non-beneficiaries (such as people living near a nuclear plant, or the
crew of a lifeboat) as worse than risks to beneficiaries (such as workers at the power
station, or fishermen)
3. we regard involuntary risks (like poisoning from contaminated food) as worse than
voluntary risks (like alcohol or drug dependency)
 4. we regard imposed risks (such as from reducing the staff of the fire service to save
money) as less acceptable than risks undertaken for self-protection (such as from the use
of a well-tested vaccine)
5. we regard isolated risks with no compensating benefit (for example, falling through a
broken manhole cover in the street) as less acceptable than risks incidental to an
otherwise beneficial context (for example, a house being burnt down by a fire in a deep-
fry cooker)
6. we regard immediate hazards (like electrical faults in a new washing machine) as worse
than deferred hazards (like faults resulting from poor maintenance)
7. we regard risks from unfamiliar or unnatural hazards (such as a new food additive) as
worse than those from familiar or natural hazards (such as crossing a busy road)
8. we regard risks resulting from secret activities (like chemical leaks from a defence
establishment) as worse than those associated with open activities (like mining or
smelting)
9. we regard risks evaluated by groups suspected of partiality (perhaps based on an
industry's own assessment of its safety) as worse than similar risks evaluated by impartial
groups (such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, or a committee of
enquiry set up by a learned society)
10. we regard risks that someone else has to pay to put right as worse than risks for which
people have themselves to pay to remedy.

We thus inhabit a world that is prone to hazards, and yet we have at best a partial and selective
view of that world and of the risks we face. Perception and reality are different things, and both
influence the way we experience and react to hazards.

HAZARDS AND RESPONSES

HAZARDS AND RESPONSES
What is a hazard?A hazard is a naturally occurring process or event which has the potential to cause
loss of life or property by the method of its interaction with the human environment and socio-economic
processes. Another term of familiar use is that of ‘disaster’ in 1969, Sheenan and Hewitt stated that one
or more of three categories had to be fulfilled in order for an event to be declared a disaster;
(a)  At least $1 000 000 damage (b)  At least 100 people injured (c)  At least 100 people killed.
More recently, in 1990, the Swiss Re Insurance Company defined disaster losses are one or both of
(a)  At least 20 people killed. (b)  Insured damage of at least US $16.2 million.

The numbers of hazardous events has risen in recent times. In the 1960s, fewer than 50m people were
affected each year; by the mid-90s, this had risen to 250m p.a.. Between 1968-92, 113 029 728 people
were affected by hazards. 140 315 were killed, and 54 111 were injured. The increase is due to a number
of factors including population growth, land pressure, urbanisation increased vulnerability, economic
growth increasing the property potential.
Classification of Hazards.
Environmental hazards are generally classified by their principal causing agent. The start is by
classification in to geophysical hazards, and biological hazards. Biohazards include viruses, like the
recent Ebola outbreak. However, we are more concerned with geophysical hazards.

Geophysical hazards may be further classified in to geological and geomorphological hazards. These are
split by their energy source. Some are driven by the Earth’s internal energy, e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and others are driven by land surface processes, e.g. landslides and avalanches.
Climatological and meteorological hazards are driven by the sun’s energy, e.g. tornadoes, hurricanes,
and drought. More recently, hazards have become exacerbated by human actions. These are known as
quasi-natural hazards.

Hazards are also classified by magnitude and frequency. Magnitude is the ‘size’ of a hazard, and
represents the amount of geophysical work done. Many hazards have their own specific magnitude
scales, e.g. Richter scale (earthquakes), Saffir-Simpson scale (hurricanes), volcanic explosivity index
(volcanoes) and the TORRO scale (tornadoes).
Sometimes, hazards are classified by the duration of the impact and warning time. Sudden impact
hazards are judged by damage, whereas slow onset hazards are harder to judge in this way. Hazards
may be classified by spatial distribution of impact and occurrence. Some hazards are associated with
distinct regions, e.g. volcanoes and plate boundaries.

Risk
Risk is defined as the exposure of people to a hazardous event. People consciously place themselves at
risk from natural hazards. Factors explaining this were identified by Park (1992);
(i)    Unpredictability - hazards are not predictable, and people may be caught out by either the timing or
magnitude of an event.
(ii)  Lack of alternatives - people may stay in a hazardous area due to a lack of options. This may be for
economic reasons linked to their jobs, are because of a lack of space or lack of employment skills or
knowledge.
(iii) Dynamic hazards - the threat from hazards is not a constant one, and it may increase or decrease
over time. The human influence may change the location or increase the frequency or magnitude of
hazardous events.
(iv) Cost versus benefits - the resources or benefits of a hazardous location may well outweigh the risks
involved in staying there.
(v)  Fatalism - the acceptance of the risks as something which will happen whatever you do. Belief in
Fate, or God’s will is typical of this. Also known as ‘Russian roulette’ reaction.

Vulnerability
The impact and scale of a hazardous event is largely determined by human factors. Just as people
benefit differently from the resources available, so there are differences in how they are prone to the risks.
Recent Californian earthquakes caused large amounts of economic loss, but an Armenian earthquake of
the similar magnitude caused 25 000 deaths. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, the older and poorer
members of society were the worst hit. The richest people suffered less damage, and could move away
from the area in a short space of time. Thus vulnerability refers not only to the event, but to the ability to
recover afterwards.

It seems that there are a variety of factors which influence the degree of vulnerability
(a)  Wealth and level of technical ability can affect the degree to which protection can be built, e.g.
building resistant homes, or utilising the latest software and technology to design and construct
preventative measures, or predict impacts. Poorer people cannot afford to protect themselves to the same
degree.
(b)  Education is important; in particular with reference to the level of awareness of hazards and what
protection can be taken. Practice in emergency procedure is also a key method of minimising the loss of
life. All children in Japan are trained in earthquake and fire drill four times a year. Government properties
and companies observe Disaster Prevention Day annually on 1 st September, which marks the anniversary
of the Tokyo earthquake.
(c)  Organisation levels are also important. Group effort, either at local/national government level can
prepare themselves better, and organise relief efforts afterwards more effectively.

Health and vulnerability are related to age. Disasters affect the old or very young to a disproportionate
degree. These groups are weaker in health terms. People’s resilience depends upon their income and
social class, as these affect their ability to absorb the losses incurred. But vulnerability is not necessarily
the same as poverty.

It is the increasing vulnerability of people which accounts for the increased impact over recent years. As
population increases, the number of people living in hazardous areas also increases. The higher
population and rates of increase in the LEDCs increase their vulnerability relative to the MEDCs. The
vulnerable range from the poorest countries, e.g. Bangladesh or Ethiopia, where human cost is high, but
economic cost is low, to the MEDCs like Japan or the USA, where fatalities are low but the economic cost
is high. In between are the rapid growth countries which may experience both high human and economic
losses.

Modifying people’s vulnerability is an important aspect of hazard management, along with approaches
which centre on the hazardous event. Tackling the economic aspects of vulnerability is complex and long
term, while focusing on self and social protection at a local or regional scale is more effective and more
realistic.

Hazard perception
We react to hazards in different ways, because of the difference in the way in which we process and filter
the information we receive. Warnings of risk involve people going through the stages which shape their
perceptions and behaviour, i.e. hear, confirm, understand, believe, personalise, respond. Each stage is
affected by age, gender, and level of education, the nature of the information and the repetition of the
warning. The perception of hazards can be divided in to three groups, which may overlap and include
elements of more than one view;

(a)  Acceptance; include fatalistic tendencies. Hazards are natural events which are a part of life, or result
from ‘acts of God’. Events are random, and we can only respond for safety. Our actions are intuitive, and
losses must be accepted.
(b)  Domination; Hazards are extreme events. They are predictable, and their magnitude can be forecast.
We can understand them better by scientific research. Control is possible through engineering or use of
technology.
(c)  Adaptation; Natural hazards will happen, and are influenced by human and natural events. Their
magnitude and frequency may be guessed based on experience. There is a need to adjust, respond
flexibly and research. We must look at both human and physical systems in our responses.

Human Responses to Hazards

People respond to hazards and the treats to human life and possessions in a way designed to reduce
risk. The response can be at a variety of levels, e.g. local, regional, national, and the response chosen will
depend upon the nature of the hazard, past experience, economic ability to take action, technological
resources, hazard perceptions of the decision makers, knowledge of the available options and the
infrastructure of the political system.

Not all of the available options may be taken, since resources and time may be required. The importance
of the threat from the natural hazards relative to other factors, e.g. employment, healthcare, education will
influence any decisions. People and governments must be willing and able to invest in hazard impact
reduction. This is known as hazard salience.

Responses to hazards can be divided in to three groups;

(a)  Prevent or modify the event; these management strategies aim to control the physical process
involved by the technological fix, and therefore, modify and prevent the hazardous event, in one of two
ways;
       Hazard prevention and environmental control. Ideally, the event would be prevented from occurring.
This is currently unrealistic. Environmental control aims to suppress the event by diffusing energy over a
greater area or period of time to prevent the event occurring. Floods may be diverted by a wide range of
engineering structures, e.g. dams, levees, channel changes or afforestation. Control of atmospheric
processes, such as cloud seeding with silver iodide to end droughts tend to be largely unsuccessful.
       Hazard resistant design; aims to protect people and structures from the full effects of the hazard. The
focus is on the building design and engineered solutions, e.g. sea walls. Buildings can be designed to
withstand hazards, and most public structures, e.g. roads, dams, bridges, will have some hazard resistant
features incorporated.

(b)  Modify vulnerability; this aims to change human attitudes and behaviour towards the behaviour
towards hazards, either before the event, or after it.
       Prediction and warning. If a hazard is predicted, action can be taken to lessen its impact on people
and property. Insurance companies spend large amounts of money in order to adjust their premiums to
cover losses. Between 1970 and 1995, 28 of 30 of Lloyd’s most expensive losses were natural disasters.
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 resulted in $16 billion in claims. Companies can thus set higher premiums in
higher risk areas. Warnings inform people of impending hazards. They rely on adequate monitoring and
evaluation of the data, then the effective dissemination of the information via various information services.
       Community preparedness; This involves prearranged measures and procedures which aim to reduce
the loss of life and minimise damage. This includes such measures as public education and awareness
programmes, evacuation procedures and provision of emergency shelters, food and medical supplies.
Effective use of this has saved many lives over the years, including in the Rabaul volcanic eruption in
1994, where a emergency plan was successfully implemented to save thousands.
       Land use planning; which aims to prevent hazardous areas being occupied by new settlements.
Problem is that is cannot be applied to new areas. Success depends on accurate knowledge of
frequency, nature, and location of hazards.

(c)  Modify the loss; the most passive response is to simply accept the losses incurred. This is rarely
acceptable, especially after higher magnitude events. More commonly, the strategy is to share the losses.
This can be acheived in two ways; aid and insurance.
       Aid is provided at many levels for relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction purposes. High magnitude
events are often declared disaster areas, and the losses shared nationally. At the international level,
politics and pride often interfere with aid being asked for or given. In such situations, the United Nations is
often involved, or charitable non governmental organisations, e.g. the Red Cross are involved in aid.
Often, sudden disasters generate more aid donations than slow onset hazards, such as droughts.
       Insurance is a key strategy in the MEDCs. The principle is that people join with a financial
organisation to spread costs. An individual needs to act by purchasing a policy, and paying an annual
premium. Insurance companies need to identify key areas of risk and hazards in order to secure their
business. In 1994, Californian insurance companies collected $500 million in premium payments, but paid
out $11.4 billion in claims resulting from the Northridge quake. Insurance for high risk area may not be
available, or come with stipulated conditions, e.g. buildings must have certain construction techniques
employed. It encourages people to take preventative measures for themselves.

CASE STUDIES:Case Study for Vulnerability; Costa Rica, Central America.

Key data; GNP per capita US $2160. 1994 trade deficit, US $810 million. There are 1179 people per
doctor, and 35% of the population are under 15. 49.7% of the population live in urban areas.

Costa Rica is at risk from multiple hazards. The local climate can result in alternate extremes of flooding
and drought, and the country is prone to hurricanes. Geomorphological hazards includes landslides and
storm surges. An increase of disasters in recent years has been linked to global warming and climatic
change, but also deforestation and degradation at the local scale. Its vulnerability can be grouped under
simple headings;

(a)     Economic Vulnerability; Costa Rica has a large national debt, a negative GNP per capita growth, and
28% of the population in poverty. 54% of families have an income level equivalent to the minimum wage
[1990] of $145 per month. Most homes are structurally unprotected, with only 1% of homes built to any
seismic specification, both public and private.

(b)     Social Vulnerability; Fatalism is a common belief. 27% believe hazards to be a product of nature, and
11% the punishment or will of God. People see hazards as beyond their control (externalisation), both in
terms of the event, and the aftermath. There is no incentive to work to form local groups. This fatalist
belief is mainly due to religious factors, and the prioritisation of other factors, e.g. income and
employment.

(c)     Educational/informational vulnerability; There are few emergency education programmes, and most
of these relate to seismic and volcanic hazards, as opposed to flooding. Early warning systems fail
because of the widespread area of impact, the large number of small communities involved and the lack
of economic resources. Information is not community specific.

(d)     Environmental vulnerability; deforestation and poor land management can increase he risk of
flooding, landslides, and avalanches. Urbanisation of slopes and hilltops increases runoff and the
vulnerability of lower communities. It is likely to be the poor who occupy the higher risk land.

Case Study for Insurance Management; California, USA.

California has a high risk of earthquakes. Yet less than 50% of its residents have insurance other than the
state legal requirement. Earthquake insurance has been available in California since 1916, and since
1984 has been an option of general contents insurance.  The cost of earthquake insurance is relatively
high, especially in terms of excess, which may be as much as 10% of the value of the house. Following
the Lomo Prieta earthquake of 1989, the state government has stepped in to provide mandatory
insurance of up to $15 000, mainly to cover insurance losses. The national government levies a
surcharge on all residential insurance policies, which goes in to an emergency fund.

Five factors have been determined as important in the purchase of earthquake insurance;
(a)     Resources; the money, intellectual skills and time to consider, select and adopt effective mitigation
measures.
(b)     Perception; two opposing cultures. The belief in technology solutions absolves the individual of
responsibility. Opposed to this is the American culture that individuals are responsible for their own well
being.
(c)     Risk; Individuals calculate the probabilities that a given hazard will affect them. This may differ from
the scientific view.
(d)     Time; dependent upon length of residency in the area, residents may take a long term or short term
view. The time frame involved in the decision affects a person’s response.
(e)     Hazard salience; the relative importance of a hazard compared with other concerns, e.g.
employment, family and career.

Summary
A natural hazard is an event which has the potential to cause loss of life or property damage. Hazards are
a key interaction between humans and the physical environment. They may be classified by cause,
magnitude and frequency, duration of impact and warning and spatial distribution.
Risk is the exposure of people to a hazard. Hazard impacts have increased as a result of increasing
numbers of people being placed at risk.
Vulnerability to hazards has three aspects; preparedness, resilience and health, related to social,
economic, and political factors. Perception of hazards varies, and includes acceptance, domination and
adaptation.
Human response can also take three forms; modify the event by control and design, modify vulnerability
by prediction and warning, and modify the loss by aid and insurance. The choice of response is related to
the nature of the hazard, past experience, economic and technological resources, socio-political
conditions and hazard perception.

Medical geology is an emerging interdisciplinary scientific field studying the relationship

between natural geological factors and their effects on human and animal health.[1] The
Commission on Geological Sciences for Environmental Planning defines medical geology as,
"The science dealing with the influence of ordinary environmental factors on the geographical
distribution of health problems in man and animals."[2]

In its broadest sense, medical geology studies exposure to or deficiency of trace elements and
minerals; inhalation of ambient and anthropogenic mineral dusts and volcanic emissions;
transportation, modification and concentration of organic compounds; and exposure to
radionuclides, microbes and pathogens.[3]

Environment and human health

It is widely known that the state of our environment affects us in many ways. Minerals and rocks
are going to have some impact on human and animal populations because that is what the earth is
composed of.[2] Medical geology brings professionals from both the medicine field and the
geology field to help us understand this relationship.[6] There are two priorities that have been
established within the medical geology field, "(1) the study of trace elements, especially their
bioavailability and (2) a need to establish baseline, or background levels of contaminants/
xenobiotics/ potentially harmful but naturally occurring materials in water, soil, air, food, and
animal tissue." [4] The elements and minerals in the land effect people and animals immensely
especially when there is a close relationship between the two. Those who depend heavily on the
land are faced with one of two problems. First, those who live in places such as Maputaland,
South Africa are exposed to heavily impoverished soils which result in a number of diseases
caused by mineral imbalances.[2] Secondly, those in areas such as India and Bangladesh are often
exposed to an excess of elements in the land resulting in mineral toxicity.[2] We[who?] do of course
need some naturally occurring elements however most can be extremely detrimental to our[who?]
health.[7] There is a direct link between health and the earth because we[who?] ingest and breath in
all of these chemicals and for the most part we[who?] do it unknowingly.[7]

Sources of Chemicals

There are many ways in which humans come into contact with the earth's elements and below are
only a few ways in which we become exposed to them.

 Volcanoes are one of the main sources that bring all the toxicity from inside the earth to the
outside.[7] They bring out chemicals such as; arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, lead, radon,
and uranium.[7]
 Rocks are also one of the leading sources in exposure to these elements. "They are essentially
the source of all the naturally occurring chemical elements found on the earth."[7]

Diseases

Iodine Deficiency

One of the biggest geochemical diseases is iodine deficiency. Thirty percent of the world is at
risk for it and insufficient intake is the most common cause of mental retardation and brain
damage.[2] The sea is a major source of iodine and those who are further from it are at a
disadvantage.[2] Another source of it is in soil, however goitrogens such as humus and clay trap
the iodine making it hard for people to access it.[2] Some cultures actually consume the earth's
minerals by eating soil and clay, this is known as geophagy.[2] It is most common in the tropics,
especially among pregnant women.[2] The Ottomac people of South America engage in this
practice and none have suffered from any health problems.[2]

Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease has often been linked to water hardness as the main cause.[2] Water
hardness means that there is magnesium in the water with calcium playing a role.[2] Of course
some research has completely discredited this evidence, and have found that the more
magnesium in the water the less chance of death cardiovascular disease.[2]

Radiation

Natural radiation is found everywhere; it is in the air, water, soil, rocks, minerals and food.[2] The
largest amount of radiation comes from radon.[2] Certain places are called 'high background
radiation areas' (HBRAs), such as Guarapari, Southwest of France, Ramsar, parts of China, and
Kerala Coast.[2] People living in these areas however have not shown any health deficiencies and
in some cases are even healthier and live longer than those not in HBRAs.[2]

Other Issues

Among the problems presented there are also issues with fluoride in Africa and India, arsenic in
Argentina, Chile, and Taiwan, selenium in areas of the United States, Venezuela, China and
nitrate in agricultural areas.[8] As medical geology grows it may become more important to the
medical field in the issue of diseases.

A few other deficiencies are listed below:

 Hyperkalemia: excess amount of potassium[2]

 Hypercalcemia: excess amount of calcium [2]
 Hyperphosphatemia: excess amount of phosphorus [2]

Goal

Promote health for all through a healthy environment.

Overview

Humans interact with the environment constantly. These interactions affect quality of life, years
of healthy life lived, and health disparities. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines
environment, as it relates to health, as “all the physical, chemical, and biological factors external
to a person, and all the related behaviors.”1 Environmental health consists of preventing or
controlling disease, injury, and disability related to the interactions between people and their
environment.

The Healthy People 2020 Environmental Health objectives focus on 6 themes, each of which
highlights an element of environmental health:

1. Outdoor air quality

2. Surface and ground water quality
3. Toxic substances and hazardous wastes
4. Homes and communities
5. Infrastructure and surveillance
6. Global environmental health

Creating health-promoting environments is complex and relies on continuing research to

understand more fully the effects of exposure to environmental hazards on people’s health.

Why Is Environmental Health Important?

Maintaining a healthy environment is central to increasing quality of life and years of healthy
life. Globally, nearly 25 percent of all deaths and the total disease burden can be attributed to
environmental factors.1 Environmental factors are diverse and far reaching. They include:

 Exposure to hazardous substances in the air, water, soil, and food

 Natural and technological disasters
 Physical hazards
  Nutritional deficiencies
 The built environment

Poor environmental quality has its greatest impact on people whose health status is already at risk.
Therefore, environmental health must address the societal and environmental factors that increase the
likelihood of exposure and disease.

Understanding Environmental Health

The 6 themes of the Environmental Health topic area draw attention to elements of the
environment and their linkages to health.

Outdoor Air Quality

Poor air quality is linked to premature death, cancer, and long-term damage to respiratory and
cardiovascular systems. Progress has been made to reduce unhealthy air emissions, but, in 2008,
approximately 127 million people lived in U.S. counties that exceeded national air quality
standards.2 Decreasing air pollution is an important step in creating a healthy environment.

Surface and Ground Water

Surface and ground water quality applies to both drinking water and recreational waters.
Contamination by infectious agents or chemicals can cause mild to severe illness. Protecting
water sources and minimizing exposure to contaminated water sources are important parts of
environmental health.

Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes

The health effects of toxic substances and hazardous wastes are not yet fully understood.
Research to better understand how these exposures may impact health is ongoing. Meanwhile,
efforts to reduce exposures continue. Reducing exposure to toxic substances and hazardous
wastes is fundamental to environmental health.

Homes and Communities

People spend most of their time at home, work, or school. Some of these environments may
expose people to:

 Indoor air pollution

 Inadequate heating and sanitation
 Structural problems
 Electrical and fire hazards
 Lead-based paint hazards
These hazards can impact health and safety. Maintaining healthy homes and communities is
essential to environmental health.

Infrastructure and Surveillance

Prevention of exposure to environmental hazards relies on many partners, including State and
local health departments. Personnel, surveillance systems, and education are important resources
for investigating and responding to disease, monitoring for hazards, and educating the public.
Additional methods and greater capacity to measure and respond to environmental hazards are
needed.

Global Environmental Health

Water quality is an important global challenge. Diseases can be reduced by improving water
quality and sanitation and increasing access to adequate water and sanitation facilities.

Emerging Issues in Environmental Health

Environmental health is a dynamic and evolving field. While not all complex environmental
issues can be predicted, some known emerging issues in the field include:

Climate Change
Climate change is projected to impact sea level, patterns of infectious disease, air quality, and the
severity of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, and storms.3, 4

Disaster Preparedness
Preparedness for the environmental impact of natural disasters as well as disasters of human
origin includes planning for human health needs and the impact on public infrastructure, such as
water and roadways.5

Nanotechnology
The potential impact of nanotechnology is significant and offers possible improvements to:

 Disease prevention, detection, and treatment

 Electronics
 Clean energy
 Manufacturing
 Environmental risk assessment

However, nanotechnology may also present unintended health risks or changes to the
environment.

The Built Environment

Features of the built environment appear to impact human health-influencing behaviors, physical
activity patterns, social networks, and access to resources.6

Exposure to Unknown Hazards

Finally, every year, hundreds of new chemicals are introduced to the U.S. market. It is presumed
that some of these chemicals may present new, unexpected challenges to human health, and,
therefore, their safety should be evaluated prior to release.

These cross-cutting issues are not yet understood well enough to inform the development of
systems for measuring and tracking their impact. Further exploration is warranted. The
environmental health landscape will continue to evolve and may present opportunities for
additional research, analysis, and monitoring.

Blood Lead Levels

The number of children with elevated blood lead levels in the U.S. is steadily decreasing. As a
result, determining stable national prevalence estimates and changes in estimated prevalence
over time using NHANES is increasingly difficult. Eliminating elevated blood lead levels in
children remains a goal of utmost importance to public health. The sample sizes available with
the currently structured NHANES are too small to produce statistically reliable estimates and
preclude the ability to have a viable target for HP2020 (see Objective 8.1). Efforts must and will
continue to reduce blood lead levels and to monitor the prevalence of children with elevated
blood lead levels.

When is Asbestos Dangerous?

There are three primary diseases associated with asbestos exposure:

 Asbestosis : Asbestosis is a serious, chronic, non-cancerous respiratory disease. Inhaled

asbestos fibers aggravate lung tissues, which cause them to scar.
 Lung Cancer : Lung cancer causes the largest number of deaths related to asbestos exposure.
The incidence of lung cancer in people who are directly involved in the mining, milling,
manufacturing and use of asbestos and its products is much higher than in the general
population.
 Mesothelioma : Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often occurs in the thin
membrane lining of the lungs, chest, abdomen, and (rarely) heart.

Health effects of radon

Radon (/ˈreɪdɒn/) is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless noble gas, occurring naturally as the
decay product of radium. It is one of the densest substances that remains a gas under normal
conditions, and is considered to be a health hazard due to its radioactivity.
Environmental impact of mining

The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and
contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. Besides
creating environmental damage, the contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affect the
health of the local population.[1] Mining companies in some countries are required to follow
environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the area mined is returned close to its original state.
Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects. Nuss and Eckelman
(2014)[2] provide an overview of the life-cycle wide environmental impacts of metals production
associated with 62 metals in year 2008.

Acid rock drainage

Heavy metals

Effects on biodiversity

Aquatic organisms

Microorganisms

Terrestrial organisms

Animals

Malartic mine - Osisko

Habitat destruction is one of the main issues of mining activity. Huge areas of natural habitat are
destroyed during mine construction and exploitation, forcing animals to leave the site

Effects of mine pollution on humans

Further information: Coalworker's pneumoconiosis, Toroku arsenic disease, and Itai-itai disease

Humans are also affected by mining. There are many diseases that can come from the pollutants
that are released into the air and water during the mining process. For example, during smelting
operations enormous quantities of air pollutants, such as the suspended particulate matter, SOx,
arsenic particles and cadmium are emitted. Metals are usually emitted into the air as particulates.

There are also many occupational health hazards. Most of the miners suffer from various
respiratory and skin diseases. Miners working in different types of mines suffer from asbestosis,
silicosis, black lung disease etc.[26]

Coal mining

Main article: Environmental effects of coal

Deforestation

With open cast mining the overburden, which may be covered in forest, must be removed before
the mining can commence. Although the deforestation due to mining may be small compared to
the total amount it may lead to species extinction if there is a high level of local endemism.

Oil shale

Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

Mountaintop removal mining

Main article: Mountaintop removal mining

Sand mining

Main article: Sand mining

Sand mining and gravel mining creates large pits and fissures in the earth's surface. At times,
mining can extend so deeply that it affects ground water, springs, underground wells, and the
water table.

Subsidence
House in Gladbeck, Germany, with fissures caused by gravity erosion due to mining.

Salt mining and salt dome collapsing in Assumption Parish, Louisiana caused the Bayou Corne
sinkhole in 2012. As of August 2013, the sinkhole continues to expand.

Tailings and spoil

 Tailings

Mitigation

To ensure completion of reclamation, or restoring mine land for future use, many governments and
regulatory authorities around the world require that mining companies post a bond to be held in escrow
until productivity of reclaimed land has been convincingly demonstrated, although if cleanup procedures
are more expensive than the size of the bond, the bond may simply be abandoned. Since 1978 the
mining industry has reclaimed more than 2 million acres (8,000 km²) of land in the United States alone.
This reclaimed land has renewed vegetation and wildlife in previous mining lands and can even be used
for farming and ranching.