Brown P
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA.
Environ Res. 1995 Apr;69(1):15-30. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1995.1021.
This paper analyzes and systematizes the race and class differentials in exposure to toxic hazards and actual health outcomes. Research is categorized into the following: Proximity to known hazards includes (1) presence of hazardous waste sites and facilities (landfills, incinerators, Superfund sites), (2) exposure to air pollution, (3) exposure to various environmental hazards, e.g., toxic releases and hazards in pesticides and foods; Regulation, amelioration and cleanup includes (4) record of decisions (RODs) and cleanups at NPL sites, (5) regulatory action, as measured by assessed fines for environmental pollution; Health effects includes (6) specific health outcomes which are related to environmental burden (e.g., blood lead levels). Proximity to prospective hazards includes (7) sitting decisions for incinerators, hazardous waste sites, and nuclear storage sites. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supports the "environmental justice" belief that environmental hazards are inequitably distributed by class, and especially race.
本文分析并梳理了接触有毒危害与实际健康结果方面的种族和阶层差异。研究分为以下几类:靠近已知危害包括(1)危险废物场地和设施(垃圾填埋场、焚烧炉、超级基金场地)的存在,(2)空气污染暴露,(3)接触各种环境危害,如农药和食品中的有毒物质释放和危害;监管、改善和清理包括(4)国家优先污染场地(NPL)的决策记录(RODs)和清理情况,(5)监管行动,以环境污染评估罚款衡量;健康影响包括(6)与环境负担相关的特定健康结果(如血铅水平)。靠近潜在危害包括(7)关于焚烧炉、危险废物场地和核储存场地的选址决策。绝大多数证据支持“环境正义”的观点,即环境危害在阶层上分布不均,尤其是在种族方面。