In Flint, Michigan, 2014; the people of this city found themselves at the core o

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In Flint, Michigan, 2014; the people of this city found themselves at the core of a public health
crisis when the town decided to switch their primary water source to the Flint River to cut costs.
This would unfortunately lead to major issues with water quality. The river water was much
more corrosive compared to the original water source used, which caused the city’s old pipes to
leak lead into the drinking water of the city. This would result in high levels of exposure to lead
in Flint’s community and was affecting children as young as 5 years old. The warning signs were
there, and even with these warnings, the full extent and danger of this crisis did not become clear
until later in 2015, which caused widespread concern and national attention.
The health concern over lead exposure in Flint was substantial. By early 2015, the lead levels in
children’s blood had risen greatly, doubling the percentage of children affected, from 2.4% to
4.9%. On page three of the American Journal of Public Health article, it is mentioned that
outside of Flint, “the change in EBLL was not statistically significant (0.7% to 1.2%; P > .05). In
high WLL Flint, EBLL increased from 4.0% to 10.6% (P < .05).” (Hanna-Attisha, pg.285). The communities in Flint where the water had some of the highest levels of lead, almost 10% of children were affected. Exposure to lead in children has been connected to cognitive deficits and even behavioral problems, making this a critical public health issue. One of the ways they used descriiptive epidemiology is that they tracked the number of affected individuals, their demographics, and their geological distribution. This method was able to show a concerning rise in blood lead levels among children, further showing the seriousness of the problem occurring in Flint. Analytical epidemiology studies the why and how of the issue. Dr. Hanna Attisha in her book, “What the Eyes Don’t See” she looked at a study that tried to see if increased blood lead levels was linked to violent crime in six U.S. cities. What this study showed was that there is no amount of lead in the blood that is safe for the human body. The ones who were affected the most by the lead contamination were the kids of Flint, more specifically, those under the age of five years old. As stated in the previous paragraph, they were able to uncover a significant increase in children’s EBLL, doubling the original 2.4% from the beginning to 4.9%. This shows that children in these neighborhoods with higher levels of lead in their water source had high levels of lead in their blood. In this article, she touches on how low- income neighborhoods and families were the most vulnerable during this crisis, further mapping out the environmental injustices in our country. Dr. Hanna-Attisha studied with Professor Bunyan Bryant, a Flint native, who had also fought the long history of polluting poor and brown neighborhoods in Flint. This opened the doctors’ eyes to the social injustices being dealt with every day in predominantly minority neighborhoods. Flint children had a lot of risk factors that coincidentally increased their exposure to lead, such as poor nutrition, poverty, and poor housing. They were faced with scarce water resource alternatives, which in turn, exacerbates these pre-existing risk factors. When gathering data on potential exposures, the public health teams collected descriiptive data on environmental conditions and the behavior of individuals. During the Flint water crisis, descriiptive epidemiology was used to home in on the use of untreated Flint River water as the main source of lead contamination due to its corrosive nature. Analytical epidemiology was used in this section as they were comparing the lead levels in homes before the switch in water, to after, which further confirmed the correlation between the water source and the increase in lead levels. Researchers were able to figure out that the untreated river water harmed the pipes protective coating, leading lead into their water supply. They did their part in making sure that the exposure of lead was for the most part, understood, and was scientifically backed. Give a peer review of the above post. In this step, you will provide comments—both what you think the student did well, and what you think they need to change—on the synthesis paper. Provide detailed feedback beginning with one specific thing that was done well, go on to clearly describe 2-4 specific changes you recommend, and wrap up with another piece of positive feedback. Your peer review should be around 200 words. In that space, in the Comments box, write a review (200-250 words) of the student’s work. Comment on whether you think they adequately covered the four required elements of descriiptive and analytic epidemiology [that is: (1) Understand how big of a problem the health issue is; (2) Determine who is affected; (3) Examine potential exposures that may be linked to the health outcome; and (4) Develop a plan of action for reducing or eliminating exposure(s) that are found to be likely causes of the health outcome], the examples from the text described for each of those four elements (the relevance and detail provided), and the overall writing and organization of ideas. Most students find that it takes 1-1.5 hours to conduct and write up a thoughtful and thorough review.

Click Here To Order Now!