Health Issues

1a) As a member of the Risk-Benefit Analysis Board, the widespread use of asbestos is disapproved. This chemical is a known cause of cancer that can be triggered through inhalation (Abbson, 1998). Studies have indicated that exposure to the compound can lead to high risks of lung cancer and Mesothelioma (Lipstein, 2007). This research indicates the negative effects the use of Asbestos and therefore widespread use would result in only negative effects to those exposed. However, asbestos provide fire resisting, and insulating benefits for things such as building materials and heat resistant fabrics. The fibres are strong, flexible and resistant to air and water deterioration (Abbson, 1998). As a result, regulations should be created and closely monitoried in regards to the use of asbestos in buildings and various products. The use of this material should be limited under the condition that there is no other option (Lipstein, 2007).

1b) As a member of the Risk-Benefit Analysis Board, the widespread use of DDT is disapproved. Humans are exposed to the chemical mainly through consuming foods exposed to DDT. Studies have indicated that consuming these foods can produce high concentrations of the chemical in the blood. This raises concerns for risks in human health (Pesticides News, 2008). Research has indicated DDT could be associated to chronic nervous system effects (Fojtik, 2007). This chemical is also now linked to plausible causes of breast cancer (Fojtik, 2007). As a member of the Board, I must consider that DDT has one benefit. The chemical has the ability to kill the disease vectors of malaria (Fojtik, 2007). However, in spite of this it still remains a long-term threat to the environment and public health. DDT is still present in underdeveloped countries only because it is affordable and profitable (Pesticides News, 2008) yet it is still banned in most developed countries. As a result, the costs outweigh the benefits and widespread use of DDT should be discontinued. The money should be invested in finding a safer method for the public.

1c) As a member of the Risk-Benefit Analysis Board, the widespread use of chlorination in drinking water is approved. Chlorination of drinking water is an efficient and cost-effective method of disinfecting drinking water. Studies indicate it has very insignificant or no negative health effects (Fojtik, 2007). However, in spite of chlorine's strong ability to destroy microorganisms it can potentially form into the disinfection by-product (DBP) through a reaction with organic matter in the water (Farr, 2000). DBP is carcinogenic and can result in a decrease in quality and safety of drinking water. The Board feels that as long as chlorine levels are monitored at moderate levels chlorination is a safe method.

2a) The source of drinking water for Guelph, Ontario uses a series of 19 groundwater wells and a shallow groundwater collector system as a source of drinking water