The effects of environmental risk factors on human health are different and show complex clinical signs and severity. It has been established that degradation of the environment can have a severe effect on human health. Nonetheless, there are parties who argue that. In particular, . The arguments ignore the fact that pollution is a significant cause of environment-related disease burden in society.
The exposure to harmful chemicals negatively affects human health. Haq (2017, p. 56) asserts that “agribusiness provides the opportunities but also posture dangers to health.” The sources of exposure to chemicals are numerous and different. The chemicals reach the environment through various modes of transmission like air, water, and soil. The increase in food uptake is another significant source of chemical exposure. Modern agricultural techniques use fertilizers and pesticides, whose traces can be found in the final products consumed by households (Haq, 2017, p.56). Also, meats, fish, and dairy products contain persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al (2016, p.1) state that “residues of pesticides can be found in a great variety of everyday foods and beverages. “ Other health risks to humans include poor livestock rearing practices whereby toxins are unintentionally passed across the food chain. Additionally, poultry feed that have accidently exposed to dioxins can be passed in the food chain to reach humans. These illustrations show that the effects of the environmental hazards on humans are both direct and indirect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The consequences on health from exposure to pollutants and chemicals vary from simple allergies to multifaceted conditions like cancer. Whereas the association between disease and exposure to disease is not apparent, studies have established a direct causal relationship. Thirer (n.d, par.4) makes the statement “Twenty-six centuries of medical innovations cannot now protect the patient from the wider world, with its modern stresses and toxicity” to affirm the undeniable effect of environmental hazards on human health. Even minimal exposure to environmental risks can cause cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, allergies, and asthma. Heavy metals have been demonstrated to cause different cancers and neurological disorders. Also, many reproductive disorders and birth defect have been linked to environmental hazards. For instance, an event that comes to mind is the Chernobyl nuclear disaster that affected the well-being of the nearby community. On that note, the effect of pollution has demonstrated the importance of the environment to human health.
While environmental-related risks to human health that do not originate from direct exposure to pollutants and chemicals are less frequent, they still have adverse effects. An example that is well-known is the impact of depletion of the ozone layer due to substances is spraying cans and cooling devices. The reduction of the ozone layer has resulted in increased exposure to UV-radiation. Aside from increasing the risk of diseases like cancer, destruction of the ozone layer has the potential to alter life on earth as it is known. There are many eco-systems and aspects within the environment that are significant to human health. Interference with these systems threatens the survival of humans.
The opposition to the established effect of environment rationalizing themselves with the ideology that climate change is non-existent in the first place. Organized denial, driven by economic interests, explains why parties such as oil industry participants, politicians, some sections of media and pundits, and NGOs deny climate change (Hamilton, 2010, p.1). Further, the politicization of climate change has led to relegation of science in informing views and beliefs about climate change, demonstrating the effects of political polarization along conservative and liberal perspectives. At the individual level, doubters and deniers are bound to resist any dissonant information and embrace information that feeds into their bias, which further makes them impervious to climate change evidence. The aforementioned observations demonstrate why denial of human-propelled climate change persists in spite of almost consensual scientific evidence.
The argument of the deniers can be refuted on the basis that the idea that people repudiating climate science suffer from informational inadequacy is misplaced, observing that providing those whose minds are made up with scientific evidence may only serve to strengthen their resolve. Here, the scholar observes that facts wither before beliefs, with denial resulting from a surplus of culture rather than a deficit of information. Among those to whom a contrarian climate change view corresponds with their worldview, providing climate change evidence can only serve to make their beliefs more resolute. Hamilton (2) highlights the upsurge in climate change denial upon publication of every new IPCC report. The deniers interpret the reports as ““Climategate” as confirmation of their belief that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy” (Hamilton, 2010, p. 2). For such individuals, any mistakes on the part of climate change scientists only serves to feed a confirmation bias. Subsequent corrections that vindicate such scientists would then be interpreted as indicating the extent of the conspiracy being wider than they first visualized. Individuals holding such positions are impervious to established science, whereby providing additional scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change only serves to strengthen their hard line positions.
The relationship between the environment and wellbeing of human beings is well established. Indeed, the very existence of life on earth depends on sustainability of the environment. The importance of the environment to human health has been illustrated by the manner by which pollution has devastated human health and causing a burden to national health systems. While the opposition use the notion that climate change does not exist to deny the effects of the environment on human health, their arguments are irrational and partisan. It is important that humans engage in sustainable practices to ensure the environment can support the increase in global population numbers.
References
Hamilton, C. (2010). "Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change." Climate Controversies: Science and Politics Conference , Museum of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad9c/197e6dbd41f4f397b535b85bb786d8d9db26.pdf
Haq, S. (2017). Modern agricultural food production and emerging threats on human health. Advances in Environmental Biology , 11 (1), 56-60. Retrrirved from http://www.aensiweb.net/AENSIWEB/aeb/aeb/2017/January/56-60.pdf
Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P., Maipas, S., Kotampasi, C., Stamatis, P., & Hens, L. (2016). Chemical pesticides and human health: the urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Frontiers in public health , 4 , 148. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00148/full
Thirer, L. (n.d). “Beyond the Patient. Orion Magazine. Retrieved from https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-the-patient/
