Earth Day at the Crossroadsof Sustainability and Justice

Birth of a Sustainable Nation, The EnvironmentalJustice and Environmental Health Movements

in the United States

Sylvia Hood Washington1

My first memory of Earth Day is a childhood re-membrance of the first Earth Day (1970) celebration

in Cleveland, Ohio in the African American community ofLee Seville located on the southeast side of the city. Theadults in my community had organized a litterbug cam-paign and everyone was encouraged to come out andpick up the common areas. My mother, Sadie Hood, anactive officer in the Lee-Seville Citizen’s Council and aformally trained nurse, was involved in planning thisactivity for the community. I mention her training in thehealthcare field only because her environmental activismlike those of all the adults in the area were centered onenvironmental health issues tied to environmental in-equalities. Lee Seville’s efforts on Earth Day was focusedon eliminating at least in part the ramifications of routineillegal dumping in a middle class community that wasformally an independent suburban enclave. The adults inthis community regardless of their educational level un-derstood even back then that pollution in all forms couldand usually did have health impacts. The residents didn’tuse the term environmental justice but their efforts andaction emanated clearly from what they perceived to beenvironmental and environmental health disparities.

I still remember seeing items from abandoned cars torefrigerators left on the side of the roads after having beentossed clandestinely onto the main thoroughfares at night;or even carried deep into the wooded areas that sur-rounded the neighborhood. I also have clear memories ofchemicals leaking into creeks and ponds in these woodswhere children and pets frequented throughout the year.The first Earth Day celebration in my community wasdesigned to minimize what is clearly recognized today asenvironmental health risks.

Twenty-five years later the formal concept of ‘‘envi-ronmental justice’’ was presented to me by my physicalscience students when I was a tenured professor at a ju-nior college in 1995 after having spent 15 years as an

environmental chemist and environmental engineer forprivate industry and for NASA. I had designed a STS(Science, Technology, and Society) curriculum for non-science majors at the school since many were intimidatedby classical physics, chemistry, and biochemistry curric-ulums. By that time I had also created the school’s firstEnvironment and Society Club as well as organized ayearly Earth Day celebration for the school that was opento the public. My students’ curriculum included the sub-mission of environmental and public health papers as partof their final grade. The students’ papers changed how Iperceived the role of environmental impact on commu-nities because although I grew up witnessing environ-mental inequalities I did not know that an environmentaljustice movement had been formally created. When mystudents introduced me to the concept of environmentaljustice I was entering the last phases of my Ph.D. in thehistory of science, technology, and the environment atCase Western Reserve University. Their introduction ofthe topic completely changed my research interests andprofessional career. My dissertation, publications, andresearch grants have all focused on the concepts of envi-ronmental justice and environmental health disparities.One of my most important efforts was the environmentalhealth and justice project that was funded by the UnitedStates Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB’s) En-vironmental Justice Office that produced an environ-mental health=justice film about Chicago that has beenused to inform the lay public about issues which have adirect impact on their lives.

My research over the years has consistently supportedthe fact that one of the most critical developments inthe last forty years in the environmental field has beenthe synergistic and mutual development of both theenvironmental justice movement and the modern en-vironmental health movement (i.e., the public healthmovement in the last half of the twentieth century asopposed to the sanitary health movement that began inthe latter half of the nineteenth century with demise of themiasma theory). Concern over environmental health is-sues in the United States predated the modern environ-mental justice movement which will be described in

1Dr. Sylvia Hood Washington is a research associate professorat the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health,and the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Justice.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEVolume 3, Number 2, 2010ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.DOI: 10.1089=env.2010.3208

1

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P

Type: opinion

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 1

greater detail later in this article. The environmentalhealth movement was catalyzed in the last decades of thetwentieth century by the famous and actually controver-sial 1962 publication of biologist Rachel Carson’s mono-graph Silent Spring which warned of both short term andlong term health effects to humans and nature from theindustrial production and utilization of new types ofchemicals, particularly synthetic hydrocarbon pesticideslike DDT, especially after they were disposed of and re-leased as toxicants into the environment.

Although many environmental scholars have focusedon Carson’s concern with the impact of environmentalpollution on non-anthropogenic life forms she clearly andconsistently articulated in Silent Spring her concern over‘‘human exposures to [uncontrolled and multiple] cancer-producing chemicals.’’1 Citing an alarming rise in leuke-mia-based mortality in the United States between 1950 to1960 (from 11.1 to 14.1 per 100,000) and an increase in theinternational rate of 4 to 5 percent per year, Carson wouldask her readers, ‘‘What does it mean? To what lethal agentor agents, new to our environment are people now ex-posed with increasing frequency?’’2 She would later an-swer the question later in the text with the postulationthat ‘‘the road to cancer may be … an indirect one. Asubstance that is not a carcinogen in the ordinary sensemay disturb the functioning of some part of the body insuch a way that malignancy results.’’3

Carson’s work is believed to have launched the modernenvironmental movement which emerged by the end ofthe 1960s, a movement that became firmly rooted in theminds of the American public by the first Earth Day, April22, 1970. Despite the persistent popular urban myth thatthe environmental movement was a non or even anti-anthropogenic movement of tree huggers and the ‘‘priv-ileged’’ white middle-class, the promulgation of federalenvironmental legislation in the United States within thefirst ten years of its beginnings was driven by a ‘‘secondwave of environmental concerns’’ primarily focused onpublic health. The new federal environmental legislationcreated as result of this movement included the 1970Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972 pushed for-ward by the June 22, 1969 burning of the Cuyahoga Riverin Cleveland, Ohio’s industrial flats (subsequently refinedand refocused by the 1977 Clean Water Act Amendment),the 1974 Safe Water Drinking Act that passed ‘‘after aseries of well-publicized stories about the number of po-tential carcinogens in the Mississippi river water used asdrinking water by the City of New Orleans,’’4 and the1970 Resource Conservation Recovery Act (with amend-ments in 1976 and 1980 for stronger enforcement) toregulate the generation, handling, and disposal of haz-ardous waste. Concerns over human health and modernindustrial-based environmental pollution poignantly ar-ticulated by Carson was and still is the central thrust ofboth the environmental justice movement (spearheadedand driven in large part by non-profit grassroots activism)and the environmental health movement (primarily ledby government agencies like the Center for DiseaseControl but particularly the National Institute of En-vironmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)).

In his 2004 monograph, Chemical Consequences: En-vironmental Mutagens, Scientist Activism, and the Rise ofGenetic Toxicology, Scott Frickel pointed out that NIEHSwas:

one of several newly created research institutions estab-lished to propel scientific research on the biological andecological effects of chemical agents [and] was a key or-ganizational component of an emerging environmentalstate that also included the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA, est. 1969), the National Institute for Occu-pational Safety and Health (NIOSH, est. 1970), and theNational Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR, est.1971) … [It] claimed a unique position. Whereas NIOSHwas concerned with ‘‘one subset of environmentalhealth— occupational health, ’’ NIEHS took in the ‘‘totalinteraction between man and potentially toxic factors inthe environment.’’ Whereas the policy-oriented EPA fo-cused on the specific media in which environmental pol-lutants are found, NIEHS claimed to make no suchdistinctions because ‘‘to understand the nature of thecompound and, subsequently, its toxicity, we study thecompound both by itself and in relation to other com-pounds with which it might come into contact, whether inwater, food, or air.’’5

NIEHS’ mission, unlike the other federal health and orenvironmental agencies, ‘‘… as stated in a 1965 report,involved nothing less than mounting ‘a comprehensiveattack on the environmental health problems of the na-tion’ (Research Triangle Institute 1965:xiii) [and its] re-search was to ‘provide for the determination, study, andevaluation of … the complex, inter-related phenomenaunderlying the human body’s reaction to the increasinglywide range of chemical, physical, biological and socialenvironmental influences imposed by modern living.’ ’’

The modern environmental justice movement from itsinception both in the United States and now in communi-ties all over the world has had a public and environmentalhealth focus. It was and is still rooted in the idea of (in-tentional or planned) disparate and inequitable levels ofenvironmental pollution in poor, minority, indigenous,and=or socially disenfranchised communities with con-comitant deleterious environmental health impacts. Scho-lars across the environmental field do not have a consensusamong them on the exact moment of birth for the modernenvironmental justice movement. Many believe that themovement began with Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1968 movetoward a ‘‘poor people’’ campaign and his support ofprotesting black sanitary workers. Just as some scholarsbelieve the modern environmental justice movementbegan at different points in the 1960s and 1970s, there are

1Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, (1962), 2372Ibid., 227.3Ibid., 235.4Barry S. Levy, David H. Wegman, Sherry L. Baron, and Ro-

semary K. Sokas, Occupational and Environmental Health: Re-cognizing and Preventing Disease and Injury, (Lippincott Williamsand Wilkins, 2006), 54.

5Scott Frickel, Chemical Consequences: Environmental Mutagens,Scientist Activism, and the Rise of Genetic Toxicology (New Bruns-wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004).

2 WASHINGTON

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 2

many scholars who believe the movement began in theUnited States on August 2, 1978. This was the day whenCBS and ABC television networks first carried news of theadverse effects of toxic waste on residents of Love Canal.The New York state health commissioner had recentlyannounced that the landfill created by the HookerChemical Company had created a serious and extremelydangerous public health threat to the residents of LoveCanal, a predominantly white working class community inBuffalo, New York. Hooker had dumped thousands ofdrums of toxic waste into an abandoned navigation canalthat had been filled in in 1952. The company then sold theland to the Niagara Falls Board of Education, who even-tually built schools and housing. Soon after residentsmoved into the area, alarming health problems and birthdefects began to occur. Adults, children, and animals re-ceived chemical burns from the dirt in backyards andschool playgrounds. Citizens reported visual explosions.Hooker’s dumping practices resulted in the resurfacing ofpesticide residues and other chemicals that were seenbubbling on the ground. The community had become sopoisoned that many of the residents’ lawns wouldn’t grow,and the few fruits and vegetables that residents were ableto grow made them sick.

The grassroots environmental activism that is now socommon and characteristic of the environmental justicemovement was critical to the successful resolution of theenvironmental dilemmas at Love Canal. This activismwas lead and personified by Lois Gibbs, a Love Canalresident whose three-year-old son Michael developed arespiratory illness that was tied to the toxic waste in thedevelopment. Moved by her own son’s illness as well asthe illnesses of many of her neighbor’s children, Gibbsfounded the Love Canal Homeowner’s Association andtook their complaints to the state capital for resolution.The activism of the Homeowner’s Association led to a1978 investigation by state epidemiologists. They foundabnormally high rates of birth defects, miscarriages, epi-lepsy, liver abnormalities, rectal bleeding, and headaches.

The continued activism by Gibbs and the Home-owner’s Association convinced the federal governmentthat they should investigate as well. By 1980, federal in-vestigations had identified 248 chemicals in the dumpsite; and currently, more than 400 have been found at theoriginal site. As a result of the state and federal investi-gations, then President Jimmy Carter declared LoveCanal, New York a disaster area. Residents were evacu-ated, the state of New York purchased more than 230 ofthe residents’ homes and financed some of the costs oftheir relocation, and many homes were torn down. Aswell, the declaration of Love Canal as a disaster areaentitled residents to federal aid that could be used forrelocation. ‘‘Lois Gibbs went on to found a magazinecalled Everyone’s Backyard, and to organize a majorcoalition, the Citizen’s Clearinghouse for HazardousWastes. Operating out of Washington, D.C., the organi-zation assisted local groups in moving beyond the Not inMy Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon, to Not in Anyone’sBackyard, in a major effort to reduce the health effects ofpollution and toxic waste dumping.’’6

Lois Gibbs’ successful environmental activism to re-solve environmental inequalities, particularly those tied tothe environmental health of people living in her com-munity, would eventually be imitated across the countrywith various levels of success by other female environ-mental justice leaders like Peggy Shepard, co-founder ofWest Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. (WE ACT);Dollie Burwell, lead member of Warren County Con-cerned Citizens; Hazel Johnson, founder of Chicago’sPeople for Community Recovery (PCR); Emelda West, co-founder of St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environ-ment; and Margaret Williams of Citizens Against ToxicExposure (CATE). All of these women created or partic-ipated in the development of environmental justice or-ganizations in poor and minority communities to addressor combat environmental racism and environmentalhealth disparities in their respective communities.7

Most scholars, however, agree that the 1982 grassrootsprotests by African Americans in Warren County, NorthCarolina against toxic dumping in their communities wasthe pivotal and defining moment for the modern envi-ronmental justice movement. The national protest wasover Warren County’s decision to bury more than 32,000cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil in a landfill locatedin the predominantly (84%) African American communityof Afton, North Carolina. Afton’s citizens and their en-vironmental supporters were deeply concerned over thepotential contamination of their primary water supply,well water, since the area’s water-table was located onlyfive to ten feet below the surface of the selected landfillsite. The adverse reaction to the disposal decision wasbased upon community’s cogent understanding of thescientific and public health history of PCBs and a firmunderstanding of the interrelationships between thetechnology of water supplies, its corruption, and humanhealth in the postmodern era.

The protest resulted in study by the U.S. General Ac-counting Office (GAO) of hazardous waste landfill sitingsin Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 thatfound that three of our commercial hazardous wastefacilities were in predominately African American com-munities and that the fourth was in a low-income com-munity.8 The GAO was then followed by the watershedreport of the United Church of Christ Commission forRacial Justice study that ‘‘found that race, not income, wasthe major factor that was significantly related with resi-dence near a hazardous waste site.’’9 Regardless of these

6Carolyn Merchant, The Columbia Guide to American Environ-mental History (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 185.

7Environmental Justice Resource Center, ‘‘Sheroes and Heroesfor Environmental Justice,’’ <http:==www.ejrc.cau.edu=(s)heros.html> (March 9, 2004).

8U.S. General Accounting Office, Siting of Hazardous WasteLandfills and Their Correlation With Racial and Economic Status ofSurrounding Communities (1983); David W. Allen, Kelly M. Hill,and James P. Lester, Environmental Injustice in the United States:Myths and Realities (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 2.

9United Church of Christ, Toxic Wastes and Race in the UnitedStates: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Char-acteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (1987).

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 3

BIRTH OF A SUSTAINABLE NATION 3

contested inception dates for the movement what is clearis that the environmental justice movement’s concernsover human health and environmental pollution for mi-nority communities and the poor was historically con-comitant with the larger national interests and concernssparked by Rachel Carson in 1962.10

Almost a decade after the Warren County protest, theconcerns of the movement’s leaders culminated in a seriesof meetings by scholars, environmental activists, civilrights leaders, and eventually the Congressional BlackCaucus in the early 1990s to ensure that it would becomea national priority. ‘‘In response to [their] concerns … andof the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the EPAformed the Environmental Equity Workgroup, whosefindings were reported in a two volume report. … Shortlythereafter, in November 1992, the Office of EnvironmentalEquity was established within the Environmental Pro-tection Agency, and in February 1994 President Clintonsigned Executive Order No. 12898, which requires everyfederal agency to achieve the principle of environmentaljustice by addressing and ameliorating the human healthand environmental effects of the agency’s programs,policies, and activities on minority and low-income pop-ulations in the United States. …’’11

Robert Bullard, the foremost environmental justicescholar in the United States who has shaped the direc-tion of most of the research in this field, asserted in hisseminal monograph, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class andEnvironmental Quality, initially published in 1990 (andreissued in 1994), that there are three equity issues whichare the foundations for environmental justice claims.These issues are procedural equity, geographical equity,and social equity. For Bullard and most environmentaljustice scholars environmental injustice is a result of either‘‘nonscientific and non-democratic decisions such as ex-clusionary practices … and public hearings held in remotelocations at inconvenient times’’ (procedural inequity); theinequitable ‘‘location and spatial configuration of com-munities to environmental hazards, noxious facilities andunwanted land uses’’ (geographical inequity); and ‘‘therole of sociological factors (race, ethnicity, class, culture,political power, etc.) on environmental decision making’’(social equity).12

One of the most critical assertions however that Bullardmakes in this monograph (particularly for this essay) wasthat despite the formation of environmental agencies andthe promulgation of environmental regulations, ‘‘Thedominant environmental protection paradigm reinforcesthe stratification of people, place and work … and that it[contributed to the trading of ] human health for prof-it … and legitimated human exposure to harmful expo-sure to harmful chemicals, pesticides and hazardoussubstances.’’13 Although Bullard and many other scholarshave discussed the trials, tribulations, and ultimate goalsof the environmental justice movement activists it is clearthat for the last 25 years what has remained of utmostimportance is their desire to have federal legislation andsupport that ensures the ‘‘right of all individuals to beprotected from environmental degradation’’ and the im-plementation of a public health paradigm that empha-

sizes prevention of environmental hazards (throughelimination) to all human beings.14

The environmental justice movement and the scholarsand researchers who supported its aims effectively andclearly articulated the emergence and continued existenceof environmental health disparities in the United Statesthat had grown exponentially during and since the ColdWar by the time of the creation of the 1992 USEPA En-vironmental Equity Office. The strategic objectives ofgovernment health agencies particularly NIEHS wouldcoalesce with those of the environmental justice move-ments after their early 1990 meetings with the EPA andwith President Clinton’s Executive Order of 1994.

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Ex-ecutive Order 12898 on environmental justice. The offi-cial title of the order was ‘‘Federal Actions to AddressEnvironmental Justice in Minority Populations andLow-Income Populations.’’ The order focused on the‘‘environmental and human health conditions’’ in peopleof color and low-income populations with the goal ofachieving equal environmental protection for all com-munities, regardless of their race, income status, ethnicity,or culture. It directed all federal agencies with an envi-ronmental and public health mission to make environ-mental justice an integral part of their mission. The orderalso made federal agencies responsible for ensuring thatstates and organizations receiving federal monies forenvironmental projects did not violate federal civil rightslaws. Finally, the order established the InteragencyWorking Group on Environmental Justice, with mem-bership comprised of the heads of such federal agencies asthe Departments of Justice, Defense, Energy, Labor, In-terior, Transportation, Agriculture, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Commerce, Health and Human Services,and the EPA.

Ten years after Clinton’s Executive Order, on Novem-ber 7, 2004 NIEHS outgoing director, Dr. Kenneth Olden,would receive the American Public Health Association’s(APHA) Sedgwick Medal, the highest award in publichealth. The award was made to Olden for his ‘‘ex-traordinary achievements in linking environmentalhealth sciences with public health.’’15 Bernard Goldsteinpointed out in his essay, NIEHS and Public Health Practice,that it was under Olden’s leadership that NIEHS be-came a leader in re-establishing the concept of the ‘‘unityof health and the environment’’ after ‘‘environmentalhealth … [was] divorced from its roots in public healthwhich was mirrored in the emergence of separate na-tional, state, and local agencies responsible for the regu-

10Sylvia Hood Washington, Packing Them In (Lanham, MD:Lexington Books, 2005).

11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, 1992b Bullard,1994a; Cushman, 1993, 1994, b AU1. Allen et al., Environmental Injusticein the United States: Myths and Realities, 2.

12Robert D. Bullard, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, And En-vironmental Quality (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994) 116.

13Ibid., 11414Ibid., 119.15Bernard D. Goldstein, ‘‘NIEHS and Public Health Practice,’’

Environmental Health Perspectives, Aug. 15, 2005.

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 4

4 WASHINGTON

lation of chemicals and the natural environment.’’16

Under Olden’s leadership NIEHS began to focus on try-ing to make health researchers and the lay public alikeunderstand the potential health impacts of chemical andphysical exposure with the goal of ultimately ‘‘facilitat-ing the protection of the population as a whole, especiallygroups sensitive to these agents, while increasing thebreadth of disciplines involved in environmental health.’’17

It was also during this time that NIEHS’ CommunityOutreach and Educational Programs (COEPS) were re-tooled and redirected to ensure that ‘‘environmental healthscience is responsive to public need.’’18

Kenneth Olden’s decision to redirect the NIEHS’ re-search mission to address environmental health dis-parities was undoubtedly influenced by Clinton’s 1994Executive Order as well as by his own personal involve-ment in the environmental justice conferences which werethe impetus for the Order. During his tenure ‘‘NIEHSfunding in the area [of environmental justice] was notablefor an innovative series of research grant programs thatrequired close collaboration with the community forfunding … resulting in the development of working rela-tions between community organizations and academicenvironmental research groups.’’19

In 2002 NIEHS and the National Human Genome Re-search Institute jointly began a grants program called‘‘Partnerships to Address Ethical Challenges in Environ-mental Health,’’ whose primary objective is ‘‘to remedythe unequal burden borne by socioeconomically disad-vantaged persons in terms of residential exposure togreater- than-acceptable levels of environmental pollu-tion, occupational exposures to hazardous substances,and fewer civic benefits such as sewage and water treat-ment.’’ Researchers involved in the grant must ensure that‘‘research studies are designed and conducted with theinvolvement of those being studied rather than regardingthem simply as study subjects.’’20 The ‘‘Partnerships’’ isanother NIEHS effort to directly address the problems ofenvironmental inequities articulated by the environmen-tal justice movement. The program awards researchers anannual sum of $200,000 for up to five years ‘‘to investigateenvironmental ills in a community, survey residents atti-tudes about both local environmental problems andhealth studies in general, and develop educational cam-paigns to meet local needs.’’21

NIEHS came, saw, and attempted to conquer the en-vironmental health disparities painfully described byleaders of the environmental justice movement during theearly national conferences convened by them in the 1990s.Their research mission and strategic plan from that pointforward was and still is focused on ameliorating envi-ronmental health disparities as it continues a dialoguewith environmental justice communities and scholars.

As late as December 2006, current NIEHS DirectorDavid A. Schwarz in an attempt to address concerns overthe organization’s continued commitment to environ-mental justice research issues stated in the organization’sjournal, Environmental Health Perspectives, for that monththat he strongly believed in the concepts of environmentaljustice and community based participatory research ‘‘and

in their need to be integrated in what we [NIEHS] do. Infact I believe that these concepts form the core of ourmission. … It is our obligation to support research thatproduces findings that will inform environmental justicefor all people.’’ Schwarz and Olden’s philosophies andorganizational response to the environmental justicemovements through NIEHS has been and continues to bea boom for the environmental health movement for peo-ple everywhere since as Rachel Carson so eloquently ex-pressed 45 years ago in her Silent Spring chapter titled‘‘The Human Price,’’ ‘‘The new environmental healthproblems are multiple—created by radiation in all forms,born of the never-ending stream of chemicals of whichpesticides are a part, chemicals now pervading the worldin which we live, acting upon us directly and indirectly,separately and collectively.’’22 Ensuring environmentalequity everywhere ultimately optimizes the chances forenvironmental health for everyone.

It is indeed fortunate for the national social body andthe global social body that the leadership in both themodern environmental justice movement and the modernenvironmental health movement understood and contin-ues to synergize their efforts in dealing with environ-mental health issues particularly those created by theburden of inequitable environmental pollution manage-ment practices and policies.

The graduate students that I teach today in publichealth programs are indeed fortunate to be required totake environmental health courses that have curriculumsthat acknowledge and discuss this synergism betweenenvironmental justice and environmental health dis-parities. What I find shocking is that 40 years later stu-dents from medical backgrounds and even environmentalscience or environmental engineering backgrounds enterinto these courses with no knowledge of environmentalhealth issues or environmental justice. It is my sinceresthope that by the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, envi-ronmental health courses will be mandatory for all stu-dents since the problem of environmental inequalities andenvironmental health disparities will not be disappearingbut expanding and exacerbated with globalization andclimate change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

29 Years Ago in IDPH History. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2008,from Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH),<www.idph.state.il.us=webhistory4.htm>.

Alarcon, G. S., et al. (2002). Baseline characteristics of amultiethnic lupus cohort: PROFILE. Lupus, 11(2):95–101.

Ali, Y. M. (2007). Monoclonal gammopathy in Systemic lupuserythematosus. Lupus, 16(6) 426–429.

16Ibid., 2.17Ibid.18Ibid.19Ibid.20Tina Adler, ‘‘Ethics in Environmental Health,’’ Environmental

Health Perspectives, Dec. 2004, 112(17): A988–A990.21Ibid.22Carson, Silent Spring, 188.

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 5

BIRTH OF A SUSTAINABLE NATION 5

Al-Jarallah, K., et al. (1998). SLE in Kuwait—hospital basedstudy. Lupus, 7(7):434–438.

Aronson, R. E., et al. (2007). Neighborhood Mapping andEvaluation: A methodology for participatory communityhealth initiatives. Maternal and Child Health Journal,11(4):373–383.

Askanase, A. D., et al. (2002). Reproductive Health in SLE. BestPractice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 16(2):265–280.

Bailey, A. J., et al. (1998). A Tale of Two Counties: ChildhoodLead Poisoning, Industrialization and Abatement in NewEnlgand. Economic Geography, 74:96–111.

Bossingham, D. (2003). Systemic lupus erythematosus in thefar north of Queensland. Lupus, 12(4):327–331.

Campagna, M. (2006). GIS for Sustainable Development. Lon-don: Taylor & Francis.

Caress, S. M. and Steinemann, A. C. (2003). A Review of a Two-Phase Population Study of Multiple Chemical Sensitvities.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(12): 1490–1497.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Cambridge: Riverside Press.Centers for Disease Control. (2004). Retrieved July 24, 2008,

from Environmental Health Activities in Illinois, <www.cdc.gov=nceh=publications=statefacts=IL2004.pdf>.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). RetrievedJuly 24, 2008, from About the Childhood Lead PoisoningPrevention Program (CLPPP), <www.cdc.gov=nceh=lead=about=program.htm>.

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. (2004).Using GIS to Assess and Direct Childhood Lead PoisoningPrevention: Guidance for State and Local Childhood Lead Poi-soning Prevention Programs. Washington, D.C.: CDC.

Coleman, L., et al. (2005). Birth Weight and Systemic LupusErythematosus. Lupus, 14(7): 526–528.

Conrad, K. M., et al. (1996). Systemic lupus erythematosusafter heavy exposure to quartz dust in uranium mines:clinical and serological characteristics. Lupus, 5(1):62–69.

Cooper, G. C. (2002). Differences by race, sex, and age in theclinical and immunologic features of recently diagnosedSLE patients in the Southeastern United States. Lupus, 11:161–167.

Cooper, G. S., et al. (2002). Hormonal and Reproductive RiskFactors for Development of Systemic lupus erythematosus:Results of a Population Based, Case Control Study. Ar-thritis Rheum., 46(7):1830–9.

Costenbader, K. H. & Karlson, E. W. (2006). CigaretteSmoking and Autoimmune Disease: what can we learnfrom epidemiology. Lupus, 15(11):737–745.

Lupus Foundation of America. (2008). Retrieved May 1, 2008,from <http:==www.lupus.org=webmodules=webarticlesnet=templates=new_aboutintroduction.aspx?articleid¼71&zoneid¼9s>.

Marketing of Lead Paint and the Effect on Children. (n.d.). Re-trieved July 23, 2008, from Marketing of Lead Paint and theEffect on Children—History of Lead Paint, <http:==www.lead411.org=Templates=history=marketing_lead_paint.htm>.

National Medical Association. (n.d.). The Great Imitator: In-creasing Awareness and Treatment of Lupus in Communities ofColor. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from <http:==nmanet.org=images=uploads=Great_Imitator.pdf#search¼%22lupus%20great%20imitator%22>.

Address correspondence to:Sylvia Hood Washington, Ph.D., N.D., M.S.E., M.P.H.

Research Associate ProfessorUniversity of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences (MC 922)Institute for Environmental Science & Policy

2121 W. Taylor Street, Room 525Chicago, IL 60612-7260

E-mail: sewhood@uic.edu

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 6

6 WASHINGTON

AUTHOR QUERY FOR ENV-2010-3208-WASHINGTON_1P

AU1: Please provide citations for these 5 references.

ENV-2010-3208-Washington_1P.3D 04/15/10 6:41pm Page 7