Where is the research?

Dr Alison Bleaney

Recent article re Canada’s cost to health services from adverse environmental exposures (see below).

Where is Australia’s research and comparable costings?
Apart from the monetary cost, what is the human cost to our society from such adverse experiences?

We surely deserve an answer.

Steps taken to address these problems are called ‘preventative medicine’. This is basic medical practice.

Why is our public health system not advocating for us?

Which Government Department is advocating for us?

In an article by Jeremy Roberts in the Australian of 25/11/2006, (see link below) he wrote: The Federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin has warned of spiralling health costs if the link between toxins in the environment and cancer and chronic illness is ignored. Minchin said a link between toxins and cancer and chronic illnesses was “common sense” and its impact on the health budget “keeps you awake at night”.

Given that the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry and Water, Mr David Llewellyn, has stated that the pesticide monitoring program in Tasmania only tests for certain water soluble pesticides and does not test for the total pesticide load in river water, how can the public have confidence in the safety of our water supplies?

In the overall picture, in what way does Tasmania factor exposure to environmental toxins into its risk management for human and animal health?

So far I have been unable to determine an answer that does not “keep me awake at night”.

Shortcut to: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20811607-23289,00.html

The environmental burden of disease in Canada: Respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and congenital affliction

Our results indicate that: 10,000-25,000 deaths; 78,000-194,000 hospitalizations; 600,000-1.5 million days spent in hospital; 1.1 million-1.8 million restricted activity days for asthma sufferers; 8000-24,000 new cases of cancer; 500-2500 low birth weight babies; and between $3.6 billion and $9.1 billion in costs occur in Canada each year due to respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness, cancer, and congenital affliction associated with adverse environmental exposures.

Conclusions

The burden of illness in Canada resulting from adverse environmental exposures is significant. Stronger efforts to prevent adverse environmental exposures are warranted, including research, education, and regulation.

To read more visit: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2007.08.009

Dr Alison Bleaney
St Helens