scholarly journals The effect of the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level on arsenic exposure in the USA from 2003 to 2014: an analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (11) ◽  
pp. e513-e521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne E Nigra ◽  
Tiffany R Sanchez ◽  
Keeve E Nachman ◽  
David E Harvey ◽  
Steven N Chillrud ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1190-1195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhonda S Sebastian ◽  
Cecilia Wilkinson Enns ◽  
Joseph D Goldman ◽  
Alanna J Moshfegh

AbstractObjectiveTo provide updated estimates of drinking water intake (total, tap, plain bottled) for groups aged ≥1 year in the USA and to determine whether intakes collected in 2005–2006 using the Automated Multiple-Pass Method for the 24 h recall differ from intakes collected in 2003–2004 via post-recall food-frequency type questions.DesignCross-sectional, observational study.SettingWhat We Eat in America (WWEIA), the dietary intake component of the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).SubjectsIndividuals aged ≥1 year in 2003–2004 (n 8249) and 2005–2006 (n 8437) with one complete 24 h recall.ResultsThe estimate for the percentage of individuals who reported total drinking water in 2005–2006 was significantly (P < 0·0000) smaller (76·9 %) than that for 2003–2004 (87·1 %), attributable to a lower percentage reporting tap water (54·1 % in 2005–2006 v. 67·0 % in 2003–2004; P = 0·0001). Estimates of mean tap water intake differed between the survey cycles for men aged ≥71 years.ConclusionsSurvey variables must be examined before combining or comparing data from multiple WWEIA/NHANES release cycles. For at least some age/gender groups, drinking water intake data from NHANES cycles prior to 2005–2006 should not be considered comparable to more recent data.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Oleg Fasolya

AbstractThe article deals with studying the peculiarities of environmental education system in the USA. It has been defined that US environmental policy includes governmental actions at the federal, state and local level. It has been identified that US environmental education is characterized by an extraordinary variety of forms, directions and methodological approaches, deep penetration of the ideas of environmental ethics in the content of all the disciplines, extensive involvement of communities and, in particular, public non-governmental organizations in the process of forming US citizens’ careful and responsible attitude to the environment. It has been stated that the system of US Environmental Education aims to provide a solution to such problems: to ensure citizens’ close contact with the environment; to contribute to the forming of environmentally friendly styles of behaviour and activities; to form a set of knowledge about the environment as a system of interconnected natural, economic and social factors; to involve students in solving local environmental problems. It has been found out that since 1970 Environmental Protection Agency has been operating in the USA. It has been mentioned that Environmental Protection Agency implements an environmental law by writing regulations and set national environmental standards. It has been indicated that Environmental Protection Agency has created the Office of Environmental Education so that national leadership may be provided and environmental literacy may be increased. It has been denoted that main goals of the the Office of Environmental Education include design and implementation of curricula and training programs for environmental education for both pupils and adults; organization of seminars, conferences and discussions on ugent environmental issues; cooperation with state education departments and other agencies. Consequently, recommendations that may be used by native educators to improve the national system of environmetal education have been presented.


2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1022-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Senbagam Virudachalam ◽  
Judith A Long ◽  
Michael O Harhay ◽  
Daniel E Polsky ◽  
Chris Feudtner

AbstractObjectiveTo measure the prevalence of cooking dinner at home in the USA and test whether home dinner preparation habits are associated with socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, country of birth and family structure.DesignCross-sectional analysis. The primary outcome, self-reported frequency of cooking dinner at home, was divided into three categories: 0–1 dinners cooked per week (‘never’), 2–5 (‘sometimes’) and 6–7 (‘always’). We used bivariable and multivariable regression analyses to test for associations between frequency of cooking dinner at home and factors of interest.SettingThe 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).SubjectsThe sample consisted of 10 149 participants.ResultsAmericans reported cooking an average of five dinners per week; 8 % never, 43 % sometimes and 49 % always cooked dinner at home. Lower household wealth and educational attainment were associated with a higher likelihood of either always or never cooking dinner at home, whereas wealthier, more educated households were more likely to sometimes cook dinner at home (P < 0·05). Black households cooked the fewest dinners at home (mean = 4·4, 95 % CI 4·2, 4·6). Households with foreign-born reference persons cooked more dinners at home (mean = 5·8, 95 % CI 5·7, 6·0) than households with US-born reference persons (mean = 4·9, 95 % CI 4·7, 5·1). Households with dependants cooked more dinners at home (mean = 5·2, 95 % CI 5·1, 5·4) than households without dependants (mean = 4·6, 95 % CI 4·3, 5·0).ConclusionsHome dinner preparation habits varied substantially with socio-economic status and race/ethnicity, associations that likely will have implications for designing and appropriately tailoring interventions to improve home food preparation practices and promote healthy eating.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document