The logic of preventing occupational risks is entirely different from that of protecting the environment. The limit values ​​are different, as are the preventive measures. Sometimes even what is good for the environment is not good for the workers. You can find examples of this in the article below.

Article Exposure to chemical pollutants during the reclamation of in...

Of course it is. Polices to reduce particulate matter in the air (reducing open burning and carbon release), promote smokeless cookers indoors (cutting charcoal and wood demand), prevent pollution of water bodies (protecting aquatic life and biodiversity), all have direct implications for human health and the safety of individuals.

Hi Sami,

I like your question. I look at it from an analysis viewpoint, rather than an after the fact investigation of a past policy. In my opinion, although administratively public health and occupational health are separate (at least, in the US) their policy analysis should cover both when these two domains intersect. And, intersect they do.

I think, as you may see from our colleagues' answers, that the issue is rather complex. In principle, an environmental policy should account for all of its cascading effects, not just the narrow scope of the policy -- whatever the specific policy is. Again in principle, to the extent that an environmental policy leads to some form of action, and that action requires funds and other resources, it decreases the total amount of resources available to other policies. Hence, a careful environmental policy should measure not only the direct benefits (e.g, reducing particulate matter in ambient air), but also be consistent with what is known about the relationship between exposures and adverse health effects. Just imputing a vector of adverse consequences (e.g., death from COPD) to particulate matter (2.5. 10 whatever) when the physiological response is multifactorial is incorrect because other pollutants, poverty, smoking and so on, affect the measured incidence of COPD. To the extent that there may toxicological threshold, then cause and effect modeling should account for them.

Regarding the cross-over you indicate, micro and macro economic analyses can identify areas where an environmental (or any other) policy may become counterproductive -- cause more harm than (collective) good. The mere focus on environmental benefit may be miopic. However, there are instances where the single focus is eminently in the best interest of society.

Assuming that the environmental policy has relatively large ramifications, a form of general equilibrium analysis may capture other socio-economic impacts and answer your question. In this modeling, damage functions (from human )public health occupational health) to actual environmental effects to other species and so on are necessary.

A lot more remains to be said!

Thank you for your question; I hope I helped.

best,

Paolo

Hello doctor. You can also check SDGs declared by Asatana 2018.

Of course, very can, but level determines the effects that create further

The application of environmental laws in a firm and fair manner drafts the evacuation of hazardous materials to the environment in an environmentally friendly manner.