Climate Change and Collective Violence.

Climate change is causing increases in temperature, changes in precipitation and extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and other environmental impacts. It is also causing or contributing to heat-related disorders, respiratory and allergic disorders, infectious diseases, malnutrition due to food insecurity, and mental health disorders. In addition, increasing evidence indicates that climate change is causally associated with collective violence, generally in combination with other causal factors. Increased temperatures and extremes of precipitation with their associated consequences, including resultant scarcity of cropland and other key environmental resources, are major pathways by which climate change leads to collective violence. Public health professionals can help prevent collective violence due to climate change (a) by supporting mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (b) by promoting adaptation measures to address the consequences of climate change and to improve community resilience, and

Documenting the Effects of Armed Conflict on Population Health.

War and other forms of armed conflict have profound adverse effects on population health. It is important to document these effects to inform the general public and policy makers about the consequences of armed conflict, provide services to meet the needs of affected populations, protect human rights and document violations of international humanitarian law, and help to prevent future armed conflict. Documentation can be accomplished with surveillance, epidemiological surveys, and rapid assessment. Challenges include inadequate or absent data systems, social breakdown, forced migration, reporting biases, and the fog of war. The adverse effects of the Iraq War on population health demonstrate how the effects of armed conflict on population health can be documented. We recommend the establishment of an independent mechanism, operated by the United Nations or a multilateral organization, to investigate and document the effects of armed conflict on population health.

Adverse health consequences of the Vietnam War.

The 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War is a useful time to review the adverse health consequences of that war and to identify and address serious problems related to armed conflict, such as the protection of noncombatant civilians. More than 58,000 U.S. servicemembers died during the war and more than 150,000 were wounded. Many suffered from posttraumatic stress disorders and other mental disorders and from the long-term consequences of physical injuries. However, morbidity and mortality, although difficult to determine precisely, was substantially higher among the Vietnamese people, with at least two million of them dying during the course of the war. In addition, more than one million Vietnamese were forced to migrate during the war and its aftermath, including many "boat people" who died at sea during attempts to flee. Wars continue to kill and injure large numbers of noncombatant civilians and continue to damage the health-supporting infrastructure of society, expose civilians to toxic chemicals, forcibly displace many people, and divert resources away from services to benefit noncombatant civilians. Health professionals can play important roles in promoting the protection of noncombatant civilians during war and helping to prevent war and create a culture of peace.

Adverse health consequences of the Iraq War.

The adverse health consequences of the Iraq War (2003-11) were profound. We conclude that at least 116,903 Iraqi non-combatants and more than 4800 coalition military personnel died over the 8-year course. Many Iraqi civilians were injured or became ill because of damage to the health-supporting infrastructure of the country, and about 5 million were displaced. More than 31,000 US military personnel were injured and a substantial percentage of those deployed suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other neuropsychological disorders and their concomitant psychosocial problems. Many family members of military personnel had psychological problems. Further review of the adverse health consequences of this war could help to minimise the adverse health consequences of, and help to prevent, future wars.

The environmental health impacts of Russia's war on Ukraine.

BACKGROUND: Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 ignited the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Ukrainian government agencies, civil society organizations, and international agencies have gathered an unprecedented amount of data about the impact of war on the environment, which is often the silent victim of war. We review these data and highlight the limitations of international governance for protection of the environment during time of war. METHODS: We performed an integrative review of academic, institutional, and media information resources using the search terms "Ukraine", "Russia", "war", "environment", "health", "human rights", "international humanitarian law", "international human rights law", "ecocide", and "war crimes". MAIN TEXT: Nearly 500,000 military personnel have been killed or wounded during the war, and more than 30,000 civilians have been killed or injured. Indirect health effects of the war have likely accounted for an even greater amount of civilian morbidity and mortality. The war has displaced more than 11 million people. Russia's military forces have caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure. The war has devastated Ukraine's economy and reduced food and energy security in many countries. The war has caused more than $56.4 billion in damage to the environment. There has been widespread chemical contamination of air, water, and soil, and 30% of Ukraine has been contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnance. Landscape destruction, shelling, wildfires, deforestation, and pollution have adversely affected 30% of Ukraine's protected areas. Russia's seizure of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam have posed risks of long-term environmental catastrophe. Most of these environmental impacts threaten human health. CONCLUSION: In addition to enormous human costs, Russia's war on Ukraine has had devastating impacts on the natural environment and the built environment. International law mandates that methods of warfare must be implemented with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. A just and lasting peace necessitates, among other requirements, rebuilding and restoration of Ukraine's natural environment and built environment. The environmental consequences of all wars need to be investigated and more effective measures need to be implemented to protect the environment during war.

Adverse health consequences of US Government responses to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

In response to the attacks on Sept 11, 2001 (9/11), and the related security concerns, the USA and its coalition partners began a war in Afghanistan and subsequently invaded Iraq. The wars caused many deaths of non-combatant civilians, further damaged the health-supporting infrastructure and the environment (already adversely affected by previous wars), forced many people to migrate, led to violations of human rights, and diverted resources away from important health needs. After 9/11 and the anthrax outbreak shortly afterwards, the USA and other countries have improved emergency preparedness and response capabilities, but these actions have often diverted attention and resources from more urgent health issues. The documentation and dissemination of information about the adverse health effects of these wars and about the diversion of resources could help to mitigate these consequences and prevent their recurrence.

The public health implications of resource wars.

Competition for resources between or within nations is likely to become an increasingly common cause of armed conflict. Competition for petroleum is especially likely to trigger armed conflict because petroleum is a highly valuable resource whose supply is destined to contract. Wars fought over petroleum and other resources can create public health concerns by causing morbidity and mortality, damaging societal infrastructure, diverting resources, uprooting people, and violating human rights. Public health workers and the organizations with which they are affiliated can help prevent resource wars and minimize their consequences by (1) promoting renewable energy and conservation, (2) documenting the impact of past and potential future resource wars, (3) protecting the human rights of affected noncombatant civilian populations during armed conflict, and (4) developing and advocating for policies that promote peaceful dispute resolution.

The adverse health effects of oil spills: a review of the literature and a framework for medically evaluating exposed individuals.

In April 2010, an explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers, injured 17 workers, and spilled an estimated 185 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. Adverse effects on the health of cleanup workers, fishermen, and others as well as on the ecosystem are being studied. This paper reviews published studies of the adverse health effects due to previous oil spills. Acute effects have included: respiratory, eye, and skin symptoms; headache; nausea; dizziness; and tiredness or fatigue. Chronic effects have included: psychological disorders, respiratory disorders, genotoxic effects, and endocrine abnormalities. We also present a systematic approach to evaluating individuals exposed to oil spills.

Health effects of combat: a life-course perspective.

Armed combat (also termed war or armed conflict) has profound direct and indirect impacts on the long-term physical and mental health of both military personnel and noncombatant civilians. Although most research has focused on immediate and short-term health consequences of war, an increasing number of studies have focused on the long-term health consequences for both veterans of military service and noncombatant civilians. However, these long-term studies focus almost entirely on posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems; relatively few long-term studies have focused on physical injuries due to war and the impact of those injuries on relationships, work, and other aspects of life. This article reviews illustrative examples of the existing literature on these long-term health consequences of war, focusing not only on military veterans of several different armed conflicts but also on noncombatant civilian populations, including spouses and children of military veterans as well as refugees and internally displaced persons. Public health professionals can help address these problems.

The health impact of war.

Armed conflict causes an enormous amount of death and disability worldwide. It destroys families, communities and cultures. It diverts scarce resources. It disrupts the societal infrastructure that supports health. It forces people to leave their homes and become internally displaced persons or refugees who have fled to other countries. It violates human rights. It promotes violence as a means to resolve conflicts and it degrades the environment. Armed conflict has an even more profound effect on low- and middle-income countries. Health professionals can play important roles in minimising the adverse consequences of war and in preventing war itself.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons: opportunities for control and abolition.

Nuclear weapons pose a particularly destructive threat. Prevention of the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons is urgently important to public health. "Horizontal" proliferation refers to nation-states or nonstate entities that do not have, but are acquiring, nuclear weapons or developing the capability and materials for producing them. "Vertical" proliferation refers to nation-states that do possess nuclear weapons and are increasing their stockpiles of these weapons, improving the technical sophistication or reliability of their weapons, or developing new weapons. Because nation-states or other entities that wish to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons need methods for delivering those weapons, proliferation of delivery mechanisms must also be prevented. Controlling proliferation--and ultimately abolishing nuclear weapons--involves national governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental and professional organizations, and society at large.

IBM, Elsevier Science, and academic freedom.

Elsevier Science refused to publish a study of IBM workers that IBM sought to keep from public view. Occupational and environmental health (OEH) suffers from the absence of a level playing field on which science can thrive. Industry pays for a substantial portion of OEH research. Studies done by private consulting firms or academic institutions may be published if the results suit the sponsoring companies, or they may be censored. OEH journals often reflect the dominance of industry influence on research in the papers they publish, sometimes withdrawing or modifying papers in line with industry and advertising agendas. Although such practices are widely recognized, no fundamental change is supported by government and industry or by professional organizations.