Environmental quality has a profound effect on health and the burden of disease. In the United States, the environmentrelated burden of disease is increasingly dominated by chronic diseases. At the local level, public health practitioners realize that many policy decisions affecting environmental quality and health transcend the authorities of traditional health department programs. Healthy decisions about the built environment, including housing, transportation, and energy, require broad collaborative efforts. Environmental health professionals have an opportunity to address the shift in public health burden toward chronic diseases and play an important role in the design of healthy communities by bringing data and tools to decision makers. This article provides a guide for community leaders to consider the public health effects of decisions about the built environment. We present a conceptual framework that represents a shift from compartmentalized solutions toward an inclusive systems approach that encourages partnership across disciplines and sectors. We discuss practical tools to assist with environmental decision making, such as Health Impact Assessments, environmental public health tracking, and cumulative risk assessment. We also identify priorities in research, practice, and education to advance the role of public health in decision making to improve health, such as the Health Impact Assessment, as a core competency for environmental health practitioners. We encourage cross-disciplinary communication, research, and education that bring the fields of planning, transportation, and energy in closer collaboration with public health to jointly advance the systems approach to today's environmental challenges.

No abstract

ABSTRACTObjective: To document the ability of public health laboratories to respond to radiological emergencies.Methods: The Association of Public Health Laboratories developed, distributed, and analyzed two separate surveys of public health laboratories representing the 50 US states and major nonstate jurisdictions. The 2009 All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey examined overall laboratory capability and capacity, with a subset of questions on radiation preparedness. A 2011 survey focused exclusively on radiation readiness.Results: The 50 state and District of Columbia public health laboratories responded to the 2009 All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey, representing a 98% response rate. In addition to the above laboratories, environmental and agricultural laboratories responded to the 2011 Radiation Capabilities Survey, representing a 76% response rate. Twenty-seven percent of the All-Hazards Survey respondents reported the ability to measure radionuclides in clinical specimens; 6% reported that another state agency or department accepted and analyzed these samples via a radioanalytical method. Of the Radiation Capabilities Survey respondents, 60% reported the ability to test environmental samples, such as air, soil, or surface water, for radiation; 48% reported the ability to test nonmilk food samples; 47% reported the ability to test milk; and 56% reported sending data for drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency.Conclusions: Survey data reveal serious gaps in US radiological preparedness. In 2007, federal experts estimated it would take more than 4 years to screen 100 000 individuals for radiation exposure and 6 years to test environmental samples from a large-scale radiological emergency, relying on existing laboratory assets. Although some progress has been made since 2007, public health laboratory radiological test capabilities and capacities remain insufficient to respond to a major event. Adequate preparation requires significant new investment to build and enhance laboratory emergency response networks, as well as investments in the broader public health system in which public health laboratories function.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:213-217)

These findings offer guidance for targeted education and possible new insights regarding the kinetics of mercury.