Groundwater arsenic and education attainment in Bangladesh

Abstract

BackgroundThousands of groundwater tube wells serving millions of Bangladeshis are arsenic contaminated. This study investigates the effect of these wells on the education attainment and school attendance of youths who rely on those wells for drinking water.MethodsThe analysis combines data from the 2006 Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2006 MICS) and the National Hydrochemical Survey (NHS) of Bangladeshi tube wells’ contamination conducted between 1998 and 2000. The study uses multiple regression analysis to estimate the differences in education attainment and school attendance among the following: (i) youths who live where tube wells are safe, (ii) youths who live where tube wells are unsafe but who report drinking from an arsenic-free source, and (iii) youths who live where tube wells are unsafe but who do not report drinking from an arsenic-free source.ResultsControlling for other determinants of education attainment and school attendance, young Bangladeshi males who live where tube wells are unsafe (by Bangladeshis standards) but who report drinking from arsenic-free sources are found to have the same education attainment (among 19- to 21-year-olds) and school attendance (among 6- to 10-year-olds), on average, as corresponding young Bangladeshi males who live where wells are safe. But young Bangladeshi males who live where tube wells are unsafe and who do not report drinking from an arsenic-free source attain, on average, a half-year less education (among 19- to 21-year-olds) and attend school, on average, five to seven fewer days a year (among 6- to 10-year-olds) than do other Bagladeshi males of those ages. The estimated effects for females are of the same sign but much smaller in magnitude.ConclusionBangladeshi public health measures to shift drinking from unsafe to safe wells not only advance good health but also increase males’ education attainment.

Knowledge, Practice, and Associated Factors of Home-Based Management of Diarrhea among Caregivers of Children Attending Under-Five Clinic in Fagita Lekoma District, Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia, 2016

“…This is relatively higher than the findings from the study conducted in Benishangul Regional State (37.5%) but lower than the findings from the study conducted in Finote Selam town (63.6%) [1, 2]. This difference from Benishangul Region may be due to that caregivers may have been provided more information about diarrhea management in the study area.…”

“…The sample size for this study was calculated using a single population proportion formula based on the following assumptions:$\begin{array}{c}T1n=\frac{{\left(Z\alpha /\mathrm{2}\right)}^{\mathrm{2}}\times P\left(\mathrm{1}-P\right)}{{\left(d\right)}^{\mathrm{2}}},\end{array}$where n is minimum sample size required for the study, d is margin of error = 0.05, Zα /2 is value of standard normal distribution ( Z = 1.96) with confidence interval of 95%, and α is 0.05; P = good knowledge = 37.5% [1]. $\begin{array}{c}T6n\frac{{\left(Z\alpha /2\right)}^2\times P\left(1-P\right)}{{\left(d\right)}^2}\\ =\frac{{\left(1.96\right)}^2\times 0.375\left(1-0.375\right)}{{\left(0.05\right)}^2}=360.\end{array}$Therefore, by taking the nonresponse rate of 5%, the total sample size required for this study was 360 + 18 = 378.…”

“…Caregivers who answer above and equal to the mean of practice questions are considered as having the good practice [1]. …”

“…Diarrhea is defined as the passage of three or more loose or liquid stools per day [1] and is caused by the variety of bacteria, viruses, and parasites [2]. Globally, each year it kills around 7,600,000 children less than five years and 1.7 billion cases are reported every year.…”

Detection of damage on single- or double-stranded DNA in a population exposed to arsenic in drinking water

“…Mexico have established 25 µg/L, and Bangladesh 5 µg/L (Chowdhury et al, 2000;NOM-127-SSA1-1994;Khalequzzaman et al, 2005). Cancers connected with As in water have been associated with cellular, molecular, and genetic modifications such as repression of DNA repair genes, alteration in gene expression and methylation, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations, polymorphisms, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, telomere shortening, decreased DNA damage response (DDR), and DNA damage (Murray and Sharmin, 2015;Shibata et al, 2016;Akter et al, 2016). The principal factors regulating DNA damage are diet, alcohol consumption, age, smoking, exercise, and exposure to environmental toxins such as asbestos, heavy metals, radiation (ultraviolet (UV) light, gamma rays), and stress (Gidron et al, 2006).…”