Invited Perspective: Uncovering Harmful Exposures in Carceral Environments.

Vol. 130, No. 9 Invited PerspectiveOpen AccessInvited Perspective: Uncovering Harmful Exposures in Carceral Environmentsis companion ofThe Human Right to Water: A 20-Year Comparative Analysis of Arsenic in Rural and Carceral Drinking Water Systems in California Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, and David H. Cloud Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein Address correspondence to Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, 333 S. Columbia St., Chapel Hill, NC 27559 USA. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-6240 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Center for Health Equity Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Search for more papers by this author and David H. Cloud Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Amend at University of San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA Search for more papers by this author Published:21 September 2022CID: 091305https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11653AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit In a research letter in this issue, Rempel et al. compared community water systems that serve the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) and three comparable rural communities in California that rely solely on groundwater sources.1 They found that for each of the four systems, arsenic concentrations in drinking water periodically exceeded the legal limit in violation of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. The communities neighboring the prison benefited from local and federal remediation efforts. Yet, for people who were incarcerated, interventions such as free bottled water were often restricted.Black and Latinx people are arrested by law enforcement and incarcerated more often and for longer periods of time than their White counterparts.2 An important consideration is that this difference in arrest frequency and incarceration periods does not reflect disproportionate illegal activity; rather, communities of color are patrolled and punished more stringently.3 The lack of access to clean water and possible remediations for incarcerated people, based on the disproportionate targeting of certain communities, disparately impacts Black people and exacerbates racial health disparities. Therefore, we agree with Rempel et al. that more granular assessments of water composition are necessary, especially in marginalized communities, and that, in general, more data relevant to carceral populations should be available. Furthermore, the findings by Rempel et al. lend more weight to the need for decarceration: Carceral contexts make people sick.1People who are incarcerated in the United States experience conditions of confinement that exacerbate poor health outcomes. They also have a disproportionate burden of chronic illness and a high risk of mortality after release.4 A large body of literature connects incarceration and poor health outcomes. Most epidemiological studies have measured incarceration simplistically as a binary or time-varying exposure to assess its health-related effects on individuals, families, and communities.5–7 Due to a variety of barriers, public health research has insufficiently accounted for how conditions of confinement—the social and material conditions within carceral environments—contribute to health inequities. Furthermore, incarcerated people are largely excluded from national disease registries and population surveys that governments rely on to understand determinants of and mobilizing solutions to disparities.In the United States, there is a lack of external oversight bodies with the power necessary to hold carceral actors accountable for exposing incarcerated people to environmental hazards that they are powerless to avoid. As a result, litigation has been the primary tool for addressing environmental hazards in jails and prisons but is often a time- and resource-intensive endeavor that results in inadequate remedies. Indeed, ailments related to polluted drinking water in prisons are frequent topics of litigation in courtrooms across the country.8–10The findings by Rempel et al. have important implications for an emerging body of scholarship focused on intersections of environmental justice, racial justice, and prison abolition. Many prisons were built in impoverished rural communities in landscapes where abandoned coal mines and toxic waste sites had been located11,12 but have largely evaded scrutiny by environmental protection agencies and health departments. In addition, prisons are plagued by aging infrastructure that is deteriorating in the wake of more frequent hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires linked to climate change.13,14 The public health and humanitarian crisis that ravaged jails and prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic put into plain view the hazardous, inhumane, and unhealthy features of carceral environments. For example, an investigation of the 2020 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison revealed that the facility’s HVAC system was essentially pumping droplets of the coronavirus into prison cells and crowded communal spaces.15Additional research is needed to convey the scale of environmental hazards in the built environments of carceral spaces—such as exposures to lead, toxicants, and carcinogens; extreme heat or cold; water- and blood-borne pathogens—that threaten the health and violate the human rights of incarcerated people. Such empirical evidence is crucial for building the case for improving habitability of and decommissioning and closing carceral institutions as a public health imperative.References1. Rempel J, Ray I, Hessl E, Vazin J, Zhou Z, Kim S, et al.2022. The human right to water: a 20-year comparative analysis of arsenic in rural and carceral drinking water systems in California. Environ Health Perspect 130(9):097701, 10.12.1289/EHP10758. Crossref, Google Scholar2. Nellis A. 2021. The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in State Prisons. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/ [accessed 13 June 2022]. Google Scholar3. Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Cloud DH. 2020. Incarceration as a social-structural driver of health inequities: a supplement to AJPH. Am J Public Health 110(S1):S14–S15, PMID: 31967896, 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305486. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Brinkley-Rubinstein L. 2013. Incarceration as a catalyst for worsening health. Health Justice 1(1):3–10, 10.1186/2194-7899-1-3. Crossref, Google Scholar5. Bovel-Ammon BJ, Xuan Z, Paasche-Orlow MK, LaRochelle MR. 2021. Association of incarceration with mortality by race from a national longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Netw Open 4(12):e2133083, PMID: 34940867, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33083. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Coleman J, Lloyd-Jones DM, Ning H, Allen NB, Kiefe CI, Wang EA, et al.2021. Association between incarceration and incident cardiovascular disease events: results from the CARDIA cohort study. BMC Public Health 21(1):214, PMID: 7836455, 10.1186/s12889-021-10237-6. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Nosrati E, Kang-Brown J, Ash M, McKee M, Marmot M, King LP. 2021. Incarceration and mortality in the United States. SSM Popul Health 15:100827, PMID: 34150979, 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100827. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Rouse v. Caruso. No. 06-CV-10961-DT-2011 WL 918327, (E.D. Mich. Feb. 18, 2011), No. 06-CV-10961, 2011 WL 893216 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2011). https://casetext.com/case/rouse-v-caruso-10 [accessed 17 June 2022]. Google Scholar9. Carroll v. DeTella. 255 F.3d 470, 472-72 (7th Circ. 2001). https://casetext.com/case/carroll-v-detella-2 [accessed 17 June 2022]. Google Scholar10. Tippins v. Caruso. 2015. U.S. District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. https://casetext.com/case/tippins-v-caruso-3 [accessed 17 June 2022]. Google Scholar11. King RS, Mauer M, Huling T. 2003. Big Prisons, Small Towns: Prison Economies in Rural America. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Google Scholar12. Bradshaw EA. 2018. Tombstone towns and toxic prisons: prison ecology and the necessity of an anti-prison environmental movement. Crit Crim 26(3):407–422, 10.1007/s10612-018-9399-6. Crossref, Google Scholar13. Motanya NC, Valera P. 2016. Climate change and its impact on the incarcerated population. Soc Work Public Health 31(5):348–357, PMID: 27149551, 10.1080/19371918.2015.1137513. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar14. Benevolenza M, DeRigne L. 2019. The impact of climate change and natural disasters on vulnerable populations: a systematic review of the literature. J Hum Behav Soc Environ 29(2):266–281, 10.1080/10911359.2018.1527739. Crossref, Google Scholar15. McCoy S, Bertozzi SM, Sears D, Kwan A, Duarte C, Cameron D, Williams B. 2020. Urgent Memo: COVID-19 Outbreak: San Quentin Prison. https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/COVID19-Outbreak-SQ-Prison-6.15.2020.pdf [accessed 17 June 2022]. Google ScholarThe authors declare they have nothing to disclose.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesThe Human Right to Water: A 20-Year Comparative Analysis of Arsenic in Rural and Carceral Drinking Water Systems in California21 September 2022Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 130, No. 9 September 2022Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received31 May 2022Manuscript revised14 August 2022Manuscript accepted17 August 2022Originally published21 September 2022 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.