Power and Pollution: The Social History of Lead, Silica and Plastics in Post War America

SES 99-11127 -大卫罗斯纳（哥伦比亚大学）杰拉尔德马科维茨（约翰杰伊学院，纽约市立大学）“权力和污染：铅，二氧化硅和塑料在战后美国的社会历史“这个奖项支持PI，因为他们研究的文化，政治和科学的关系，“框架”我们的职业和环境健康的理解，通过分析最近的历史三个工业物质-二氧化硅，聚氯乙烯（一种塑料）和铅。这些材料在美国的环境中无处不在，并且经常被认为是创造现代美国富裕的必要条件。 然而，公共卫生官员、科学家、政府监管机构、保险公司、工业、劳工、环保活动家、经济学家、政治学家和历史学家都对如何衡量这些基本成分的“价值”有不同的看法，特别是当它们作为疾病原因的作用被考虑在内时。对这些物质的社会、监管、科学和政治历史的仔细研究将澄清哲学思想、政治权力和经济现实之间的相互作用，这些相互作用是政策冲突的基础。PI认为，这三种物质共同概括了战后时期职业与环境健康关系历史的重要方面。在此期间，我们看到保守派和自由派、环保主义者和工会活动家、经济学家和政治学家就解决地下和空气污染、水质、烟囱排放、烟雾等影响的最佳方法展开了争论。本研究探讨了这些不同群体的观点，因为他们通过谈判和争论，形成了疾病和风险责任的医学，科学和技术定义。虽然这显然是一个巨大而复杂的历史，但PI认为，通过关注这三种物质，他们将能够更好地理解环境和职业历史之间关系的广泛范围。通过研究它们的政治、公共卫生和监管历史，我们有可能开始理解环境和职业危险的传统定义之间的复杂关系。这种做法还挑战了传统观念，即在职业和环境问题之间有明确的“界限”。他们认为，科学家、工程师和学者必须了解导致职业和环境危害交叉点新概念化的特定历史环境，以及美国文化定义、分类和协商工业生产造成的疾病的方式。PIS计划为加州大学出版社完成一本书，这本书将吸引公共政策历史学家、公共卫生历史学家、劳工历史学家和政策制定者的注意。

SES 99-11127 - David Rosner (Columbia University) & Gerald Markowitz (John Jay College, CUNY)"Power and Pollution: The Social History of Lead, Silica, and Plastics in Post War America"This award supports the PIs as they study the cultural, political, and scientific relationships that "frame" our understanding of occupational and environmental health through an analysis of the recent history of three industrial substances -- silica, polyvinyl chloride (a plastic) and lead. These materials are ubiquitous in the American environment and are often presented as essential to the creation of modern American affluence. Yet, public health officials, scientists, government regulators, insurance companies, industry, labor, environmental activists, economists, political scientists and historians all have different perspectives about how to measure the "value" of these basic ingredients, especially when their role as causes of disease are factored in. A close examination of the social, regulatory, scientific and political histories of these substances will clarify the interplay among the philosophical ideas, political power and economic realities that underlie the conflicts over policy.Together, the PIs argue, these three substances encapsulate important aspects of the history of the relationship between occupational and environmental health in the post-war period. During this period, we have seen conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and union activists, economists and political scientists contend over the best ways to address the impact of underground and air pollution, water quality, smokestack emissions, smog, and the like. This study explores these different groups' perspectives as they have shaped, through negotiation and contention, the medical, scientific and technical definitions of disease and responsibility for risk. While clearly an immense and complex history, the PIs argue that by focusing on these three substances, they will be better able to understand the broad scope of the relationship between environmental and occupational history. By looking at their political, public health, and regulatory histories, it is possible to begin to understand the complex relationship between traditional definitions of environmental and occupational danger. Such an approach also challenges traditional conceptions that there are defined "boundaries" between occupational and environmental concerns. They maintain that it is critical for scientists, engineers, and scholars to understand the specific historical circumstances that led to new conceptualizations of the intersections of occupational and environmental hazards and the ways that American culture defined, categorized, and negotiated illnesses created by industrial production. The PIS plan to complete a book for the University of California Press that will attract the attention of historians of public policy, historians of public health, labor historians, and policy makers.