| Title |
United States Congressmen support the legalization of environmental health injustice in Puerto Rico
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-018-1140-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luis A. Bonilla-Soto |
| Abstract |
Analyze the role of two members of the United States Congress, two private enterprises, and the government of Puerto Rico in the approval of the counterproductive law "Ban on the Deposit and Disposal of Coal Ash or Coal Combustion Residuals in Puerto Rico" (Law No. 40) in the framework of the four principles for environmental policy making. The gathered text documents were structured, reviewed, and coded using a content analysis protocol to produce coding categories and the final analysis. Two US congressmen, apparently influenced by private enterprises, had a decisive role in the approval of Law No. 40 which failed to comply with any of the four principles for environmental public policy making. Puerto Rico's Government succumbed to the extortion strategy of two US congressmen and private economic interests, and finally approved Law No. 40 which mistreats the general public and the environmental health of two low socioeconomic status communities in the municipalities of Guayama and Peñuelas. This law has the potential to negatively affect public health and the environment island-wide. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Puerto Rico | 8 | 57% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,016,362
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#327
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,180
of 341,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#9
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.