Environmental justice debate

C1: start with the people and the question

This is an original, fictional discussion case. No Cleveland measurements, patient records or personal experiences are used. Use the supplied neighborhoods for every prompt. April 5 work may be unfinished; this case does not require a completed prototype test.

Warm up: name one nearby source that could affect what a fictional resident breathes or drinks. Name one possible reason two neighborhoods could differ. Then list who lives near, works at and profits from a source. A factory, traffic corridor or natural deposit is a possibility, not a proven source in this case.

Your final exit ticket is one evidence-based sentence about responsibility and why. Keep your two fairness reasons, debate record and reflection paragraph with it. The asynchronous branch also requires a 150-word stance and a reply to another stakeholder role.

D1: complete fictional neighborhood briefing

River and Hill are adjacent neighborhoods in this invented case. River has lower household incomes, and Hill has higher household incomes. Both use drinking water from the fictional municipal system. An electronics facility and natural mineral deposits are possible sources in the wider area. There are no source-tracing records. Waste-release records and land-use records are also missing.

The instructional table contains three matched sample rounds at one fixed tap in each neighborhood. All values are arsenic concentration in milligrams per liter, mg/L. Round 1: River 0.012; Hill 0.004. Round 2: River 0.011; Hill 0.005. Round 3: River 0.013; Hill 0.003. These numbers are invented for practice. Nobody collected these samples.

Compute each mean by adding its three concentrations and dividing by three. Compare the means with units and calculate their ratio. Retain every round. Three values at one tap cannot describe every home or a long-term trend.

The case states that River homes have less money for added water costs. It supplies no budgets, disease counts, intake amounts or exposure durations. Income gives context. It does not prove a pollution source or a cause of illness.

E1: what the arsenic benchmark says

EPA lists an arsenic maximum contaminant level, or MCL, of 0.010 mg/L for public drinking-water systems. Its listed health goal, MCLG, is zero. A goal and an enforceable limit are different entries. EPA lists natural deposits and some industrial or agricultural sources as possible arsenic sources.

Use 0.010 mg/L as a public reference for D1 comparisons. Do not turn these fictional samples into a finding about a real system. A legal finding needs the proper sampling and decision rules. A value below a limit does not rule out every hazard.

EPA lists possible health effects from arsenic exposure. D1 has no personal dose or health results. It cannot show that anyone is ill. Arsenic is the supplied debate example only; the April 8 lab cultures bacteria and does not test arsenic.

E2: concentration, exposure and responsibility

EPA exposure assessment connects a substance in a medium with how people contact it. A scenario needs the amount per liter and how much people take in. It also needs how often and how long contact occurs. A water concentration alone is not the amount absorbed by a person.

D1 shows a gap in the water readings. It gives a reason to study possible exposure. It does not name the source. Nor does it show that income caused the gap or measure disease risk. Natural and human sources remain possible.

HHS describes environmental justice through fair treatment and meaningful involvement across communities. Ask who bears the burden. Include those residents in decisions. Use this to discuss fairness. It does not state who has a legal right or who must pay.

A fair plan can put protection first while tracing the source. Others may want source proof before charging one group. Explain the facts and the value behind your plan. The numbers limit a claim. They do not choose the only fair plan.

R1: three genuine stakeholder positions

Resident position: ask the public water authority to fund temporary protection in River first, then recover costs from any source later established as responsible. Reason 1: River has the higher water readings. Reason 2: added water costs would be harder for its lower-income homes to bear. Limit: the table does not prove the electronics facility caused the difference.

Industry position: support an initial shared public investigation and temporary protection fund, with later costs assigned using source evidence. Reason 1: the facility is not established as the source. Reason 2: costs should follow source proof. This avoids blaming one group without that proof. Limit: source uncertainty does not erase River’s higher readings or justify waiting to discuss protection.

Regulator position: prioritize River in a public response and monitoring plan, include both neighborhoods, and publish how final funding will be decided. Reason 1: the sampled burden is unequal. Reason 2: open data rules and a role for residents let people challenge decisions. Limit: this case gives no actual powers or budget. It does not show legal fault.

Choose a role and defend two reasons. You may change its plan or suggest another fair plan. Use the data correctly. The roles differ on when to pay and how to split costs. All treat lower-income residents as people who matter. Do not invent motives or guilt for real people.

X1: debate, solo recovery and asynchronous work

Group route: each role gives its two reasons and cites at least one D1 number with units. A listener records the role, claim and exact number. Add the evidence ID and one limit. Take turns so each role answers a counterpoint. In the class debrief, name the strongest counterpoint. Explain why it was hard to answer.

Solo route when partners are unavailable: choose one R1 role, then use a different supplied role as the opposing position. Record both claims with numbers and limits. Write your reply. Name the strongest counterpoint. Label this a solo comparison of supplied roles, not a conversation that happened.

Asynchronous route: write a 150-word stance on who should pay to reduce the unequal exposure burden. Name your role, cite D1 and E1, explain two fairness reasons, and address an opposing role. On the teacher-provided board, post it and reply to a classmate from a different role.

If the board or classmate is unavailable, save the same stance and reply to a different R1 role locally. Mark actual posting and classmate reply pending. The supplied-role reply supports recovery. It does not show a real peer exchange.

Remediation: write three sentences stating who bears the potential exposure burden, which number shows the difference, and what the evidence leaves unknown. Then produce the required one-sentence exit and complete the applicable discussion and reflection branches. Extension: argue a challenging opposing position honestly and name evidence that could change your conclusion.

Self-check: why could a resident and owner reach different payment conclusions from the same chart? Explain how their values or interests differ while the numbers stay fixed. A claim that the facility is guilty, or that River residents caused the readings, lacks supporting source evidence.

P1: reflection, route and authentic work

Write a reflection paragraph explaining how the data should guide who pays. Include the hardest counterpoint and a limitation. Then write the one-sentence evidence-based responsibility statement. Keep all supporting work in the same dated record; the exit sentence remains the named daily product.

For either BI section, use the teacher-confirmed April 7 assignment in Exit Tickets. Keep the record locally until your section’s route is confirmed. Do not use an HBS assignment.

Today you hold a Problem 4 environmental justice discussion and write a reflection; April 8 is the water culture lab. Ask your teacher for today’s stopping point. If assigned, attach the actual reflection and check only the milestone genuinely completed.

This week may also include prototype validation and public-health work. Preserve unfinished actual projects and obtain the assigned weekly packet and tracker. This original debate does not complete a prototype test, an outbreak spreadsheet or an official Problem 4 activity.

Before this class, complete a 25-minute tracker audit in Class Records. List actual completed evidence and missing work; invent no tracker entries. Note which coded water sample you expect to test on April 8 without claiming any result yet.

L1: pre-lab knowledge for the April 8 culture lab

Today’s April 7 lesson is a debate. April 8 is a culture lab with a teacher-prepared mock water sample. Prepare the concepts below on paper; this lesson does not authorize handling bacteria, collecting water or starting a test.

A tenfold dilution mixes 1 part sample with 9 parts sterile water, so each step holds one tenth as many bacteria per mL as the tube before it. Original arithmetic example: a sample with 20,000 bacteria per mL becomes 2,000, then 200, then 20 bacteria per mL. These are math inputs, not measured results.

On April 8 each group also spreads a sterile control, labeled N: water with no bacteria added, handled exactly like the samples. If N grows colonies, bacteria from somewhere other than the coded sample reached the plates, and the counts from that set cannot be trusted.

Fresh tips at each transfer reduce carryover from an earlier tube. A reused tip carries extra bacteria forward and makes a weaker tube look stronger than it is. Thermo Fisher explains sample-to-sample carryover. These rules do not give the full lab procedure.

The only organism on April 8 is E. coli K-12 strain HB101, prepared by your teacher and handled with BSL-1 practices, which CDC and NIH describe for well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adults. Students who are immunocompromised, or sensitive to bleach or latex, tell the teacher before the lab. Bring one safety question: which PPE and which bleach decontamination route does the teacher-prepared E. coli K-12 culture require?

Keep the actual protocol, sample letters, plate labels, timing and safety directions as teacher-provided inputs. Nothing grows during the April 8 class, so no colony count exists until the plates are read on April 9. Never culture any other water or sample based on this practice.

Identify the players

Answer C1’s warmups and list who lives near, works at and profits from a possible source.

Use the fictional case; no personal experience is required.

Read and compare

Use all six D1 values. Find both means, their difference and ratio. Compare the means with E1’s limit. Choose a role and state two fairness reasons.

Keep mg/L with concentrations. Separate water concentration from dose or illness.

Track evidence and answer a counterpoint

Use the X1 group debate or label your solo comparison. Record claims, numbers, IDs and limits. Name the hardest counterpoint. Explain it in the class debrief or your solo response.

The same numbers can support different payment proposals without supporting false source claims.

Reflect and complete the async branch

Write the reflection paragraph. For async work, write the 150-word stance. Reply to a real classmate from another role when available. Otherwise, label the supplied-role fallback and pending board work.

State what data should change who pays, not only which role you chose.

Write the named product

Answer the X1 self-check. Write one evidence-based sentence on who bears responsibility and why. Add remediation or extension when applicable.

Keep the supporting record; a short exit does not erase authentic pending tasks.

Prepare and record status

Complete L1’s tenfold dilution math. Explain the sterile control N and fresh tips. Write a safety question. List missing lab inputs. Add P1 tracker work and submission status.

L1 arithmetic and the fictional readings do not replace the actual April 8 culture or its results.