There's kind of a grey area surrounding the appropriateness of questions on the human health effects of earth science-related processes for this site. Where should the line be drawn?
For example, a recent question was just put on hold that asked about the health effects of vehicle emissions and whether or not these caused cancer (Regarding car exhaust and it's possible carcinogenic effects). But, questions about health effects are routinely asked and answered on the site:
- Water veins underground causing health problems
- Is ground level ozone dangerous to human health when other pollutants are not present, for example, at high altitudes?
- Why do maps of melanoma prevalence correlate negatively with UV index, negatively with ground ozone, and positively with atmospheric ozone levels
I feel like the problem is not as straightforward as it seems at first, partially because human health effects are often used in public policy as a justification for action on climate change, air pollution, extreme weather, etc. and in paper introductions to justify the research conducted. Additionally, much of the research underlying these effects is not biological in nature (is not concerned with the biological mechanisms that cause x to result in health problems), but largely relies on epidemiology and population-based studies that, instead, demonstrate associations between health problems and earth science-related processes or results, and often rely heavily on models and research conducted in the geosciences. If human health is often the why behind earth science research, are we excluding something important or relevant if all questions on this topic are rejected?