Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Using Visuals to Engage Your Audience

charity, support and volunteering concept – close up of happy smiling volunteers stacking hands at distribution or refugee assistance center

By Gregory Kolen II.

When it comes to non-profit communications, visuals can go a long way in increasing engagement. Good visuals provide potential supporters with an easy way of understanding the importance and urgency of the cause they are being asked to support. It also helps them see how their contributions are making a difference.

The most effective visuals for non-profits include images or videos of the people directly impacted by environmental injustices, as well as pictures that show what progress has been made due to donations. Additionally, data visualizations are very helpful in displaying facts and statistics about the issue at hand. This helps people understand the scope and scale of the problem more clearly. When used together, these types of visuals can help create an emotional connection with potential supporters to demonstrate how their donation can help make a change.

Finally, it’s important for non-profits to be transparent with their visuals. It is essential that the visuals accurately portray what the organization is doing and why they need funding. This helps create trust between potential supporters and the organization, which will ultimately lead to more action and engagement.

Good visuals are an essential part of any action driven fundraising strategy, so make sure you take the time to find creative and impactful visuals for your organization!

References:

Environmental Justice Foundation. (2020). Visuals Matter: How Visuals Help In Non-Profit Fundraising. Retrieved from https://www.ejfoundation.org/visuals-matter-how-visuals-help-in-nonprofit-fundraising/

Mangione, T. (2018). 5 Reasons Why Images Are Essential For Non Profit Online Fundraising Campaigns. Retrieved from https://www.newzealandwebdesigner.com/images-essential-nonprofit-online-fundraising/

Sherwood, L. (2017). Visuals & Non Profit Fundraising: A Picture Tells a Thousand Words. Retrieved from https://www.everyaction.com/blog/visuals-nonprofit-fundraising/

Visual Storytelling for Nonprofits: The Power of Visual Content to Connect with Supporters and Raise Money. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.classy.org/blog/visual-storytelling-for-nonprofits/#1:_Know_Your_Audience_and_Choose_the_Right_Visuals.

Weil, S., & Philipp, E. (2015). Introduction to Data Visualization for Nonprofit Organizations. Retrieved from https://opentextbc

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Train Derailment in Ohio: More of the Same – “No Cause for Alarm”

Photo credit: Washington Post

By Stephen Lester.

How many times have we heard the same refrain from government leaders and scientists involved in community wide exposures such as the recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. This incident resulted in vinyl chloride gas being intentionally burned which sent hydrogen chloride, the toxic gas, phosgene, and dioxins/furans into the air. Health officials later stated that “there’s no cause for alarm, we have everything under control.”

If only this were true. Instead, hundreds of people who were evacuated remain frustrated by the lack of answers to their questions about health effects and accountability. This frustration is driven by how government leaders and scientists evaluate health risks and by the many uncertainties about what is known about the short- and long-term health effects associated with exposure to vinyl chloride or other chemicals. Scientists can estimate risks and give their opinions, but we simply don’t know what’s going to happen to the health of the people who were exposed to vinyl chloride in the aftermath of this accident. Yet this is exactly what people want to know – what’s going to happen to their health or to the health of their children because of the accident?

Here’s what we do know. We know that vinyl chloride is a human carcinogen and that it damages the liver and central nervous system; over 1,500 people living within a 1-mile by 2-mile area of the accident were evacuated; that Norfolk Southern opted to release and burn the vinyl chloride from all five derailed tankers releasing deadly fumes into the air to prevent a potentially disastrous explosion (see photo); that the state acted swiftly in evacuating the homes immediately surrounding the site of the accident; that 38 of the 150 cars being pulled by the train derailed; about 20 rail cars were carrying hazardous materials including five with vinyl chloride; other chemicals included butyl acrylate, ethyl hexyl acrylate and ethylene glycol mono-butyl ether. We also know that several days after the accident, most people are back in their homes with assurances from the local authorities that everything is fine. 

This is not surprising because government has repeatedly responded the same way in similar situations. But what was the scientific basis for this decision? According to EPA, air samples taken immediately after the accident and the intentional burn did not identify any substances at concentrations of concern. However, it’s hard to have much confidence in this testing because the tests did not include vinyl chloride and dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals ever conceived and the primary by-product of the burning of vinyl chloride. You can’t find a problem if you don’t test for the obvious chemicals you would expect to find in the air.

It’s no surprise then that several residents have filed suit against Norfolk Southern seeking a medical monitoring program for anyone living within a 30-mile radius of the derailment to determine who was affected by the toxic chemicals released by the accident and the subsequent burning of the vinyl chloride gas. They want medical screening for early detection of life-threatening medical conditions linked to vinyl chloride. This is a reasonable response to the many scientific uncertainties that exist in understanding what will happen to the health of people exposed to toxic chemicals like vinyl chloride.

If government leaders and scientists involved in East Palestine acknowledge the scientific uncertainties and honestly admit how little is known about chemical exposures and health outcomes, there may be a more satisfying resolution. A resolution that might include practical steps forward may be setting up medical screening for early detection of medical conditions linked to vinyl chloride.

However, if decision makers continue to protect the companies responsible for area-wide chemical exposures such as what occurred in East Palestine, this scenario will continue to play out as it has since the days of Love Canal more than 40 years ago. Isn’t it time we publicly acknowledge what we don’t know about exposures to toxic chemicals and stop deluding ourselves that using risk estimates that define “acceptable” exposures is the best way to manage exposures to toxic chemicals? There is no acceptable exposure if you’re the one being exposed. 

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Be Cautious When Playing on Artificial Fields

Photo credit: Getty Images

By Jose Aguayo.

Artificial turf fields have become the norm when it comes to athletic fields. They are everywhere here in northern Virginia and a reported 11,000 fields are in use in the entire country. I, myself, was just playing in one this past weekend (despite the freezing cold). However, there are lingering questions about the safety of these fields given that several studies have found elevated levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and toxic metals like lead present in them.

As someone who enjoys playing soccer, these turf fields are extremely convenient because they are available year-round, they provide a smooth and reliable surface to play on, and they don’t require much maintenance. Yet I am conflicted about playing in them, not just because of the myriad of toxic substances found in them, but because of the conflicting information we get from supposedly trusted sources.

As far back as 2007, concerns were raised from contaminants in artificial turf – specifically lead in an artificial turf field in New Jersey. Then, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) noted that the field posed a public health hazard and recommended that the field be closed. Not long after, however, the Consumer Protection and Safety Commission (CPSC) released an analysis of synthetic turf and concluded these fields are “OK to Install, OK to Play On” and that they are safe for young children.

Since then, there have been other studies that have found several different toxic substances in these turf fields. The problem is that there seem to be no standardized way of determining if the toxic chemicals in these fields are readily available to enter your system or if they are contained within the turf pellets and synthetic fibers. Research seems to point to wear and tear as the cause for some of these chemicals as it can likely migrate from the field to the users more easily, but it is not quite conclusive. The other problem is that there little to no research into the health effects of sustained exposure to artificial turf in humans.

In an attempt to clear the uncertainty around the health risks of artificial turf, a federal multiagency research plan was started in 2016. This research consists of two parts. Part 1 characterized the chemicals present in tire crumb rubber and was released in 2019. Unsurprisingly, it found several toxic chemicals present but suggested these chemicals have little to no routes of exposure to humans. Part 2 is still to be released and will fully explore possible human exposures to the chemicals found in the tire crumb rubber material. It will also include the results of a biomonitoring study being conducted by CDC/ATSDR to investigate potential exposure to constituents in tire crumb rubber.

After all this, at least until part 2 of the multiagency study is released, we are left with more questions than answers. Until then, I’d advise caution. It’s probably a good idea to choose natural grass fields whenever possible, like in the warmer months, and playing in artificial turf ones when there is no other alternative. A cautious approach is always best when dealing with toxics.

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

From Risk Assessment to Presumption

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

From Risk Assessment to Presumption

The last several issues of this series in Toxic Tuesday have addressed the difficulty in interpreting health risks when people are exposed to toxic chemicals. The last issue focused on the failure of the risk assessment approach to address these difficulties and the many critical limitations which make it inadequate and inappropriate for assessing public health risks. 

Despite these limitations, the government still relies on the risk assessment model as the “go-to” method to determine if the health problems people are suffering are due to exposures occurring or suspected of occurring in a community. Risk assessment fails to answer the basic question that people ask when exposed to toxic chemicals: How will my health, or the health of my children or family, be affected by these chemicals?

What we have seen over the years is that risk assessment cannot answer this question, no matter how well done or how much context is provided to help reduce misuse and misunderstanding. People exposed to toxic chemicals live for years with their exposures as scientists do health studies, health assessments, evaluate data on exposures and try to estimate risks. In most cases, people are told that the risk assessment shows that the level of toxic chemicals that people were exposed to are not likely (or some similar caveat) to cause any adverse health effects. Consequently, little, if any action is taken to protect communities exposed to toxic chemicals.

As part of CHEJ’s Unequal Response Unequal Protection campaign, we have been working with community leaders and environmental health scientists to develop a new approach that centers community leadership to address the difficult questions about chemical exposures. Instead of trying to determine if the health problems reported in a community were directly caused by the specific exposures to toxic chemicals occurring in that community, we adopted the approach  used by the federal government when considering adverse health effects suffered by veterans, active military, first responders, 9/11 victims and others exposed to toxic chemicals while serving their country.

In these situations, the government recognized that critical scientific information linking exposures and health outcomes was missing or incomplete thus making it necessary to make “presumptions” about exposures leading to the health problems suffered by these groups. This recognition led to the government providing health care, treatment, compensation and other assistance needed due to exposure to toxic substances suffered while serving our country. In communities where people have been exposed to toxic chemicals through no fault of their own, the government would extend a similar application of the presumptive approach. 

The presumptive approach asks what scientific information is sufficient to take action to protect people exposed to toxic chemicals? We propose the following approach to answer this question.

  1. Using existing and newly generated environmental sampling results collected in the impacted area, government (or an expert team of scientists) would compile a list of toxic substances to which the community is exposed.
  1. An independent committee of environmental and public health experts would then review the literature and determine what adverse health effects/diseases are associated with the toxic chemical(s) identified. Exposure to a chemical will be presumed to cause an adverse health effect if the evidence linking the chemical and the health effect is at least as likely as not, based on the strength of the studies found. The diseases with a positive association to the toxic substances present in the community would be used to decide which diseases will be presumed to be associated with the chemicals identified in the community.

Based on results of this approach, appropriate action to safeguard the health of the community can be taken. This decision could include remedies to lessen exposures and lessen the risk of injury and the effects of exposure. They might also include evacuation, providing a clean water supply, closing a polluting facility or implementing new emissions limitations.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

2-Butanone

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

2-Butanone

2-Butanone is an industrial chemical that is also known as methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). It manifests itself as a colorless liquid under standard conditions, tends to evaporate into the air (volatize) quickly, and is quite flammable. 2-Butanone is manufactured in large amounts for use in paints, glues, and other finishes because of its properties as a strong solvent and because of how quickly it can evaporate. It is also released into the air from the combustion process of vehicles.

Exposure to 2-butanone causes severe irritation to the eyes, nose, throat, and skin at high concentrations. Nervous system effects such as headaches, nausea, and dizziness have also been reported. Chronic health effects, those that develop due to long-term exposure to small quantities, are much less well understood.

Damage to the peripheral nervous system has been documented in individuals who sniffed glue, with 2-butanone being a significant part of the volatizing chemicals from glues. Liver, kidney, and respiratory effects were also observed in detailed studies of 2-butanone exposure in animals, while birth defects and malformations were observed in one rat study.

Exposure to 2-butanone can happen from a number of sources. Landfills and other contaminated industrial sites or factories tend to be significant sources. Although 2-butanone tends to evaporate into the air in these sites, because it has strong solvent properties, it also tends to sift through the soil into groundwater. Once there, it can remain trapped for several weeks. Active landfills that receive constant streams of paints, glues and similar products; or factories that produce or utilize 2-butanone can become significant hubs for exposure. If 2-butanone finds its way into drinking water sources, it can create a major exposure problem given its ability to remain present in water for an extended period of time.

Although groundwater and, potentially, drinking water can be easily contaminated by 2-butanone near factories and landfills, there is no federal drinking water standard for it. Certain states have taken a more precautionary approach and established local drinking water limits. For instance, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Minnesota have all set a guidance level of 4 mg/L. This proactive decision to limit the quantity of this potentially dangerous chemical should be an example to other states and the federal government.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »
Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Classic Toxicology No Longer Works

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Classic Toxicology No Longer Works

The dose makes the poison is the most basic principle of toxicology. The first chapter in every toxicology textbook discusses how the response to a poison depends on how much of the poison you are exposed to (often referred to as the “dose”). This principle assumes that chemicals act by overwhelming the body’s defenses at higher doses. It also assumes that at some lower dose, there is no harm or no effect.

But this basic principle may no longer hold true as what we know about exposures to toxic chemicals is changing. Some time ago, Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, wrote an overview paper on the changing science in the field of environmental health. She wrote in this paper that the antiquated perception of how chemicals act is being replaced by a “better understanding of the actual characteristics of modern environmental chemicals.”

These characteristics include the timing and vulnerability of exposure, exposures to mixtures, effects at low doses, and genetic alterations called “epigenetics.” Birnbaum addressed each of these frontiers of toxicology and discussed how each affects our understanding of the link between the environment and public health.  

It’s clear now that the body’s response to toxic chemicals is complex and not as predictable as classic toxicology would lead us to believe. Chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) and dioxin cause adverse effects at low doses, not predictable by classic toxicology. No longer can you safely assume that at some low dose there is no harm. Birnbaum makes it clear that within traditional toxicity “… [testing] of effects at some high doses are no longer adequate to [determining] the full spectrum of response from a given chemical.” What’s more, the effects observed at low doses may be different than those observed at higher doses.

We also now know that there are critical “windows of exposure” during development that determine effects – the same exposure at different times can result in different effects. There are also enhanced periods of vulnerability during prenatal development that “program” the bodies’ physiology leading to diseases in later life. According to Birnbaum, this phenomenon has been demonstrated for hypertension, coronary heart disease, and neurological and cognitive development.

Another advance in our understanding of toxicology comes from the field of epigenetics, or the study of changes in DNA expression that are independent of the DNA sequence itself. We now know that exposures to chemicals can alter the normal triggering mechanism that turns genes on or off that determines a person’s observable traits, such as blue eyes or susceptibility to diabetes or other illnesses. Says Birnbaum, “[We’re] born with our genes, but epigenetic changes occur because of environmental influences during development and throughout life.”

These advances in toxicology raise many questions about the adequacy of traditional methods of assessing the impact of exposure to chemicals like BPA or dioxin, not to mention mixtures. Regulatory agencies have not integrated this new science into the methods they use to assess public health risks and it’s likely to take some time before traditional toxicologists accept this new thinking and integrate it into their methods for assessing public health risks. In the meantime, recognize that some of what public health officials are telling you is antiquated and no longer applicable to the world we live in.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »
Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Polyvinyl Chloride

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Polyvinyl Chloride

Polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as “PVC” or “vinyl,” is the second largest commodity plastic in production in the world today, with an estimated 48.8 million tons produced worldwide in 2018. PVC is used in a wide range of products including pipes and tubing, school materials, product packaging, children’s toys, and several building materials.

PVC can safely be considered the worst plastic for our health and environment, as it releases dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer and other serious health effects from manufacture to disposal. The first problematic chemicals that can leach out of PVC products is phthalates. These are a group of industrial chemicals that are added to PVC to promote plasticity and flexibility. Because they are not chemically bound to PVC, these chemicals can leach out due to heat, pressure or simply time. Once they are out in the environment, they can enter our bodies and cause adverse health conditions such as hormone disruption, birth defects, infertility and asthma. Lead is another chemical that is commonly found in PVC. Lead exposure is especially dangerous for growing children, who can suffer from nervous system development problems and learning disabilities.

Aside from direct exposure to PVC, the manufacturing and disposal process of PVC can release harmful chemicals called dioxins. Dioxins are formed and released when PVC is burned (during disposal) or manufactured under high heat and pressure. They are a highly toxic group of chemicals that build up in the food chain, cause cancer and can harm the immune and reproductive systems. Their toxicity is of such concern that they have been targeted for global phase out by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

As mentioned previously, exposure to PVC through everyday consumer products can be significant. Children’s toys can be substantially bad offenders, although CHEJ’s PVC campaign of the late 2000s made a difference in removing a lot of PVC from the toy market. Other items that remain problematic are children’s backpacks, shower curtains, rain boots, raincoats, vinyl flooring and roofing, plastic food containers, and pet toys.

CHEJ helped develop a resolution from the American Public Health Association (APHA) – a policy statement that has the full backing of the organization – back in 2011. CHEJ was instrumental in convincing the APHA to endorse reducing PVC in facilities with vulnerable populations such as nursing homes and hospitals. This was a monumental statement from the premier public health organization in the country about the dangers of PVC.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »
Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Hydrogen Sulfide

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas that has a strong rotten egg odor. It is produced naturally by the decaying process of organic matter and can also be released from crude petroleum, natural gas, and volcanic eruptions. Hydrogen sulfide is a very common gas that is generated in large farms and food processing plants, sewage treatment facilities, and landfills.

Since it is such a common compound found in large industrial operations, the health effects  of acute exposure to hydrogen sulfide are rather well defined. At high concentrations, at or above the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health’s (NIOSH) Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 10 parts per million, exposure to hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes and respiratory system.  At higher concentrations, it can cause apnea, convulsions,  dizziness, weakness, insomnia, and even death.

However, long-term chronic effects of exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide are just now gaining some attention. A study published in 2015 looked at the effects of low-level exposure to hydrogen sulfide among Iranian workers from a natural gas processing plant and found elevated numbers of altered hemoglobin in the blood of those exposed. This can lead to a condition known as methemoglobinemia, which causes developmental delays and intellectual disabilities – symptoms that are even more detrimental in children. Other health effects have been documented, but the association to long-term exposure is less well defined. These include problems with the retina, respiratory problems, and neurological effects.

These findings become significant because a large number of industrial facilities in the US produce hydrogen sulfide around residential areas. Landfills are perhaps the locations where hydrogen sulfide emissions are most common. A group in Bristol VA that is working with CHEJ is suffering from constant hydrogen sulfide (among other chemicals) odors from a landfill that leave the community with headaches and other health problems. CHEJ continues to work with the community to close the landfill.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »
Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Atrazine

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Atrazine

Atrazine is one of the most common herbicides used in the United States, with over 70 million pounds applied to crops each year. Used mostly in large scale agriculture of crops such as corn, sugarcane, and pineapples, atrazine is the most widely detected herbicide in drinking water. Figures vary, but a conservative estimate puts measurable levels of atrazine in the drinking water of nearly 30 million Americans in 28 states. With so many people exposed to this compound, it is worth examining any potential effects it may have on people.

Atrazine seems to have three ways of harming human health. Firstly, research suggests it alters the levels of key hormones animals. In male frogs, for example, atrazine has been observed to trigger the development of female sex characteristics. In a more recent study, abnormalities in the male reproductive organs of marsupials exposed to atrazine have been documented. Secondly, atrazine seems to have detrimental reproductive effects. There are significant associations between exposure to the herbicide and effects such as increased risk of miscarriage, reduced fertility, low birth weight, and increased chance of birth defects. Finally, there is evidence that atrazine could have carcinogenic effects. Animal studies have found a strong connection between atrazine and breast cancer. More research is required to see if this connection holds in exposed human populations.

Atrazine levels in drinking water are capped at 3 micrograms per liter (µg/L) by the EPA. This Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) as it is termed, however, is not based on health protective data, but on feasibility considerations for public water treatment systems. The state of California has developed entirely health-based protective values that are much smaller – 0.15 µg/L. This value should be the benchmark for drinking water systems, especially those in the Midwest where seasonal spikes of atrazine of more than 6 times the MCL have been recorded.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »
Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Wildfires

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Wildfires

With news of the massive wildfire outside California’s Yosemite Park covering over 18,000 acres of land in June 2022, we wanted to talk about the problems associated with forest fires and pollution. Wildfires are destructive in their own right but are not what one would typically consider a source of pollution. Fires serve many natural purposes – they clear dead organic materials from forests and return valuable nutrients to the soil for instance. But when they reach large proportions and burn uncontrollably, they can release a number of air pollutants that decrease air quality and can cause significant health problems in nearby communities.

A number of air pollutants can be released from wildfires. Heavy metals like lead, zinc, and manganese have been found in elevated levels in the air and in the soil after wildfires, especially in areas that contained man-made buildings and other structures. Nitrogen oxides, a widespread air pollutant that has national air quality standards for indoor air, can be released in significant quantities during a forest fire. These chemicals can cause several respiratory problems such as increased inflammation of the airways, cough and wheezing, and reduced lung function.

Perhaps the most serious health threats from forest fire pollution comes in the form of particulate matter pollution. Particulate matter is a mix of very tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in air. These particles range in size but can be so small that they can enter a person’s lungs and remain lodged deep inside them. The health effects associated with this form of pollution are similar to those of nitrogen oxides. Short term effects such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation; coughing; sneezing; runny nose; and shortness of breath are common. In the long-term, severe effects like chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function and increased mortality from lung cancer and heart disease have been observed.

The drought currently being experienced by California and much of the continental US is fueling fires like the one outside Yosemite, and we can only expect more in the future. Climate change driven by human activity is creating these drought conditions and in turn making wildfires like this one much more common occurrences. The pollution created by these fires in turn will affect those that cannot afford to move to avoid it, who more often than not are low-income and minority communities. We need to be conscious that the emission of greenhouse gasses by industry is not just a problem that will affect us and our children in the future, but is something that is killing people now.

Learn about more toxics

Cyanide

Cyanide is a chemical usually found in compounds with other chemicals. Cyanide compounds can be

Read More »