Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Author: CHEJ Intern

Categories
Backyard Talk

EPA Should Make Environmental Justice Job One

By Laura Barrett

Re-posted from ROOFLINES–the Shelterforce blog

The EPA is making news lately.  Unfortunately, it’s not for protecting the environment or victims of pollution. Activist groups, low income residents of communities plagued by toxins, and journalists are all taking the EPA to task because they charge that through inaction, it is aiding environmental racism.

In July, Earthjustice and five other groups sued the EPA for its failure to investigate civil rights complaints. These non-profits say that the EPA is letting states “off the hook” when they grant permits to companies that pollute in communities of color. “It is unacceptable that the racial composition of a community continues to be a critical factor in predicting exposure to toxic contamination,” Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado said. “Justice has been delayed for too long. While EPA sits on these complaints, facilities continue to pollute and communities living in proximity to these facilities are deprived of their rights.”

In August, six other organizations filed an “intent to sue” against the EPA for failing to update its regulations on mining waste. (They are the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization.)

The groups are calling on the EPA to update its mining waste disposal rules, which they say should have been revised more than a quarter century ago. The activists believe that an influx of mining wastes from fracking has greatly exacerbated environmental problems.

“These are not your mom and pop wells of the 1980s, and their waste can no longer be ignored and listed as being non-hazardous,” said Teresa Mills of CHEJ’s Ohio field office. “For the agency to keep calling millions of gallons/tons of hazardous material as non-toxic is mind-boggling. The free ride for the oil and gas industry must end now.”

Over the last few months the Center for Public Integrity has released an investigative series on the EPA’s record on civil rights complaints. The Center found that EPA officials rejected 95 percent of the hundreds of civil rights complaints it has received. Keep in mind this is the EPA office specifically charged with investigating complaints of discrimination filed against state and local agencies that get EPA funds and, when seeing evidence of injustice, making things right. It’s a shocking dereliction of duty. And it’s one that leaves low income communities of color, rural people and indigenous people–often the victim of the most egregious polluters–increasingly vulnerable.

In September, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Rights announced that it will more aggressively evaluate recipients of EPA funding to ensure their compliance with federal civil-rights laws. A draft Strategic Plan was released recently. The five-year plan commits the agency for the first time to conduct targeted compliance reviews. The plan seems to be a response to the Center for Public Integrity’s investigative series.

What can ordinary people do to recall the Office of Civil Rights to its mission? The Center for Health, Environment and Justice is circulating an online petition targeting EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. More than one thousand people have already signed. It’s one way to express some outrage and insist that Black Lives that are downwind of pollution Matter.

(Photo credit: Sheila, via flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Categories
Backyard Talk

The Clean Air Act has Potential for at Risk Populations

On August 3rd , 2015, president Obama and the EPA announced the finalization of the Clean Power Plan, which sets a first ever national limit on carbon pollution emitted by the electric power sector. Before then, electric plants, which contribute 31 percent total carbon emissions in the U.S., had the freedom to emit as much pollution as they pleased. Not only does the plan aim to help the United States step down from being one of the largest contributors to climate change, it allows at risk communities to step up and interact with the state government to change polluted air conditions.

It’s not uncommon to hear of low-income minorities living in higher polluted conditions compared to more affluent white neighborhoods. It is a problem long known where a 20 yearlong study from 1987 to 2007 by the United Church of Christ found that 56 percent and 30 percent of people of color and low socioeconomic live in commercially hazardous host neighborhoods (i.e. where these facilities and neighborhoods are very close, overlapping one another within a 3 kilometer area) and non-host neighborhoods, respectively. To show how high the disparages are, a study published by the University of Minnesota found that nationally, minorities are on average exposed to 38 percent higher levels of NO2, a contributor to asthma and heart attacks, than white communities. With increased exposure to harmful chemicals chances of developing health problems, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease increases as well.

The Clean Power Plan has the potential to significantly reduce these harmful emissions across the nation and possibly give communities who are at most risk of facing air pollution the much needed attention they deserve. The CPP requires States to demonstrate how they involved communities in decisions while creating a plan to meet CO2 emission standards, which can make it easier for some people to provide input on what strategies may benefit or harm their neighborhoods. With the CPP in full effect, the plan claims asthma in children is expected to be slashed by as much as 70 percent or 90,000 less attacks, prevent 3,600 premature deaths, and eliminate CO2 emissions by 32 percent by 2030.

The CPP prioritizes early investment in energy efficient projects in low income communities. The plan hopes this will speed up the process in switching to greener energy sources, thereby cutting carbon emissions quicker. When states submit their plans, they are required to show how they are engaged with the vulnerable communities. States are given flexibility when choosing a plan; one such option would be to increase efficiency at power plants, generating more power with less pollution. Adopting natural gas generation over coal could be another route to cleaner air, where carbon emissions are as half as much versus coal. The cleanest choice, however, is increasing electricity that originated from greener sources such as wind or solar power, in which there are virtually no carbon emissions.

The Clean Power Plan was drafted with ideas and comments from 4 million people concerned about the air. The plan has the potential to progress further by incorporating involvement from communities nationwide and could provide Americans with clean energy and clean air for the future. To learn more about the exciting changes taking place, click on this link for a fact sheet published by the White House.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Pope supports environmental justice in Ecuador, will he in the US?

by Vesta Davis

Since being elected pope in March 2013, Pope Francis has been ruffling some feathers. Many consider him to be the most progressive pope yet. He has openly stated that the Catholic Church has been too focused on the topics of gay marriage, birth control, and abortion, while neglecting the poor and the marginalized. Pope Francis has frequently mentioned climate change, the environment, and the people who will suffer the most from global warming.

Before coming to the United States for his 3-city tour of the country, the Pope spent his July traveling through Bolivia, Ecuador, and Paraguay, He made history by focusing on the poor communities, prisoners, and youth, rather than endorsing politicians. Perhaps one of the most notable illustrations of this change was in Ecuador when he spoke at the Pontifical Catholic University. He spoke to both students and professors, urging them to not be blinded by their privilege. He implored to them to value their physical environment and to recognize that they are equal to the less privileged, regardless of any difference in education.

For decades now, there has been a building tension in Ecuador between many of the indigenous communities and the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. Before the Pope’s arrival, he received numerous requests from indigenous group leaders and environmental activists to address oil extraction in Ecuador and its impact on the poor and indigenous communities. Just this past May, Pope Francis published his second encyclical letter entitled “Laudato si,” in which he argues the importance of environmental stewardship and sustainable development, particularly for poor and indigenous communities.

Since Correa assumed the presidency in 2007, oil extraction has become a major issue in Ecuador. In 2007, Correa initiated the Yasuni-ITT project, with the hopes of receiving outside funding and making local oil drilling unnecessary.  However, this plan was scrapped in 2013. Thus, Correa auctioned off about 3 million acres of land to the Chinese oil conglomerate PetroOriential in exchange for $1.2 billion. The oil extraction in Ecuador will occur within the Yasuni National Park, one of the most bio-diverse regions of the world and home to numerous indigenous communities.

While it is unlikely that Pope Francis held a private discussion with Correa about oil drilling, he did make a public appeal, claiming that “the tapping of natural resources, which are so abundant in Ecuador, must not be concerned with short-term benefits.” This is all well and good, but it’s not exactly what the indigenous groups and activists were asking for. One of the major benefits of Correa’s plan is that it will decrease poverty throughout Ecuador—1.3 million people have already be alleviated from poverty since Correa became president. However, is a plan to alleviate poverty really successful if it destroys the homes and heritage of a whole other group of people? I think not.

With Pope Francis now arriving in D.C., I am curious to see what social issues he will discuss with President Obama and Congress. Will he perhaps address the Keystone Pipeline fiasco? Or mention other environmental justice and land rights issues that occur in the United States? We’ll have to wait and see.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Billions of Taxpayer Dollars a Year Spent in Support of Coal Industry

By Dylan Lenzen

Despite recent efforts by the federal government, such as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, to phase out one of the dirtiest forms of energy generation in coal power plants, a new report shows the US government still provides ample financial support to the coal industry by spending billions of taxpayer dollars on subsidies.   According to this recent report, the US government subsidizes the coal industry to the tune of $2.9 billion a year in the Powder River Basin alone. These subsidies come in the form of direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, discounted leases, government-funded infrastructure, and reduced funding for cleanup efforts after mining is complete.

This report comes as the climate change, public health, and environmental justice effects of coal energy generation are increasingly being realized. Coal power plants are responsible for roughly one-third of the America’s carbon dioxide emissions. On top of that, coal power plants have long been associated with adverse health effects as a result of toxic SO2, NOx , and particulate matter emissions that lead to billions of dollars in healthcare costs. In addition, according to a report by NAACP, the negative effects of coal power are more likely to be experienced by low-income and minority communities, as power plants are often located in such areas.  Also, NAACP found that the worst performing coal power plants disproportionately affect low-income people of color. So, not only are American citizens forced to bear significant costs of coal energy generation in the form of adverse health effects, but also through their tax dollars, which subsidize the industry and support its proliferation.

While efforts, such the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, are working to reduce coal power’s contribution to climate change and negative public health outcomes, authors of the study on coal subsidies argue that the elimination of this financial support would be the best route to take in order to phase out the dirty energy source. The authors of the study suggest that elimination of subsidies going to the Powder River Basin would result in CO2 emission reductions that are equivalent to closing 9 to 32 coal power plants.

The US and other governments also support other forms of fossil fuel energy generation through subsidies. The International Monetary Fund recently estimated that coal, oil, and gas were supported by $5.3 trillion in subsidies. This figure includes not only direct subsidies, such as tax breaks, but also indirect costs imposed on society that result from the adverse effects of pollution and climate change.

So, maybe the United States government deserves some credit for their work in enacting the Clean Power Plan, but efforts will not adequately address the issues of coal energy generation until the US eliminates opposing policies such as coal subsidies.

Categories
Backyard Talk

New Citizen Science Resources for Environmental Justice

Citizen science initiatives for environmental monitoring are enabling communities to take their health into their own hands by conducting grassroots monitoring projects. Some of the most recent advances have occurred in the arena of air quality monitoring, providing more readily available resources and training for communities to fight for environmental justice using science.

On July 9th, the EPA held a Community Air Monitoring Training Workshop, sharing tools and trainings to interested community groups on how to start and maintain community monitoring initiatives, and covering technologies that make monitoring more simple and affordable. The training workshop focused specifically on Next Generation Air Monitoring (NGAM) technology, which increasingly includes smaller, more cost-effective sensors and monitoring techniques. Videos and resources from the training are available at the Air Sensor Toolbox for Citizen Scientists website.

Low-income communities and communities of color are overburdened by environmental health threats, and air quality is no exception to this rule. Air pollution may play a key role in increased rates of asthma and other respiratory problems within low-income communities of color, which compound with other stressors to profoundly decrease quality of life for these populations. Many low-income communities are located in proximity to emission sources including highways and power plants, placing these communities on the frontlines of environmental exposure.

As the EPA states in their Roadmap for Next Generation Air Monitoring techniques, traditional air quality monitoring relies on stationary equipment, which capture data only on the air quality in their immediate vicinity. Not only does this method miss small variations in air quality between neighborhoods and even streets, it fails to consider indoor sources which are highly relevant for determining individual exposures. Traditional air quality monitoring, with its focus on average air quality values, fails to capture the full, cumulative burdens faced by our most environmentally vulnerable communities.  By using more portable sensors to gather environmental data, citizens and community groups can gather data that better reflects that spatial variation in air pollution, while gaining a better understanding of their individual exposures.

While the Air Sensor Toolbox is a valuable addition to citizen science resources, it is far from perfect. Because these devices are lower-tech and new to the monitoring field, they cannot usually provide data that holds up in the regulatory sphere. While I am excited to see monitoring technology in the hands of communities, it would be an unfortunate outcome if they grow to bear the burden for producing environmental data that fails to be acknowledged as legitimate in the legislative sphere. Additionally, in their post advertising the videos, an EPA writer states  that several of these devices cost less than a thousand dollars. While significantly cheaper than high-tech laboratory equipment, this cost may still places monitoring devices out of reach of the most vulnerable communities who could most benefit from these resources. As a scientist, I hope to see more outreach projects in the future from both government agencies and academic institutions focused specifically on building capacity for citizen science and providing resources to make these initiatives even more accessible

More resources, including videos of trainings from the recent workshop, are available at EPA’s website.

For outstanding examples of citizen science in action, visit the website of the Global Community Monitor, and read about communities tackling air pollution with low-cost “bucket brigades.”

Categories
Backyard Talk

Remembering 9/11’s Effects on a Forgotten Community

By Kaley Beins

At 8:45am on September 11, 2001, the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, and so many lives fundamentally changed. Now, 14 years later, though we continue to remember the lives lost that day, the tragedy lives on in many ways.

In the aftermath of the attacks, many New Yorkers criticized former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman for claiming, “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.” In 2004 the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported that first responders were likely to have respiratory problems as a result of their exposure to the caustic dust, eventually concluding in a 2009 study that first responders were twice as likely to have asthma as the general public. Although Mount Sinai posted a 9/11 health advisory in 2001 and advised New York City health officials to follow suit, NYC did not distribute health information until 2006, 5 years after the attacks. Researchers continue to study health problems related to 9/11, and have found possible links to cancer, kidney problems, and heart disease. While there are now health programs such as the WTC Environmental Health Center to help with health problems related to 9/11, the long-term health effects first responders face as a result of their heroism are stark.

There is another group potentially affected by the air pollution and debris from September 11th: the inhabitants of Chinatown. One of the residential areas nearest Ground Zero, Chinatown, Manhattan has the largest Chinese population in the Western Hemisphere. The neighborhood demographics also include immigrants from Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Burma, the Philippines, and West Africa. Its median household income is less than $36,000, about 30% lower than the median household income for New York City as a whole, and only 55% of residents 18 years or older have a high school diploma. The 2005 American Community Survey found that almost 90% of Chinatown residents speak a language other than English at home. The combination of economic pressure and a language barrier puts Chinatown in a precarious position in terms of public health.

According to a 2007 study from NYU School of Medicine’s Center for the Study of Asian American Health about a third of Chinese participants needed a translator during medical appointments. Although organizations such as the Charles B. Wang Community Health Center are addressing the lack of resources for Asia Americans in New York, the health disparity in the Chinatown community may leave them even more susceptible to 9/11-related health problems.

Ground One: Voices from Post-9/11 Chinatown has interviewed people from Chinatown, including healthcare professionals, about the effects of the attacks on their communities. Dr. Blanche Leung, a physician affiliated with NYU’s Tisch Hospital, has noticed an increase in complaints about respiratory problems in her Chinatown patients that could potentially be related to the attacks. Following the events of September 11th, she wrote prescriptions for air purifiers. Dr. Sun Hoo Foo, a neurologist at Downtown Hospital, said that the economic problems Chinatown faced after 9/11 meant many of his patients lost their jobs and therefore their medical insurance. As the Ground One project says on their website, “9/11 was a national tragedy that exposed local fault lines.” While it is crucial to support the first responders in their health struggles, who is supporting Chinatown?

Part of environmental justice is giving equal attention and consideration to every affected community. Unfortunately, more limited access to healthcare may prevent residents of Chinatown from receiving the care they need. As we remember the lives of those lost on that horrific day 14 years ago, let us not forget those who continue to face its lingering effects, particularly when they still lack support.

Categories
Backyard Talk

New Study Highlights Reproductive Risks from Fracking Chemicals

Could pollution from unconventional oil and gas drilling cause reproductive problems? Scientists at the University of Missouri are trying to answer this question. A study published yesterday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives assessed the research so far on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing. The study presented research linking fracking to EDCs, and the authors recommended an increased focus on these compounds in assessing health risks from fracking pollution.

Endocrine disrupting compounds are a class of chemicals that can alter the delicately balanced endocrine system of the human body, interfering with processes involved in development and reproduction. Some EDCs prevent the endocrine system from carrying out normal functions, while others can mimic hormones naturally found in the body and cause increased endocrine activity. As the study authors note, EDCs are of particular concern because they can have effects at very low concentrations, especially during the early stages of development. Small doses of EDCs can cause drastic health changes, some of which can persist across generations.

One section of the study looked at the endocrine disrupting properties of individual chemicals in fracking fluid. Unfortunately, the identities of many of the approximately 1000 chemicals used in the fracking process are kept under wraps by industry, limiting the extent to which scientists can test any of the health effects they present. Of the chemicals the researchers were able to test, many had endocrine-disrupting properties. When the scientists assessed water samples from areas where drilling-related spills had occurred, they also found elevated endocrine disrupting activity. Chemicals involved in fracking processes are associated with reproductive effects, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and cancer, and several epidemiological studies cited in the paper found elevated risks for these problems in drilling-dense areas.

The study also focused on identifying gaps in our knowledge of EDCs in fracking chemicals. While our understanding of the impacts of individual chemicals is growing, we need to develop better methods for predicting and assessing how these chemicals might interact as part of a complex mixture, where the presence of multiple compounds could result in a more potent disruptive effect than that of one chemical alone. By studying concentrations of EDCs and their byproducts in people’s systems, we can determine what chemicals people are actually exposed to, and gather better information on whether these exposures are related to long-term health issues.

Overall, the study concluded that fracking health studies should include a significant focus on endocrine disrupting compounds. Among the many risks presented by fracking, exposure to complex mixtures of EDCs in the environment may prove to have extraordinary longterm effects.

Learn more:  http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/8/ehp.1409535.acco.pdf

Categories
Backyard Talk

Renewables Become the Second Most Popular Source of Electricity

By: Katie O’Brien
Renewables have just become the second most popular source of electricity in the World! Making it the first time since 2001, natural gas was bumped from the number two spot. While coal still holds the number one spot, this is a huge step in the right direction for clean energy.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), 41% of electricity still came from coal, but over 22% came from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and wave power. The increase in renewables can be attributed to 34 countries that are apart of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that work together to seek answers to common problems, identify good practices and provide a platform to compare policy experiences. The increase however is not caused by a growth in renewable infrastructure, but rather an enormous decrease in coal electricity production. A study done by West Virginia University shows that there will be 39% decrease in coal production by 2035.
Europe has been a frontrunner in renewables. In the first quarter of this year, the U.K. alone produced over 22% of their power solar sources. Last year, Scotland provided enough electricity through wind power to power 72% of homes within the country. The European Renewable Energy Council has predicted that by the year 2050 (or sooner), that the European Union will have a completely renewable energy supply for the entire E.U. territory.
The U.S. is also working towards a more renewable future. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, in 2004, investments in renewable energy were around $9 billion. In the first quarter of 2015, that number rose to more than $50 billion. With renewables on the rise, and fossil fuels on the decline, the World is looking to a greener, cleaner, and brighter future.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Neglacting the Marshall Islands

By: Amelia Meyer


In the early 50s the United States Atomic Energy Commission announced the establishment of Pacific Proving Grounds on about 2000 islands in the North pacific, including the Marshall Islands.  They conducted over a hundred nuclear tests there. In the Marshall Islands the United States conducted more Nuclear Testing there than in any other location in the world. This has had a significant impact on their health for the past few decades. There were several serious birth defects and an abundant amount of cancer cases throughout the Marshall Islands. In 1990 the Marshall Islands were paid over seven hundred million dollars to compensate for the radiation health issues. However this is not nearly enough to repay for the lives lost and defects that were caused.

Now the Marshall Islands are suffering significantly again. Climate change and rising carbon dioxide levels have affected many impacts of our world in the past few years. One serious issue is sea level rise. Cities all over the world are suffering from impacts of flooding and sea level rise. Severe weather, warmer ocean temperatures, and the melting of the glaciers have significantly affected sea level rise. A country that is impacted the most currently is the Marshall Islands.

Over the past couple years there have been dozens of floods throughout the Marshall Islands. These stem from stronger storms and a variety of weather events. However it’s mostly from the rise of the sea level surrounding the whole country which is composed of over a thousand Islands and over twenty coral atolls. Around seventy thousand people live in the Marshall Islands but many natives are moving to Arkansas. Why?

Hundreds of homes have been destroyed by the floods and many babies, children, and adults have floated away. The citizens of the Marshall Islands are so terrified of the water that they want to be as land locked as possible. Therefore they have been moving to Arkansas. If they have not moved yet they are planning to. Unfortunately the Marshall Islands will not last long because of Sea Level Rise. It is expected that by 2020 most of the Islands will have sunken under the water. This is also an environmental risk to the Ocean and aquatic ecosystems because of the Nuclear Testing that was done earlier. Overall the Marshall Islands have been neglected and suffered a significant amount due to Climate Change and Nuclear Testing and the country and its residents deserve attention and support from society.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Risks & Rewards of Nanoremediation

Michael Crichton’s 2002 novel Prey features a terrifying interpretation of nanotechnology, when swarms of “nanobots” become self-aware and predatory. His book is entirely fictional, but even outside the realm of popular culture, mentions of nanotechnology can stoke our fears about what might happen if science advances beyond our control.

What is nanotechnology? Any technology that works with and manipulates particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in length or width can fall under the nanotech umbrella. Particles of this size are too small to see with the naked eye – they are about the size of a virus or of your DNA. In the real world, predatory nano-swarms don’t top the list of scientists’ concerns. Instead, they are engaged with determining the environmental and health impacts of our increasing use of nanotechnology in medicine, energy generation, communication technology, and even environmental remediation.

In the environmental field, nanotechnology is used to remediate or clean up polluted groundwater, wastewater, soil and sediment. Nanoremediation methods use materials at the nanoscale to reduce pollutant levels at contaminated sites. Nanomaterials have several properties that make them well-suited to this task. They are tiny in size, enabling them to enter very small spaces and travel further and more widely than larger particles. They also have a high surface area relative to their mass, making it easier for them to react with compounds. (Karn et al., 2009).

When nanoparticles interact with toxic compounds, they operate in one of two ways – breaking down the compounds, or immobilizing them. Nanoparticles can cause reactions that transform toxic compounds to less harmful products. They also can bind to the compounds, immobilizing them and preventing them from exerting further harm on the environment. Iron nanoparticles are one of the most commonly used compounds, used to break down or bind and immobilize harmful contaminants (Karn et al., 2009).



[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]

Site remediation with iron nanoparticles. Credit: Lehigh University


According to the EPA, federal, state and local governments, as well as private industry, are expected to spend billions of dollars each year cleaning up hundreds of thousands of contaminated sites over the next three decades. Researchers have concluded that by using nanotechnology in environmental remediation, we have the potential to reduce the cost, time and effort involved with cleaning up contaminated sites (Karn et al, 2009). One major advantage of nanoremediation is its ability to be used as an on-site, or in situ, treatment method. Removing and transporting toxic sediment or soil can involve excessive time and effort, and in situ methods like nanoremediation eliminate this cost.

However, concerns naturally emerge any time we introduce new compounds to the environment. While nanoparticles are designed and used to reduce contaminant toxicity, they may have the potential to generate harmful byproducts, or products that are even more mobile in the environment. While nanomaterials typically stay in or near the site where they are applied, several studies have shown their ability to travel larger distances, carrying with them absorbed contaminants (Karn et al, 2009). Recent research has also investigated the potential for nanoparticles to enter the food chain and bioaccumulate.

Nanoremediation has the potential to revolutionize contaminated site cleanup, but it also carries unknown risks. Balancing these risks and benefits will be critical to the future of environmental management. The good news? We are (probably) safe from predatory nanobots.

Image: National Science Foundation

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]