By Leila Waid.

Climate change is already having an enormous impact on our world. All individuals are at risk from the debilitating effects of climate change due to an increase in events such as heat waves, flooding, wildfires, and other natural disasters. However, some individuals are more at risk than others and face higher disparities, such as pregnant women and neonates. 

One of the most significant consequences of climate change already being felt are the overbearing heat waves that roll in summer after summer. And every year, it just seems to get hotter and hotter. In fact, not only does it “seem” to, but it actually does get warmer. In fact, “summer 2024…was the warmest summer on record for the Northern Hemisphere, beating the previous record set in 2023 by .66 degrees Celsius, or 1.19 degrees Fahrenheit.” What will next year bring? What about the next five or ten years? And how will the most vulnerable among us be able to adapt to these changes?

Pregnant individuals and their fetuses are extremely vulnerable to health exhaustion and heat stroke. For example, a study found that exposure to high temperatures during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of childhood lymphoblastic leukemia. Most alarmingly, the study found that the correlation was strongest during the first trimester – specifically at eight weeks of gestation. At eight weeks of pregnancy many individuals may not even know they are pregnant. Thus, this could potentially lead to higher levels of heat exposure since the pregnant person may not realize that they need to take preventive measures, such as staying hydrated and keeping out of direct sun.

Another study found that exposure to high temperatures during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of the infant being born low-weight and pre-term. The study also found an association between high-temperature exposure and stillbirth. The risk was most pronounced for women in lower socioeconomic levels, with higher income providing a protective factor against the health risks.

And it is not only the fetus that suffers from exposure to high temperatures, but the pregnant person also faces increased health risks. A study found that heat exposure was associated with a 27% increased risk of severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The study defines SMM as a “near-miss for maternal mortality, referring to severe and unexpected conditions during labor and delivery.” Notedly, the study focused on both short-term and long-term exposure to heat and found that both exposure types were associated with an increase in SMM. These findings suggest that even one exposure to a heat wave could impact a pregnant individual’s health status.

Unfortunately, heat waves are not the only pathway through which climate change harms pregnant women health and well-being. For example, researchers are analyzing the effect that flooding has on pregnancy outcomes. A particular concern, especially in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC), is how flooding can impede individuals’ ability to access much-needed healthcare services, especially in situations where walking to the healthcare center is the only option – such as in this research study conducted in Zambia. And even if transportation access is usually reliable, resources can still become scarce in emergency situations, with ambulances and medical workers being overwhelmed during flooding events. For example, a study found that pregnant women exposed to extreme floods in South Carolina had increased risk of SMM.

However, even putting aside the practical ways, such as transportation, by which flooding can complicate access to prenatal, labor, and post-natal care needs, there is also the emotional toll that the experience places on the pregnant individual. One study focused on comparing mental health outcomes for women who were pregnant during Hurricane Katrina and women who were not. The researchers found that pregnant people had much higher rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression compared to their non-pregnant counterparts.

As evident, the impact of climate change on pregnant people is multidimensional and compounding. But we are not hopeless or helpless in fighting to address this issue. Advocating for climate change policies is the best way to help address the health inequalities pregnant women face and guarantee they and their children can be healthy and thrive. We must ensure that the next generation is born into a greener, more beautiful world.

By Stephen Lester.

Today marks the 23^rd anniversary of the horrific attacks on the United States that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries when al-Qaida hijackers crashed four jetliners into the twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon and a field in southwest Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. 

The legacy of the events from that day continues for the first responders, volunteers and nearby residents in New York City who were exposed to the toxic cloud that resulted when the two World Trade Center buildings collapsed. These people were exposed to a mixture of particulate matter and chemical agents, some of which are known human carcinogens or linked to various respiratory illnesses.

To help survivors and first responders involved in the attack, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) was established by the U.S. Department of Justice on Sept. 22, 2001 to provide compensation for individuals who suffered physical injuries or took part in the cleanup efforts in the aftermath of the attacks. The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 would later reactivate the VCF and lead to the creation of the CDC’s World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) to provide additional medical benefits to victims.

The WTCHP offers medical screening, monitoring, and treatment to 9/11 first responders and survivors with presumptive WTC-related health conditions. The program also covers medically associated conditions that resulted from treatment or progression of WTC-related health conditions. To establish these associated illnesses, the WTCHP’s established a Scientific/ Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of medical and environmental health specialists who conduct extensive scientific literature reviews to identify health conditions that may be related to the particulates and chemicals present in the toxic cloud. This committee also makes recommendations regarding additions to the program’s eligibility criteria and WTC-Related Health Conditions List. This fund is not only for those who were first responders, but to also for nearby residents and others who were impacted by chemicals in the toxic cloud. 

The main criteria for people to receive assistance through the Victim Compensation Fund are:

1. Proof certified by a program-affiliated physician of 9/11-related physical injury or condition listed as WTCHP’s eligible presumptive illnesses. Certification indicates that an applicant’s condition is among one of the WTCHP’s presumptive conditions and their exposure to the 9/11 attacks likely caused, aggravated or contributed to that condition.
2. Proof of presence at one of the attack sites or along debris removal routes during Sept. 11, 2001 through May 30, 2002.
3. Proof that they belong to an eligible group (first responders and/or survivors).

Importantly, people do not have to show proof that their presence at an attack site or debris removal site caused their illness or injury in order to receive assistance.

The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) has been extended to 2090 and plans to continue to secure funding. Officials at the Department of Justice, which runs the program warned in Time magazine in 2019 “that people exposed to the toxins released during the Sept, 11^th attacks and their aftermath may not even be experiencing the full health effects yet. For instance, the world Trade Center was known to contain asbestos which causes mesothelioma, a deadly disease that can take decades to appear.” This stark observation has been borne out by researchers at the Mount Sinai World Trade Center Health Program Clinical Center of Excellence at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who reported 

a 219% increased risk of thyroid cancer, a 41% higher risk of leukemia and a 25% increased risk of prostate cancer for workers involved in the response and cleanup. This study covered 12 years post exposure. Long-term effects are likely to continue well into the future. 

To date, the more than $12.9 billion in financial compensation was been given out through these programs. If you know anyone who was in New York on that day who feels they were exposed to the toxic cloud that engulfed lower Manhattan when the buildings collapsed, ask them to reach out to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF). There’s may be an opportunity to be evaluated by medical experts familiar with chemical exposures.  

By Sharon Franklin.

Reporters have found an increased cancer risk for some people who, as children, played in a creek contaminated with uranium waste.  This has caused a grade school to close amid radiation concerns. A landfill operator is spending millions to keep underground smoldering from reaching nuclear waste illegally dumped in the 1970s, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.  Both the federal government and companies responsible for nuclear bomb production and atomic waste storage sites in the St. Louis. Missouri area in the mid-20th century were aware of health effects that haunt this region.

Recent articles published by the Associated Press AP “How America’s push for the atomic bomb spawned enduring radioactive waste problems in St. Louis” and  Environmental Health News “A Forgotten Chapter: Downwinders Fight For Recognition and Justice”  highlights the risks, about spills, improperly stored contaminants and other problems that have been often ignored by both the federal government and the polluting companies. 

The government cleanup is complete, but the site is considered permanently damaged and will require oversight into perpetuity. Rather than remove the waste, the government built a 75-foot-tall mound, covered in rock, to serve as a permanent disposal cell for much of the waste. The government said the site is safe, but local residents remain worried, because they live near contamination sites and the uncertainty, because many grew up in the area and weren’t told about the risks for decades.  People in the St. Louis area remain concerned that more illnesses are caused by the contamination and some are pushing for legislation to compensate those who are sick.

Citizen Activists Dawn Chapman and Karen Nickel were so concerned about cancer and other unusual illnesses in their St. Louis County neighborhoods formed Just Moms STL.  Dawn Chapman of the activist group stated they are pushing for cleanup and federal buyouts in an area near the airport.  She said the region “saved our country” with its work on the nuclear program but paid a terrible cost.”  “We are a national sacrifice zone”.

By Charlie Reeves

As pollution seeps into low-income and minority communities at disproportionate rates, populations are continuously left unprotected. On Wednesday, August 21, 2024, a U.S. District Court in Louisiana ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to investigate and determine if pollution-creating factories disproportionately impacted predominantly-minority areas. 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is intended to ensure that federal funds are never used to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity. The EPA, investigating and attempting to shut down chemical plants and other sources of industrial pollution that were affecting marginalized communities, was accused of going beyond the true scope of Title VI enforcement. The Louisiana court ruled that, due to the impacts of pollutants unintentionally affecting low-income and minority areas, there was no legal violation. 

The decision in Louisiana only applies to the state, but it represents a far greater concern within the push for environmental justice. The burden of proof is endlessly being placed onto the shoulders of the most vulnerable—the at-risk communities themselves—although it has been proven time and time again that racial minorities suffer disproportionately from the effects of fossil fuel pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency was originally sued by the state of Louisiana for no more than an investigation into the potential violation of civil rights law. Now the agency is barred from asking questions that could save lives and expose blatantly racist corporate decision-making. 

In Louisiana, Black communities have been repeatedly abandoned when it comes to environmental policy and injustices. In “Cancer Alley”, a stretch of predominantly Black communities surrounded by petrochemical plants with rampant toxic emissions, the cancer rate is seven times the national average. The EPA and the state of Louisiana have failed to help minority communities like this, sometimes known as “sacrifice zones”.

Sacrifice zones are clusters of industrial facilities with adjacent communities nearby, and they are devastating microcosms of environmental injustice, government neglect, and tricky legal loopholes used by greedy corporations. 

After the recent ruling, though, a more malicious handling of low-income and minority communities’ concerns has been revealed. By blocking the EPA from attempting to reveal discriminatory actions, Louisiana has set a concerning precedent. With the EPA’s regulatory powers being constrained into near-oblivion, and with the courts in many areas newly emboldened to dismiss concerns that lie at the intersection of civil rights law and environmental law, a framework has been established where injustice cannot even be properly identified as such.

By Gregory Kolen II.

As the world faces increasing environmental challenges, from climate change to pollution, the most vulnerable among us often bear the brunt of these impacts—our children. Environmental justice is not just about addressing the broad issues of pollution and climate change; it’s about ensuring that every child, regardless of where they live or the color of their skin, has the right to grow up in a healthy environment. Protecting children’s health through environmental justice is a moral imperative that requires urgent attention and action.

Children are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards due to their developing bodies and behaviors. They breathe more air, drink more water, and eat more food per unit of body weight than adults, making them more susceptible to the harmful effects of pollution. Additionally, children’s natural curiosity often leads them to explore their environments, sometimes exposing them to toxic substances in soil, water, and air.

Pollution, from industrial emissions to pesticides in agricultural areas, disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. These communities often live near highways, factories, and waste disposal sites, where the air is thick with pollutants that contribute to respiratory diseases, developmental delays, and other health problems in children.

The environmental injustices faced by children in marginalized communities are stark. For example, children in urban areas with high levels of traffic pollution are at a greater risk of developing asthma. According to the American Lung Association, children living in low-income neighborhoods are twice as likely to suffer from asthma as those in wealthier areas. This disparity is not just a health issue but a social justice one, as it reflects broader systemic inequalities.

In rural areas, the use of pesticides and poor access to clean water pose significant health risks. Children in agricultural communities are often exposed to harmful chemicals used in farming, leading to higher rates of neurodevelopmental issues and cancer. These children, often from migrant worker families, are caught in a cycle of poverty and environmental neglect.

Addressing these injustices requires strong environmental policies and advocacy at all levels of government. Environmental justice must be at the forefront of policy-making, ensuring that regulations protect the most vulnerable populations. This includes stricter controls on industrial pollution, improved standards for clean water, and the reduction of pesticide use near schools and residential areas.

Moreover, community-driven solutions are essential. Empowering communities to have a voice in the decisions that affect their environment is crucial for creating sustainable change. Grassroots organizations, often led by parents and local leaders, play a vital role in advocating for safer environments for their children. These groups have been instrumental in pushing for legislation that addresses environmental hazards in schools, playgrounds, and homes.

Protecting children’s health through environmental justice is not just about reducing pollution or cleaning up toxic sites. It’s about ensuring that every child, regardless of their socioeconomic background, has the opportunity to live in an environment that nurtures their growth and development. It’s about breaking the cycle of poverty and health disparities that plague marginalized communities.

We must hold industries accountable for their environmental impacts and demand that our leaders prioritize the health of our children in their policy decisions. Every child deserves to grow up in a safe, clean, and healthy environment. The fight for environmental justice is a fight for our future—one where all children have the chance to thrive.

Together, through advocacy, policy change, and community action, we can protect our children’s health and build a more just and equitable world.

By Stephen Lester.

Just over a month ago, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation into the train accident that occurred in February last year in East Palestine, OH. A Norfolk Southern train with more than a hundred cars many of which were carrying toxic chemicals derailed causing 38 cars to come off the tracks. Five of these tanker cars contained vinyl chloride, a highly toxic chemical known to cause cancer, liver damage, central nervous system and other adverse health effects.

Concerned that the derailed cars might explode causing a disaster in the community, Norfolk Southern made the decision to drain the liquid chemicals in the derailed tanker cars and burn them. This released a huge toxic cloud which contained its own toxic ingredients including dioxin, a potent carcinogen and one of the most toxic chemicals ever tested. The decision to intentionally burn the five tanker cars of vinyl chloride has remained a controversial issue for the community which continues to report various health problems that they believe were caused by the intentional burn.

The community now has a clear answer about what happened. The NTSB concluded that intentional burn-off of toxic chemicals was unnecessary. At the public meeting in East Palestine where the NTSB released its findings, Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the NSTB committee, described the impact on the community of the derailment and hazardous material release as “devastating.”

The committee found that the derailment occurred because a bearing on one of the cars  overheated and caused an axle to separate. The NTSB Report described a number of factors including design constraints and Norfolk Southern’s (NS) standard operating procedures that led to the train crew not having adequate warning to stop the train before derailment. The committee found that the vinyl chloride in the 5 derailed tanker cars “… remained in a stabilized environment (that is, was unable to undergo polymerization, a potentially dangerous chemical reaction) until those tank cars were deliberately breached with explosives (the vent and burn procedure).” They went on to say, the “vent and burn procedure was not necessary to prevent a polymerization induced explosion.“

Furthermore, “NS and its contractors continued to describe the polymerization as an imminent threat when expert opinions and available evidence should have led them to reconsider their course of action. NS compromised the integrity of the decision to vent and burn the tank cars by not communicating expertise and dissenting opinions to the incident commander making the final decision. This failure to communicate completely and accurately with the incident commander was unjustified.”

The chair of the NTSB committee Jennifer Homendy also criticized Norfolk Southern for its reluctance to provide information to the committee. A Washington Post news report cited Homendy saying that “the company delayed handing over or failed to provide information to the NTSB and attempted to  ‘manufacture evidence’ outside of the NTSB investigation.” According to the Post, Homendy also alleged that a senior Norfolk Southern executive delivered what she and other NTSB employees interpreted as a “threat” several weeks before the  public meeting when a “ … senior executive allegedly asked her to ‘put to rest’ speculation about whether Norfolk Southern pushed for the vent-and burn to get the train cars moving and suggested the results of the investigation could ‘close a chapter’ for the railway.”

I learned a long time ago that when someone protests too loudly, there’s usually a good reason. We may never know the real reason why Norfolk Southern pushed for the vent-and burn. Maybe it was to quicky and efficiently reopen the rail line, or not. One can’t but help wonder. To read the published synopsis of the NTSB report, click here.

By Leila Waid.

The climate change crisis worsens year by year, yet somehow, it feels like not enough progress is ever achieved. Frustratingly, there are many people who choose to ignore the issue, don’t believe it is real, or simply don’t think that there is anything they can do about it. So, how can environmental justice advocates reach these groups of people who don’t want to discuss the issue, let alone even think about it?

Researchers from all different fields of studies, not just those in environmental health, have spent years trying to understand what makes people tick – what kinds of messages are the most impactful, what will impact people’s behavior the most, and, most importantly, what will inspire behavior change? In the public health field alone, decades of research have been conducted to understand what motivates behaviors and, in turn, how they can be changed. For example, consider smoking and the astronomical decline in use that has occurred since the 1960s, when smoking was at an all-time high. A variety of factors led to the rapid reduction in smoking rates – from the Surgeon General report of 1963, to increased policy restrictions, and an understanding of the health effects of secondary smoke. All of these factors influenced the public perception of smoking. Public health researchers were able to utilize these factors to influence behavior change. By creating health communication campaigns based on theories of change, they were able to shift the tides to turn smoking from something that was seen as cool and desirable to socially unacceptable. And that’s really the key to behavior change – you have to make the desired behavior the norm. 

Of course, it is important to not oversimplify an issue – smoking and climate change action are two completely different areas of focus. Thus, they require entirely different communication and outreach efforts. However, I think that, at its core, the lessons that were learned from the successful smoking cessation campaigns (one of the biggest public health challenges of the 20th century) can be translated to the work that is being done on climate change (one of the biggest public health challenges of the 21stcentury). Most public health theories of behavior change – such as the Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory – have a component focused on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief that an individual is capable of change. For example, self-efficacy could be manifested in their confidence to quit smoking. Before any change can occur, a person’s self-efficacy must be raised. In a climate change context, self-efficacy can manifest as a person’s belief that their actions can help reduce climate change risks. A study by Bostrom et al. found that “self-efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.”

When crafting outreach messaging for climate change, it is crucial to focus on this construct of self-efficacy. If we want people actively engaged in climate change issues, then we need to increase their self-confidence in their ability to do so. Many climate change messages tend to have a very pessimistic tone. Of course, climate change is a dire issue that needs immediate attention, but bombarding your audience with messages of doom and gloom doesn’t get anyone riled up to act. Instead, there needs to be a focus on positivity. An audience member needs to believe that there are concrete steps they can take to help this issue. In an age of information, this is even more important. You need to be able to catch your audience’s attention, convey to them the seriousness of the situation, and also make them feel empowered enough to take action on it. It’s not an easy ask. But achieving this balance is one of the most effective ways to change people’s attitudes and influence behaviors. And then maybe one day, climate change actions (such as policies, reducing a person’s carbon footprint, pressuring companies to go green) will no longer be a point of cultural contention but, instead, can become a social norm. After all, up until the 90s, you could smoke on an airplane – now the idea would seem preposterous. Why? Because social norms changed. They changed based on science and backed by effective policy action. For climate change, the science is there – it has been there for a long time and continues to build exponentially every day. Now, it is time for policy to catch up. We need to address social norms around climate change and make people realize that this is something that everyone needs to focus on. Everyone’s voice matters. Everyone’s actions matter. No one person can tackle the issue of climate change. But every person needs to contribute.