The communities along the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas face many environmental health threats from industrial activity in the area. These threats expose residents to toxic chemicals in the air, water, and soil that are known to cause significant health problems.

The San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site has been contaminated since the 1960s with dioxin waste from the Champion Paper Mill. Dioxins are some of the most toxic chemicals on the planet, and exposure can cause liver damage, diabetes, immune system dysfunction, cancer, birth defects, and miscarriage. Much of the waste from this site has since washed into the San Jacinto River, potentially exposing people and wildlife in the area. Nearby residents have reported significant health conditions – including pregnancy complications, birth defects, maternal mortality, and childhood cancers. After years of community pressure, EPA has ordered full remediation of the site, but excavation and removal of all contaminated material has not been done. 

There are also over 600 oil and chemical barges along a 6-mile stretch of the river. According to 2023 data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) found that these barges contribute more pollution than the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery, one of the largest refinieries in the United States. Despite their massive emissions, barges aren’t required to get air pollution permits from the state or to report their emissions to the state. Many of the chemicals released by these barges, such as benzene and toluene, are known to cause blood cancers, immune system dysfunction, and brain dysfunction. Furthermore, hurricanes and tropical storms have previously caused chemical leaks, fires, and structural damage involving these barges, but little is being done to prevent future harm to the public or the environment from these barges during natural disasters. The ongoing emissions and potential for disasters pose huge threats to the health of surrounding residents.

The area also has several industrial facilities that emit toxic chemicals into the air as well. In 2021 and 2022 TCEQ measured levels of benzene in the air up to three times the state’s hourly guideline limit. As reported by Public Health Watch, in some instances the benzene concentrations were so high that TCEQ scientists investigating the situation got headaches and had to leave the area. These benzene concentrations were the highest ever detected in the Channelview area. While many local industrial facilities may be responsible for these benzene concentrations, the highest measurements were detected near the chemical facility K-Solv. TCEQ’s response to this hasn’t been to curb emissions from K-Solv or mitigate residents’ exposure to benzene, but to move their air monitors further from the facility so they detect less benzene.

The cumulative impact of multiple toxic chemical exposures can be deadly

Exposure to chemicals like the ones emitted from industrial facilities, barges, and the Superfund site near the San Jacinto River can cause serious health problems, but the full extent of the risk to nearby residents is unknown. Traditionally, when government agencies estimate the risk to the public from toxic chemical exposures, they only consider the risk from a single chemical emitted from a single location for a defined period of time. However, residents in this area are in a much more complicated situation, where they are exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously over long periods of time. The government needs to consider the cumulative impact of exposure to multiple chemicals over a long time in order to more fully understand how people living near the San Jacinto River may be affected.

When multiple toxic chemicals target similar organs or biological pathways, then simultaneous exposure to them can make their effects worse. This can cause health problems even if the doses of the individual chemicals are within ranges the government deems “safe”. A study from a group of 350 cancer scientists found that exposure to multiple chemicals that don’t cause cancer on their own could lead to biological changes that ultimately do cause cancer. It is clear that exposure to multiple chemicals – even at low doses – can have complex, unexpected impacts on human health and need to be considered when evaluating the risk to the public from chemicals in the environment.

These concerns of cumulative impact of multiple chemical exposures could have health implications for residents near the San Jacinto River. For example, a 2025 study by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) found that residents in some areas of east Harris County (including Channelview) may be at elevated risk for cancer. In particular, they found that rates of leukemia were three times higher than expected. While the state refuses to release data that would allow for more specific conclusions about the risk area and identification of potential cancer clusters, this study demonstrates that residents in the area have a serious risk of developing cancer. The cumulative impact of all the toxic sites in the area may be responsible.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged the need to consider the accumulation of risks from multiple environmental threats when evaluating the potential harm to human health, and it has even developed a framework to do so. This would allow for a more realistic estimate of what people are exposed to and how it may affect their health. However, it has proven difficult to implement this framework because crucial information is often missing, difficult to obtain, or impossible to obtain in situations where people are being exposed to toxic chemicals. Thankfully, there are solutions that would allow the government to take action and better protect public health.

The government can do more to protect public health

The best way for the government to protect public health is to prevent these environmental exposures to toxic chemicals in the first place. This strategy is called the precautionary principle. It dictates that if an industrial activity or facility has the potential to cause harm to human health or the environment and there isn’t scientific certainty about this potential harm, then action should be taken to prevent harm rather than waiting for scientific certainty. This means that the burden of proof would no longer be on impacted communities to show that chemical exposures have caused their health problems. Instead, potential polluters like the Champion Paper Mill, the San Jacinto River barges, and K-Solv would first have to prove that their activities don’t expose communities to toxic chemicals before they are allowed to conduct operations that use these chemicals. Applying the precautionary principle would be a crucial way to prevent communities from being exposed to toxic chemicals.

In situations where a community has already been exposed to toxic chemicals in the environment, the government can be more decisive in taking action to protect public health. The current government response model relies on scientific evidence to prove that health conditions were caused by the particular chemical exposure. However, critical information required to prove causation is rarely available, so the government often fails to adequately protect public health. A government response model based on presumptive association would allow for the government to take action to protect public health in the absence of data linking cause and effect. In this model, when a community is exposed to a toxic chemical, government agencies would review scientific information about the health effects of exposure to that chemical. If the evidence indicates the chemical could cause a certain health condition, then the government would take action to benefit exposed community members who have that condition. They would not have to prove that their health condition was caused by exposure to the chemical of concern. Adopting a presumptive association model for federal responses to chemical exposures would create a standardized and timely approach that better protects public health.

The communities near the San Jacinto River have been exposed to multiple chemicals for many decades without help from the government, but we don’t have to continue letting this happen. The complicated problem of how to evaluate the threat of cumulative effects of exposure to multiple chemicals can be addressed with better government approaches that prioritize protecting public health.

Social media offers a direct line to share stories from frontline communities whose concerns too often go unheard in traditional media. A single post or video can be shared, re-shared, and reach far beyond what a printed flyer or local meeting might achieve. Unlike one-way communication channels, social platforms allow for dialogue—through comments, shares, and live interactions—which can strengthen connection and trust. They also provide a stage for visual and emotional storytelling that makes environmental justice issues more relatable and urgent. Finally, social platforms allow real-time mobilization—alerting communities to public hearings, sharing short videos about toxic exposure, and rallying supporters around key campaigns.

The Challenges

Social media is not a magic solution. The biggest hurdle is the sheer noise and competition for attention. With countless messages circulating daily, it can be difficult for vital environmental messages to break through. Exposure to endless images of pollution or climate disasters can also create fatigue and even fatalism. Another challenge is misinformation. For environmental justice issues—where scientific accuracy, policy detail, and lived experience must align—maintaining credibility and trust is essential. There’s also the issue of access and representation, as not all communities have equal digital access or the same cultural communication norms. Finally, while hashtags can raise awareness, many campaigns fail to convert likes and shares into meaningful action. The key is not whether to use social media, but how to use it strategically, authentically, and effectively.

Top 5 Strategies for Social Branding & Communication

1. Define Clear Purpose and Audience Segments

Before posting, clarify what you want to achieve and who you are trying to reach. Determine whether your goal is to raise awareness, mobilize people to attend a hearing, drive policy change, encourage donations, or change behaviors. Identify your audiences—such as community members, policymakers, journalists, or partners—and tailor your tone, visuals, and platforms accordingly. Younger audiences may respond better to short-form videos on TikTok or Instagram Reels, while decision-makers might prefer LinkedIn updates or well-crafted policy summaries. Consistency in your branding and message is key. Use consistency in brand voice, colors, hashtags, and tone to reinforce credibility and trust.

2. Tell Stories with Visual Emotion and Data

Facts matter, but stories inspire. To connect with people, focus on human stories from frontline communities who are directly impacted by environmental harm. Their voices and experiences create authenticity and emotional resonance. Combine their stories with powerful visuals, infographics, maps, and short clips that simplify complex data. Present information as a clear narrative arc—introduce the problem, explain its impact, show community response, and end with a clear call to action. Every post should make it easy for your audience to know what to do next, whether that’s attending a hearing, signing a petition, or sharing their own story.

3. Engage Community and Build Partnerships

Social media is not just a broadcast tool—it’s a conversation. Encourage interaction by responding to comments, asking questions, running polls, and inviting community members to share their experiences. This builds ownership and trust. Feature community leaders, partner groups, and influencers who can speak authentically to their audiences. Collaborate with other environmental and social justice organizations to amplify your reach and strengthen alliances. Cross-tagging and co-hosting live sessions or campaigns can extend visibility far beyond your usual audience.

4. Be Strategic About Platforms and Consistency

Each social platform has its own strengths, audiences, and style. Instagram and Facebook work well for photo stories and longer captions that highlight community voices. X (formerly Twitter) is useful for rapid updates, advocacy alerts, and tagging public officials. TikTok and YouTube Shorts are ideal for short, emotional, or educational videos. Use a consistent posting schedule so your audience knows when to expect content, and maintain a unified look and tone that reflects your identity. Campaigns like “Toxic Tuesday” can serve as recurring branded content that reinforces recognition and engagement. Make every post visually consistent, concise, and shareable, using clear text and strong imagery. Track analytics to see what resonates and refine your approach based on engagement metrics and reach.

5. Mobilize Action and Measure Impact

Awareness is only the first step. The goal of social media in environmental justice work is real-world change. Define measurable outcomes for each campaign, such as increasing attendance at community meetings, generating petition signatures, or securing local media coverage. Use strong calls to action that direct people toward tangible outcomes. Create time-limited campaigns that encourage urgency and participation. Celebrate wins publicly when communities achieve cleanup victories, policy changes, or new protections. This reinforces hope and motivates continued engagement. Regularly monitor what people are saying about your campaigns, track emotional sentiment, and adapt your messaging to keep your audience connected and energized.

---

Final Thoughts

Social media is more than just a communications tool—it is a movement-building platform. It allows us to connect with communities, amplify their stories, and convert awareness into action. By combining strategic storytelling, consistent branding, and authentic engagement, we can expand our reach and strengthen our impact. Centering the voices of those most affected, making complex science accessible, and sustaining meaningful dialogue online will ensure that our social media presence is not just visible—but transformative.

By Sharon Franklin.

David Leffler, Public Health Watch recently reported on a Superfund site, where the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) scientists conducted a study in East Harris County which is home to several environmental hazards, including toxic Superfund sites. These hazards are largely concentrated in certain communities, which is worrying its residents about concealed cancer clusters.  

The DSHS investigation was requested by the Texas Health and Environment Alliance, (THEA), a nonprofit advocacy group led, Jackie Medcalf, who has suffered a litany of health problems during the decade she lived in the East Harris County community. It is her belief that these problems were tied to her home’s proximity to the Superfund sites.  She experienced hair falling out, bleeding sores, seizures, and the lost of control of her extremities.  Eventually, her doctors discovered 19 heavy metals in her body, including chromium, mercury and arsenic, all of which were found in the Superfund site.

Medcalf in a letter to DSHS on January 24, 2024, requested that scientists redo that study. She believed this request would validate her and other residents’ belief that toxic exposures were ruining people’s health in the Highlands and nearby communities.  Medcalf exchanged dozens of emails and phone calls with DSHS scientists throughout the spring of 2024.  However, by January 2025, she found out that the study had been stuck in DSHS’s “executive review” stage.   On February 6, 2025, the state published the results, which examined 22 types of all-age cancers and three childhood cancers. In an interview, Ketki Patel, MD, Ph.D., MPH, Director, Environmental Surveillance and Toxicology Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) defended the agency’s decision to publish cancer data for a 250-square-mile area without providing details at the census-tract level. She said “the agency can’t release such data because, for some cancer types, it didn’t find enough cases to guarantee statistical reliability”.  The DSHS study found that the Texas state average rates for:

• Leukemia were triple,
• Cervical cancer was 18% above the average,
• Lung and bronchus cancers were 17% above the average, and
• Lymphoma was 10% above the state average. 

Public Health Watch shared (DSHS) assertions with epidemiologists, Nelson Kyle Steenland, Professor, Department of Environmental Health, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health and Philip Landrigan, a public health physician and professor at Boston College who studies the human-health effects of hazardous exposures.  Landrigan stated “You don’t want to release [census-tract] information for a study like this if there’s fewer than five cases,” “But if you’re talking about lung cancer or leukemia, which is common in the population, then I see no issue whatsoever. You’re obviously not going to release names and addresses, but there’s no reason in the world why you could not release de-identified data.”  Professor Landrigan and Steenland, were both in agreement that breaking down the new study’s data by census tract would have been a simple task, despite DSHS’s claims.  

In April, 2025, THEA, held a pair of community events and invited DSHS to both events.   THEA set up an table with balloons at both meetings, which drew notice to the agency’s obvious absence. Six weeks earlier, Medcalf held a joint press conference with Precinct 3 Harris County Commissioner, Tom Ramsey, who represents the Highlands and other communities located in the study area (Superfund site near Highlands). On September 8, 2025, Commissioner Ramsey, U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia and Harris County Commissioners Adrian Garcia and Rodney Ellis also sent letters to DSHS Commissioner, Jennifer Shuford urging them to hold meetings with residents about the current study, release an addendum with census-tract level data and commit to follow-up meetings with advocates and local elected officials once that information is released.

How Did DSHS Respond? 

Confronted with the experts’ opinions, Patel, DSHS continued to insist that her team’s investigation followed standard practices maintained by DSHS and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as well as the new “CDC protocol”.  Patel stated “Yes, leukemia cases were three times higher than the Texas average, but that isn’t an “exceptionally high” rate that would warrant “an in-depth epidemiological investigation.”  Instead, the best thing to do is to “keep an eye on those types of cancers” in the coming years.

A Community Burdened by Chemical Waste Is Demanding Cancer Data Texas Health Officials Won’t Give It to Them. https://publichealthwatch.org/2025/10/09/texas-houston-chemical-waste-cancer/

Center for Health, Environment and Justice link to Superfund Information https://chej.org/superfund 

Community organizing is the process of building power through involving a constituency in identifying problems they share and the solutions to these problems that they desire; identifying the people and structures that can make those solutions possible; enlisting these targets in the effort through negotiation and using confrontation and pressure when needed; and building an institution that is democratically controlled by that constituency that can develop the capacity to take on further problems that embodies the will and power of that constituency.

Heath Booth, founder of the Midwest Academy and legendary community organizer, expressed the fundamentals in this formula:  OOO = Organizer Organize Organizations.

Community organizing is NOT a technique for problem solving. Those who would use simple confrontation or mass meetings to meet their own selfish need for power, and skip the step of democratic involvement and control in the selecting of issues, the crafting of demands or the negotiating of the victory are called demagogues. Their organizations are a hollow sham, without the empowering aspect that humanizes and ennobles the effort.

Community organizing is not merely a process that is good for its own sake. Unless the organization wins concrete, measurable benefits for those who participate, it will not last long. The groups that contend themselves with holding endless meetings and plod along involving everyone in discussions that never lead to action or victory are doomed to shrink into nothing. People want to see results. That’s why they get involved. There is a theory (isn’t there always) that says that folks join up if two things are true. First, they must see a potential for either benefit or harm to themselves if the group succeeds or fails. Second, they must see that their personal involvement has an impact on the whole effort. This makes sense. Winning is critical, but if the involvement is not critical, then you can stay home and watch TV.

Community organizing is not just a neighborhood thing, not just a minority thing, not just a 60’s thing. Many – especially those uncomfortable with a particular community organizing effort because it’s confronting them at the time – seek to ‘label’ organizing as somehow out of date or out of place. The fact is that the method, the strategy, the science of community organizing has been applied all over the world in situations as disparate as Solidarity in Poland, Welfare Rights in the US and ‘communidades del base’ in Brazil. The simple principles of community organizing are being applied right now in the barrios of SanAntonio and in the ghettos of Baltimore. They are winning victories and building power, you can too.

Adapted from Community Organizing by Dave Beckwith, Toledo, OH