Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Do Environmental Standards Protect Public Health?

Toxic Tuesdays

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

Do Environmental Standards Protect Public Health?

Federal environmental standards were created to protect the environment and human health. Regulations to limit chemicals in water, air, soil, and food set requirements that must be upheld by all levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.), ideally creating uniform policy and protections for communities across the country. Examples include the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act,  Clean Water Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that regulate pollutants in drinking water, air, water and food, respectively. It’s natural to think that these laws would protect people from exposure to toxic chemicals, but this is only partially true. While these regulations have made significant improvements in drinking water, air, water and food quality, there are many gaps and limitations in these regulations that result in people unwittingly being exposed to toxic chemicals, especially in environmental justice communities.

With one exception, a major problem with these laws is that they do not establish legally enforceable standards. Instead, government agencies have developed guidelines and recommendations. Another significant problem is that several key regulations only apply to point-source pollutants (“single, identifiable sources of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, factory smokestack, ditch, etc.”), leaving non-point source pollutants (“pollution that comes from multiple diffuse sources,”) to state, tribal, or local jurisdiction or without regulations. This gap results in discrepancies in exposures to chemicals and health outcomes of communities based on where people live and work, especially in areas described as Sacrifice Zones – areas that are disproportionately impacted by pollution produced by proximity to intensive, concentrated industry, often in low-income communities of color. Without standards in place to protect these areas, these communities are exposed to abnormally high levels of chemicals which increases their risk of cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other diseases.

Health-based standards are important because they define a level of exposure that’s intended to protect the health of all people. Only the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was passed in 1974, sets a health-based maximum concentration of a chemical allowed in water. This legally enforceable standard sets this rule apart from all other regulations. If the level of chemical exceeds its drink water standard, health agencies will issue orders notifying people to stop drinking the water. And, if a company is found responsible for contaminating the water, they are held liable for treatment costs and any potential adverse health effects that result. This is the way health-based regulations are supposed to work.   

However, this is not how the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts work. For these regulations, similar maximum exposure levels are not defined. There are no air standards that define a “safe” or even “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in the air. The Clean Air Act (CAA), which passed in 1970, established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) which include regulations for 6 pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. This rule sets emissions limits for each of these pollutants for varying periods of time such as one year. Under this system, there is no limit to how much a person could be exposed to in the ambient air. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 parts per million (ppm) of benzene in ambient air.

Similarly, the Clean Water Act, which passed in 1972, also does not define a “safe” or “acceptable” concentration of a chemical in open waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates contaminants and wastewater only from point source polluters by “prohibiting the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters.” A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be acquired in order to discharge pollutants to water bodies. The permit regulates what can be discharged (and how much) and establishes a monitoring system to track discharges. This regulation does not address non-point source pollutants. As is the case with the CAA, there is no limit to the concentration of a chemical that can be discharged into a body of water. Put another way, no one knows what it means if a person is exposed to 50 ppm benzene in a river.

The situation is even worse when it comes to chemical contamination of soil. In this case, there are no federal standards that protect ambient soil quality. EPA has developed guidelines ad recommendations for determining “acceptable” levels of residual contamination at Superfund sites post-remediation. These Superfund sites use Soil Screening Guidance (SSG) which “presents a framework for developing risk-based Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) that protect human health.” However, these guideline values are not legally enforceable standards. Instead, they are used by state and federal agencies to decide how much residual contamination is “acceptable” in one community versus another. EPA can decide to leave 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead at one site and 1,000 ppm at another by using different risk factors. According to EPA, this “flexibility” is important in managing risks. Practically, this means that the community that’s organized and generates political pressure gets a better cleanup, while the one that doesn’t, gets less protection and higher levels of contamination which is typical in Sacrifice Zone communities.

The same goes for toxic chemicals in food. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was passed in 2002, regulates pesticide levels in foods. These regulations define how much pesticide can be applied to food in the field, how often, and the timing of the application in relation to consumption. There are also guidelines for certain metals. For example, FDA has  seafood intake recommendations intended to limit exposure to metals like mercury. These guidelines and are not legally enforceable. FDA states the reason for this is that metals are often “widespread in the environment and because it is not possible to remove [them] from seafood or grow or produce certain foods completely free of [them].”

It’s reasonable for people to think, and expect, that government wouldn’t allow unsafe levels of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, the water we swim in, the soil we play in, and in the food we eat. However, that’s not the case. With exception of drinking water, existing environmental and public health regulations do not set health-based standards that define a level of exposure that’s “safe” or even acceptable. Instead, we are left with unenforceable guidelines that give federal agencies enormous power to negotiate with the companies responsible for the contamination. This may be practical, but it’s not protective of public health and it leaves communities vulnerable to toxic exposures that can negatively impact their health.  

Learn about more toxics

Benzidine

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »

Pyrethrins

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »
Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Community resilience for climate change-related natural disasters

By Leila Waid.

The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which began on June 1 and will end on November 30, has already produced many storms and hurricanes that have left a trail of devastation in the U.S. Florida was hit by back-to-back hurricanes, Helene and Milton, within a two-week span. Experts warn that these repeated traumatic exposures to natural disasters can have a tremendous impact on mental health and emotional well-being.

In May 2024, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)predicted the 2024 hurricane season would be “above-normal,” in part due to “near-record warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.” Researchers have long predicted that climate change will lead to stronger and more intense hurricanes. As described by the Lancet, “a warmer world makes hurricanes nastier and wetter, giving them more energy and greater intensity.”

Now that we are faced with the reality of disastrous hurricanes year after year that are projected to get worse and worse, how do we organize and protect ourselves and our communities from these natural disasters that are made worse by anthropogenic activity?

There are two main approaches to addressing climate change: mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to current and future climate change events). Although mitigation techniques are incredibly important, they alone are not enough to overcome the barriers communities face from a changing climate. Adaptation techniques are needed. One such critical adaptation approach is called community resilience, which researchers define as “ a community’s capability of bouncing back—restoring the original pre-disaster state, as well as bouncing forward—the capacity to cope with emerging post-disaster situations and changes.”

No single community is the same as another, and there are variousways one can define a community. Thus, the specific community resilience method that works best for one community may not work as well for another – after all, climate change solutions are rarely a one-size-fits-all approach. Some examples of community resilience include increasing funding for community resources. For example, some researchers argue that increasing funding for Rural Local Public Health Departments can help increase the healthcare infrastructure and help with climate resilience in communities that tend to be geographically isolated. Other researchers have pointed out the importance of utilizing public health preparedness and response frameworks to increase community resilience.

Other examples of community resilience focus on increasing mental health services for communities since natural disaster events, such as hurricanes and floods, can lead to an increase in depression and PTSD. Education is another important aspect of community resilience. Many individuals may not realize that they are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, or if they are aware of the risks, they may feel helpless in doing anything about it. It’s important to increase individuals’ “risk perception” of climate change to motivate them to take action.

EPA recently released the Climate Resilience and Adaptation Funding Toolbox (CRAFT), a resource for organizations interested in implementing climate change adaptation techniques in their communities. Question to consider: If you were to apply to help strengthen your community against climate change, what would you want to focus on?

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Environmental Costs of Artificial Intelligence

Photo from: The Washington Post

By Stephen Lester.

A recent article in the Washington Post painted a very clear picture of the enormous amount of energy being used by data centers to fuel the exploding world of Artificial Intelligence (AI). According to the article, roughly 25% of all Americans have used ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI) since it was released in 2022. These chatbots use massive amounts of energy to respond to questions on-line. Keeping these computers operating means keeping them cool and that is taking a significant toll on the environment.

Two often cited concerns are the massive amounts of water and electricity that these data centers require, not to mention the strain on the local infrastructure that results from the increased demands. Working with researchers from the University of California at Riverside, the Washington Post estimated how much water and energy OpenAI’s ChatGPT uses to write the average 100-word email.

Water used to generate a single 100-word AI response:

Once: Requires 519 milliliters of water, a little more than 1 bottle.

Once weekly for a year: Requires 27 liters, about 1.43 water cooler jugs.

Once weekly for a year by 1 out of 10 Americans (roughly 16 million people): Requires 435,235,476 liters, equal to the water consumed by all of Rhode Island households for 1.5 days.

Energy used to generate a single 100-word AI response:

Once: Requires 0.14 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, equal to powering 14 LED light bulbs for 1 hour.

Once Weekly for a year: Requires 7.5 kWh, equal to the electricity consumed by 9.3 Washington, DC households for 1 hour.

Once weekly for a year by 1 out of 10 working Americans: Requires 121,517 megawatt-hours (MWh), equal to the electricity consumed by all Washington, DC households for 20 days.

The computers used to generate an AI response run through “thousands of calculations to determine the best words to use in a response.” This process generates a great deal of heat. According to the article, water is usually used to cool these computers, typically housed in data centers that are cropping up all over the country because of the exploding demand for AI. “Water transports the heat generated in the data centers into cooling towers to help it escape the building, similar to how the human body uses sweat to keep cool.”

According to the Post article, where electricity is cheaper or where water is scarce, electricity is often used to cool the computers using large air-conditioning-like units. You might see this in Arizona, southern California, Georgia or anywhere in the southern half of the United States. As a result, large portions of the country are suddenly developing a growing need for electricity that’s not necessarily readily available. Another Washington Post article describes energy demand in Georgia reaching record highs and the Arizona Public Service, the largest utility in the state, struggling to keep up with energy demand, projecting it will run out of transmission capacity by the end of the decade. Similar energy challenges are playing out in Northern Virginia, Texas and other places where these data centers are being built.  

This growing demand for electricity has triggered lots of push back from local communities that are unsure whether they want these data centers. Concerns have been raised about the noise generated by these centers as well as the enormous amount of water and electricity they use. Questions have been raised about who gets the electricity from the grid and how is it paid for. Some local residents worry that their electric bill will go up to help subsidize the cost of meeting the increased need for electricity. 

This search for energy prompted Microsoft to reach out to the Constellation Energy, a large energy company that owns the closed Three Mile Island Nuclear Power (TMI) plant near Harrisburg, PA, the site of the worst nuclear accident in US history. One of the two reactors at the site (Unit #2) suffered a partial meltdown and has remain closed since 1979. The second reactor (Unit #1) was shut down five years ago. Microsoft reached an agreement with Constellation to purchase all of the energy generated by Unit #1 at TMI for 20 years. Constellation described this as ”it’s largest ever power purchase agreement. The reactor is set to open in 2028 pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The agreement between Microsoft and Constellation said nothing about what’s going to happen to the radioactive waste generated by this power plant. There still is no permanent repository for this waste. Instead, it is being stored at over 70 operating and shuttered nuclear plants around the country.

The growing demand for electricity driven by the booming fields of artificial intelligence and cloud computing is here to stay. These proliferating data centers are going to require unprecedented amounts of energy and water. Where that comes from remains to be seen, but you can  be sure the tech companies will do everything in their power to get what they need, even if it means reopening a dead nuclear power plant.le that will put extra demands for housing, transportation and other essentials for an expected growing population? 

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

Toxic Tuesdays

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

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a chemical in a class of chemicals called nitrosamines. NMDA is a yellow liquid but readily evaporates at room temperature.

Until the 1970s it was used to make rocket fuel, but was then discontinued because of the resulting environmental contamination. In the United States today, NDMA is only made for scientific research purposes. However, NDMA can be formed as a byproduct when its commonly found precursors come into contact with each other.

These scenarios where NDMA forms as a byproduct occur in industrial settings like water treatment plants, pesticide manufacturing facilities, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. This can result in NDMA entering soil, drinking water, and air.

NDMA can also be formed from precursors found in common consumer products like lotion, cosmetics, beer, cured meat, and smoked meat. When we use these products, we can be exposed to the NDMA in them. Furthermore, foods like cured meat, smoked meat, fish, cheese, and beer are high in compounds called nitrates, which our bodies can convert into NDMA once we eat them. These kinds of consumer products are how most of the population is exposed to NDMA.
 
Exposure to NDMA can cause liver damage in humans. Workers exposed to NDMA in industrial settings had higher risks of liver, blood, bladder, stomach, and prostate cancers. Increased NDMA exposure through food is associated with stomach and colorectal cancers. In studies of laboratory animals, NDMA exposure
caused liver injury and stillbirth as well as liver, lung, kidney, and testicular cancers. Based on all of this evidence, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer both classify NDMA as a probable cancer-causing chemical in humans.

Because NDMA can be found in industrial settings and a wide variety of consumer products, it can be hard to know our exposure risk. This makes it particularly important for the federal government to regulate NDMA precursor chemicals in manufacturing, personal care products, and food preservation in order to keep people safe from the adverse health effects of exposure.
 

Learn about more toxics

Benzidine

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »

Pyrethrins

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »
Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Climate Migrants & Hurricanes

Floodwater inundates South Asheville, North Carolina September 28,2024.
Photo Credit: North Carolina Department of Transportation

By Sharon Franklin.

Before recent hurricanes that have reduced towns and cities in the Southeast, there was a trend for Americans most affected by the climate crisis to move to the Midwest.  Now, the question is.. Will there be more?   In a recent article by Stephen Starr, Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/22/climate-crisis-americans-move-midwest he noted that the 65,000 person city of Muncie, Indiana may not be the most exciting place in the world,  because it doesn’t have beaches, or year-round warm weather, it is now home to Laura Rivas, a former resident of North Miami Beach, Florida.  

Why?  It was the climate crisis and strengthened hurricanes, flooding and skyrocketing insurance premiums for homeowners or the inability to just obtain homeowner insurance.  Rivas noted, “every hurricane season was worse than the last to the point that insurance companiescouldn’t afford [to operate in Florida] any moreFor her, after receiving a notice that her insurance was being increased to $3,000/month, she knew it was time to go. 

Now she says “My mortgage and homeowner’s insurance are $600 a month, total,” “Five times less than my homeowners’ insurance for a home half the size in Florida.”

Photo Credit: Muncie, Indiana, Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian

Rivas is not alone, many from Puerto Rico fled after 2017.  “It’s probably no coincidence that the majority of the Climate Migrants are coming from Texas, California and Florida, said Evan Hock of MakeMyMove, an Indianapolis-based company that partners with small cities across the country to offer incentives to remote workers to relocate. 

Currently, Hurricane, Helene has shown that there is no escape from the effects of the climate crisis, regardless of location, as noted by the recent weather-related events in the Southeastern states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

By Atlanta News First staff
Published: Oct. 1, 2024 

What Will Be The Climate Migrant Demands On The Midwestern States Infrastructures?   

Derek Van Berkel, University of Michigan is strategizing with other researchers for the expected growing of an incoming population to the Midwest and Great Lakes region in the years and decades ahead. 

The Question Remains   

What can these communities expect from an influx of people that will put extra demands for housing, transportation and other essentials for an expected growing population? 

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Racial Disparities in PFAS Exposure Through Drinking Water

Toxic Tuesdays

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

Racial Disparities in PFAS Exposure Through Drinking Water

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of chemicals used in many consumer products and industrial processes since the 1950s. Because there isn’t federal regulation of their use or disposal, PFAS are commonly released into the environment. When PFAS are released, people can be exposed to them through air, dust, food, and water, so PFAS exposure is common in the United States. Biomonitoring studies have found that certain species of PFAS are present in the blood of almost all US residents.

Many species of PFAS are known to have adverse health effects on humans including increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzymes, decreased vaccine response in children, increased risk of high blood pressure in pregnant women, and decreased birth weight. Epidemiologic studies also show a link between exposure to certain species of PFAS and increased rates of kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer.

While there many ways to be exposed to PFAS, one of the most common is through contaminated drinking water. It is estimated that 200 million people in the US receive PFAS-contaminated drinking water. In 2018 New Jersey became the first state to adopt enforceable standards for PFAS in drinking water. It established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) – which are the highest amount of a contaminant allowed in drinking water – for three of the most common species of PFAS: perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). In April 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the first federal drinking water standards for six PFAS including PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA.

In establishing MCLs for PFAS, New Jersey mandated statewide testing of all Community Water Systems (CWSs, the government-regulated water utilities) in the state. These CWSs tested by New Jersey serve 77% of the statewide population. A recent study used 2019-2021 CWS testing data along with Census data to evaluate if there are demographic differences in PFAS contamination of New Jersey residents’ drinking water. The study calculated quarterly averages for 491 CWs over this time period. It found that PFAS were detected above New Jersey’s MCL in 14% of CWSs, which serve 23% of the population. 

The study also mapped demographic information from census block groups – which are portions of census tracts and generally contain 600-3,000 people – onto the boundaries of each CWS. This created a map where the demographic makeup and quarterly average PFAS concentrations for each CWS were known. 27% of the non-Hispanic white population were served by CWSs with PFAS above New Jersey’s MCL. In contrast, 52% of the Asian population, 38% of the Hispanic population, and 34% of the Black population were served by CWSs with PFAS above New Jersey’s MCL.

These results demonstrate that not only is PFAS contamination prevalent in drinking water in New Jersey, but that there are racial disparities in PFAS contamination by CWS service area. Compared to white populations, Hispanic, Asian, and Black populations are more likely to receive drinking water that has PFAS contamination above the state’s safe threshold. These racial disparities in drinking water quality mirror racial disparities in the US more generally. Historical and ongoing housing discrimination leads to communities of color being excluded from living in certain areas. Throughout the country, pollution-emitting facilities are disproportionately located in nonwhite neighborhoods, driving health and environmental problems that disproportionately affect people of color. Industrial and military facilities that use PFAS and are located in nonwhite neighborhoods may contaminate the water supplying nearby CWSs, which could explain the racial disparities in drinking water discovered in this study.

It is important to note that EPA’s new MCLs for PFAS species are below New Jersey’s MCLs. Complying with these federal standards could reduce racial disparities in PFAS water contamination in New Jersey, but only with robust federal enforcement. People in New Jersey and across the US – especially people of color who have been disproportionately harmed – need enforceable standards and effective enforcement of those standards in order to be safe from PFAS in their drinking water.

Learn about more toxics

Benzidine

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »

Pyrethrins

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »
Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Climate Change and the Impact on Maternal Health

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.

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

A Compensation Program for First Responders, Cleanup Workers and Others Impacted by the Toxic Cloud Released by the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in New York

September 11th
Photo from https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002717279/

By Stephen Lester.

Today marks the 23rd 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, 11th 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.  

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

The Government’s Approach to Evaluating Health Problems in Communities

Toxic Tuesdays

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

The Government’s Approach to Evaluating Health Problems in Communities

Communities exposed to toxic chemicals from industrial pollution struggle to get answers about whether the pollution has caused the health problems in their community. Groups organize to pressure the government to stop the pollution and to clean up the contamination. But these agencies have few answers and often little is done. Frequently states ask the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to investigate the health problems reported in a community. Initially, ATSDR is welcomed because people think that someone is finally going to provide some answers about the health problems in the community.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was created in 1980 to address health problems at Superfund sites. Their mission is to protect communities from harmful health effects related to exposure to both natural and man-made hazardous substances. ATSDR is the right agency to evaluate health complaints in a community and they have been doing so for more than 30 years. And for most of this time, the agency has repeatedly failed to answer the questions people raise about whether there’s a link between health problems and the pollution in the community. CHEJ has written much about ATSDR over the years1.

Last month an investigative report by the news service Reuters took an extensive look at ATSDR’s work. The report, “How a US health agency became a shield for polluters,” analyzed 428 reports issued by the agency from 2012 to 2023. Those reports contained 1,582 conclusions about potential harms at contaminated sites. Reuters found that in 68% of its findings, the ATSDR declared communities safe from hazards or did not make any determination at all. That record of finding little harm “strains credulity,” said one former EPA official quoted in the report.

Other key findings included:

  • The agency’s frequent declarations of no harm often are rooted in faulty research. At least 38% of the time, agency reports show, its researchers relied on old or flawed data.
  • At least 20 times from 1996 to 2017 the agency declared that a potential hazard posed no health risk – only to be refuted later by other government agencies or the ATSDR itself. The errors impact communities in AlabamaCaliforniaMissouriNew York and North Carolina.
  • Despite decades of criticism, the agency continues to publish research that relies upon practices its own review board called “virtually useless.”
  • The agency’s common practice of publishing inconclusive reports feeds a long-standing corporate strategy of using scientific uncertainty to deflect regulation and liability for polluted sites.

How is it possible that ATSDR has operated like this for so long? Some answers come from a symposium hosted by ATSDR in 2012 on the Future of Science at ATSDR2:

“In conducting its core work of assessing health risks at contaminated sites, ATSDR has faced a large workload with limited authority and resources to collect needed data. Moreover, concerned communities have voiced legitimate public health questions that ATSDR could not answer fully with existing scientific tools and knowledge.

This meeting documented many scientific limitations and challenges facing the agency. ATSDR’s Board of Scientific Counselors hired a consultant who reviewed the agency’s scientific work and came to these conclusions and observations:

  • An alarming gap persists between public expectations and the limited tools available to scientists to assess the public health effects of hazardous waste sites and uncontrolled releases. This gap is due, in part, to the inherently complex and uncertain relationship between diseases and chemicals emanating from hazardous waste sites and uncontrolled releases. Many substances commonly found at hazardous waste sites and in uncontrolled releases may also emanate from other sources and are routinely detected at low levels in air, water, food, consumer products, or other media. No field-based methods are readily available for measuring the portion of a particular ambient exposure or internal dose that is attributable to a specific hazardous waste site or uncontrolled release.
  • In the absence of scientific methods for assessing the unique contribution of releases from hazardous waste sites and uncontrolled exposures to disease, ATSDR scientists rely upon surrogate methods and designs (e.g., comparing exposures to disease rates in communities with a hazardous waste site with “background” levels). Such approaches, although squarely within the mainstream of environmental science, typically are not robust enough to detect adverse health effects caused by site-specific exposures to toxic chemicals.
  • EPA and ATSDR scientists calculate theoretical risk estimates based on a host of assumptions about contaminant concentrations, exposure duration, characteristics of the exposed population, acute and long-term health risks and other factors.
  • ATSDR relies predominately on environmental data collected by other agencies (primarily EPA and state agencies) for its health assessments. Such data often are not adequate or appropriate for addressing specific questions about current exposures and pathways.

Without good tools to evaluate the impact of chemical exposures on people, ATSDR, EPA and other government agencies will continue to struggle to address pollution and contamination in communities. It’s time to recognize and to acknowledge that scientists know very little about how exposures to toxic chemicals, especially to low level mixtures, lead to adverse health outcomes.

Instead of trying to link cause and effect (the agencies default approach), which is virtually impossible to achieve because of the inherently complex and uncertain relationship between disease and chemical exposure and the limited tools to evaluate health effects, isn’t it time to consider whether there’s enough information and evidence about exposure and adverse health problems in a community to take action to protect people exposed to toxic chemicals?

Until there is a change in how government approaches health problems in a community, you can expect ATSDR to continue to investigate health problems in communities using the same approach that’s reflected in the Reuters article.


(1)  – CHEJ, Assessing Health Problems in Communities, S, Lester, Updated Jan 2010; CHEJ,  ATSDR: Don’t Ask… Don’t tell… Don’t Pursue, S. Lester, 1994 (available from CHEJ).

(2) ATSDR: The Basics, The Future of Science at ATSDR: A Symposium, Atlanta, GA, April 11-12, 2012 (available from CHEJ).

Learn about more toxics

Benzidine

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »

Pyrethrins

Pyrethrins are a class of naturally occurring compounds derived from chrysanthemum flowers. They have been

Read More »
Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

“A National Sacrifice Zone” Radioactive Waste Problems In St. Louis

Photo Credit: SCFiasco/Flickr

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.

Karen Nickel, left, and Dawn Chapman, co-founders of Just Moms STL
Photo Credit: (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

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”.