A unique collaboration between university and community led to an important study evaluating the human health risks posed by airborne polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) coming from sediment in the New Bedford Harbor in Massachusetts. Researchers from Boston University found that the harbor, the home of one of the largest PCBs Superfund sites in the country, is the primary source of PCBs in the air around the harbor. They described the harbor as the “largest reported continuous source of airborne PCBs from natural waters in North America.”
The study found that PCB levels in the ambient air were highest closest to the harbor and that changes in thyroid levels are more likely to occur among people who live near the harbor compared to residents who live further away. These researchers focused on the non-cancer risks posed by exposure to PCBs rather than the cancer risks which EPA used to drive its decisions on the cleanup of the harbor which has been ongoing since the 1990s. So far, more than 425,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment has been removed from the harbor as of December 2017 according to the EPA. Much of this waste has been placed in a constructed landfill in the harbor. The local group, Hands Across the River, has been fighting to stop the agency from doing this for years.
In response to requests from residents to monitor the ambient outdoor air for PCBs in places where they live, researchers from Boston University partnered with the Toxic Action Center, the University of Iowa and local residents to identify locations and design a monitoring program to meet community needs. In contrast, EPA selected monitoring locations for convenience or where concentrations were expected to be the highest.
The researchers modeled the data they collected and for the first time were able to estimate residential exposures and health risks for residents living around the harbor. They chose the thyroid as a target of PCB toxicity based on strong evidence in human and animal studies in the scientific literature. They compared thyroid changes in residents and PCB levels in the ambient air near and distant from the harbor and were able to show potential health risks associated with proximity to the PCB contaminated Superfund site in the New Bedford Harbor.
EPA’s response to these findings in part was to say that “the measured levels of airborne PCBs have never exceeded EPA’s health-based criteria.” This of course misses the point that this study identified new health risks beyond what the agency had previously considered. EPA’s standard risk procedures do not capture all health risks. Their focus was on cancer risk. This study focused on non-cancer health risks.
It has long been suspected that PCBs in the sediment of rivers and waterways will evaporate to some degree and eventually become airborne, but industry and government have pushed back arguing that PCBs do not substantially volatilize and if they did, their impact would be insignificant. This study puts that argument to rest.
This study is a remarkable example of what scientists and researchers can do together to address community needs. Scientific information is a powerful tool when university expertise and resources are focused on responding to community concerns. In this collaboration, new risks were identified that EPA had not previously considered. More of these collaborations are needed.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
December 11, 1980 President Jimmy Carter signed legislation creating a $1.6 billion environmental “Superfund” to pay for cleaning up chemical spills and toxic waste dumps. This legislation came out of a grassroots fight in Niagara Falls, NY at Love Canal.
This is not just another anniversary date, it is a reminder of what can be accomplished when people come together, speak with one voice and demand change. Recently the divisions, among people who often want the same things, has been so orchestrated by those who want to keep the status quo. It’s become difficult for everyday people to figure out what’s what. But if you think about what you really want and ignore the other side’s game of what can be done, what’s possible we can win. At Love Canal I was told you will never be evacuated so give it up. But 800 families were evacuated. We were told the Superfund legislation would never pass it was way too costly, but it did.
When you look back at least in our environmental health and justice movement you’ll see how labor and communities came together, even in the belly of the beast in Louisiana, to pass the Right-To-Know legislation. Recycling is now a staple in our society where someone throwing away a can in the garbage is frowned upon. The public came together to use their power as consumers to stop many toxic products from being sold on the market. Young people today are speaking out and speaking loudly about Climate Change and using their power and their votes to move candidates.
Today marks the anniversary of what a grassroots movement can do. Let us celebrate that victory and work to achieve more. Let’s not be influenced by those who want to keep us apart, rather find the ways we can join together to win justice for all living things.
Categories
Limiting Science in Government
Just before the Thanksgiving Holiday, the New York Times ran a story about EPA’s plan to limit the studies and information that would be used by the agency in evaluating public health risks when setting regulations. The original proposal called, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, was proposed in April of 2018 and would require scientists and researchers to disclose their raw data including confidential medical records before the agency would consider a study’s conclusions. The findings of researchers who did not comply with this rule would be not be considered by EPA when reviewing and setting standards.
The original proposal released during Scott Pruitt’s term as administrator at EPA, was met with huge outcry from the scientific and medical community. According to the Times article, nearly 600,000 comments were submitted, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal including some of the leading scientific organizations in the country such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The prime opposition to the proposed requirements is that many studies linking disease outcomes with pollution and chemical exposures are based on personal health information protected by confidentiality agreements. For example, a critically important study linking mortality and premature deaths to exposure to particulates in the air of urban areas relied on personal health information provided by people who signed confidentiality agreements. The researchers would not have been able to do this study without obtaining these agreements. This research design is standard accepted procedure that has been in place in the scientific community for many years. Under the proposed rule, the results of studies involving the use of personal health information would not be considered by EPA when setting related rules and regulations unless the researchers were willing to break their confidentiality agreements.
Despite enormous opposition from some of the leading scientific and medical organizations and institutions in the country, EPA seems bent on going forward with this plan. In a scathing rebuttal to the Times article, the agency stated that it “still intends to issue a final rule in 2020.
This incredibly bad proposal is consistent with the Trump Administration’s efforts to undermine and ignore standard science that does not meet political objectives. If finalized, many legitimate scientific findings will be ignored for political advantage and that’s not only bad science, but it’s bad policy.
Categories
What Are You Thankful For?
By Liz Goodiel, CHEJ Science and Tech Fellow
The holiday season, and Thanksgiving in particular, is the time of the year where we all take time to reflect on the things in our lives we are thankful for. Some might give thanks for a loving family, supportive friends, a steady job or maybe even just a roof over one’s head. Another thing to be thankful for is the hard work communities have accomplished over the last year.
One thing to be thankful for is leaders and groups who are working hard for the health and protection of their communities. Individual communities across the country have been burdened by toxic chemicals, abandoned waste facilities, contaminated water sources and various other threats to public health. To combat these issues and to seek justice on behalf of their impacted neighbors, leaders everywhere have been speaking up and working tirelessly for remediation. We give thanks to the people who refuse to give up and continue to fight their local problems.
One example of a leader who won’t quit is Lee Ann Smith, the cofounder of P.O.W.E.R. Action Group in Asheville, North Carolina. A mother of two, Ms. Smith is an elementary school librarian by day and a local activist by night. Alongside her community, Lee Ann has fought without rest for the cleanup of an abandoned CTS facility with residual radioactive waste. She has attended a handful of meetings with her representatives, assisted in countless protests and has even met with some of the highest officials in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). From her fight and the support of her neighbors, the CTS Superfund site has received cleanup action with a plan for further remediation. However, there is still work to be done and her willingness to fight won’t end until the battle is over and her community receives a complete cleanup.
Lee Ann is just one example of the thousands of leaders taking the charge against unjust community exposure to harmful contaminants. We give great thanks to all of the people speaking up about their local concerns and taking action to address the problem. We give thanks to those that schedule community meetings to hear all the voices of those individuals that are most impacted. We give thanks to those who march alongside their neighbors to raise awareness and to organize others for the common goal. We give thanks to the leaders that consistently contact their local political leaders and we give thanks to those political leaders that fight for their constituency with their concerns at the forefront.
Everyday, people across the country are burdened with environment and/or public health problems; today, we give thanks to all of those who refuse to give up the fight.
By Teresa Mills
Today the Trump administration finalized its 49th de-regulatory action since he took office. What will be the next human and environmental protection to hit the chopping block?
The administration says this move will make less of a burden on chemical plants by getting rid of “unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The regulation was updated after a fertilizer plant exploded in Texas that killed 15 people, injured 160 and damaged or destroyed 150 buildings. A crater 93-foot-wide was almost all that was left of the plant site.
In January 2017 under the Obama administration and reacting to the explosion in Texas the Risk Management Plan (RMP) rules were update to protect local communities from chemical disasters. However, the Trump administration claims that the Obama update was burdensome and that little data showed that the Obama rule did not reduce accident rates.
Under the new Environmental Protection Agency’s risk management program (RMP), chemical plants will be rid of what the chemical industry says are “unnecessary regulatory burdens,” aligning with the wishes of the chemical industry.
The original plan was developed in 1996, with almost 12,500 facilities falling under the RMP.
EPA’s finalized rule Thursday comes two years after the agency tried to suspend the Obama rule, but in March of 2018 a federal judge reinstated the rule.
Of Course the American Petroleum Institute (API) applauded the Trumps administration gutting of the rule. Welcome to the United States of Petroleum.
While the agency said that from 2007-2016 about 90 percent of the facilities that were required to report, reported no accidents. Well gee do you think that might have been because they were required to clean up their act. The rule was working as it should have. Now however we will have to wait and see if they threw out the baby with the bath water. I pray that someone will be there to catch that baby. Read more.
By: Sharon Franklin
New York Times Reporter, Erica L. Green recently reported on November 6, 2019 that Flint’s Children Suffer in Class After Years of Drinking the Lead-Poisoned Water. She reported that Angy Keelin’s son Averey, was exposed to lead, and had to repeat kindergarten, and Ms. Keelin now fears a Michigan law that calls for students to repeat third grade if they are more than one grade level behind in reading. She stated “I don’t want him to be continuously held back.” Ms. Keelin says that she wanted to stay in Flint Community Schools, where her blind son, was progressing in a program for visually impaired students, but then it ended abruptly and she was forced to follow the program 10 miles from her home to Genesee County.
Ms. Green reported, that now, five years after the Flint, Michigan Water Crisis the city’s lead crisis has migrated from its homes to its schools, where neurological and behavioral problems — real or feared — are threatening to overwhelm the education system.
Nearly, 30,000 of Flint Michigan school children have been exposed to a neurotoxin known to have detrimental effects on children’s developing brains and nervous systems. Katherine Burrell, Neurodevelopmental Center of Excellence Associate Director said the percentage of the city’s students who qualify for special education services has nearly doubled, to 28 percent, from 15 percent the year the lead crisis began, and the city’s screening center has received more than 1,300 referrals since December 2018.
For other Flint parents, there is consolation, because they have the opportunity to send their children to Educare a 36,000-square-foot early childhood center, which opened in December 2017. It is funded largely by private money in response to the Flint Water crisis. It serves 220 students ages 0 to 5 years with lead exposures. Educare is part of a national network that uses research into early childhood education, brain development and the achievement gap between rich and poor to shape its approach.
Today, Pediatrician, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha remains optimistic. She is the doctor who used science to prove Flint kids were exposed to lead in 2015, when she went public with her research. She says that because of the Flint Water crisis, the fallout has created a road map to assist other cities like Newark, New Jersey that are experiencing a similar crisis. Dr. Hanna-Attisha further stated “We’re leaning on the science of trauma and resilience,”… “because kids across this country are waking up to the same nightmare.” She went on to say that “toxicity” existed here long before the water crisis.
…Photo Credit: Brittany Greeson for The New York Times
Categories
Busting Stereotypes: Outdoor Afro
Earlier this month, the Heinz Foundation honored 5 remarkable people who reflect the accomplishments and spirit the late U.S. Senator John Heinz. These awards recognize the extraordinary contributions of individuals in the areas of greatest importance to the late senator.
The Environmental Award went to Rue Mapp, founder and CEO of the nonprofit organization Outdoor Afro, who was recognized for inspiring African Americans to reconnect with nature and for championing diversity in conservation leadership.
Started as a blog in 2009, Outdoor Afro has grown into a national network with more than 35,000 participants and nearly 80 volunteer leaders in 30 states around the country. Outdoor Afro has become the nation’s leading, cutting edge network that celebrates and inspires African American connections and leadership in nature. As stated on their website, “We help people take better care of themselves, our communities, and our planet!” Outdoor Afro connects thousands of people to outdoor experiences and is changing the face of conservation.
Developing African American leaders in the fields of conservation and outdoor activity and management is a key component of Outdoor Afro’s programming. Leadership training summits are held annually, with attendees learning about conservation efforts and how to advocate for natural resources; the health benefits of nature; trip planning; leave-no-trace principles; proper clothing and gear; and community organizing approaches. Once trained, leaders volunteer to organize local “meet ups” in their home regions for local outdoor excursions, as well as larger destination trips to national parks and historical sites.
Mapp acknowledges that historical racism has undermined the connection black people have with nature through race-related crimes frequently executed in local woodlands and Jim Crow laws that barred African Americans from using public outdoor facilities such as beaches and pools.
Outdoor Afro’s mission is to overcome these narratives and use nature as a vehicle to help black communities address the violence in their past and present. As an example, the group has organized “healing hikes” that provide opportunities for people to find solace in nature.
As part of her work challenging traditional conservation organizations to be more inclusive, Rue Mapp consults with the outdoor industry, environmental nonprofits, and the national park system, as well as national and state administrations, and has been instrumental in helping shape national leaders’ understanding of how federal public land policies affect people of color.
Outdoor Afro has inspired Black people from all walks of life to step up and become leaders in the outdoors and in the community. Their volunteer leaders plan, scout and lead nearly a thousand events annually, connecting Black people all across the U.S. with positive and meaningful experiences in the outdoors. As described on their website, these activities not only help participants learn new skills and discover hidden gems in their cities, but they also carve out a unique space in which participants are able to embrace the joy of the outdoors.
For more about the Heinz awards see http://www.heinzawards.net/2019-recipients/
Categories
The Halls of Capitol Hill
by Liz Goodiel, CHEJ Science & Tech Fellow
Capitol Hill is a busy epicenter of political movement and policy change. The halls of its buildings are flooded with congress men and women, staffers and schedulers hustling from one meeting to the next. Every few years, citizens across the country elect a representative that will fight for their constituency’s concerns. That man or woman will daily attend numerous meetings, conferences, debates, and state site visits all in an attempt to fight for their constituency’s concerns. To an outsider, Capitol Hill and all it beholds is something of a complex systematic mystery. Its infrastructure enables citizens to hold faith that their concerns are heard and being fought for.
Over the last few weeks, members of CHEJ have met with dozens of Congress staff members, both within the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. From meeting to meeting, we entered the decorated conference rooms, sat in the neatly organized plush leather chairs, and discussed the intentions of our visit in a punctual 30 minutes. Our meetings were always with an office staffer, given that most Congressmen have extremely busy schedules. For most appointments, the script was similar. We introduced our work, specifically with Superfund, discussed our connections with their constituency, presented the problem and introduced a potential policy solution. The experiences and responses we received, however, could not have been more different.
In most meetings, the staffer came prepared with a business card, a note pad, and a few questions to ask throughout the meeting. Some individuals were highly engaged and gave positive feedback about our efforts. They were encouraged that their Congressman would support or in the least look at any materials we provided. All could not concretely speak on behalf of their representative; however, some staffers gave hope and optimism in working on a solution to a problem impacting most of their voter base.
Most notable were the few meetings in which the staffer did not engage in conversation, ask any questions, or even open their notebooks. Their eyes glazed over in partial interest of our meeting and left with no intentions to follow up. Why were these particular meetings most noteworthy? We went into each meeting discussing a real problem that many of their constituency were facing. However, because of party alignment and committee membership, certain policy concerns were not even worth discussing with the representative. Although we did not experience many of these meetings, it was interesting to compare the staffers’ levels of involvement in our conversation over a substantial health issue.
At the same time, I have been given the opportunity to speak with a handful of community leaders from varying states across the country (including Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and West Virginia) that are tirelessly fighting for the health and safety of their communities within the Superfund program. These leaders have fought for years for the cleanup of their communities and for the health and safety of the neighbors. They have stood in the streets educating their community members on the problem that is plaguing their residents and have consistently reached out to their political leaders for support.
Having the opportunity to meet with a handful of the staff responsible for influencing our policy change was a very rewarding experience. It was exciting to experience a partial view of the mystery system that is our legislative body. However, it is still very hard to have a completely optimistic opinion on the outcome of our meetings. Although many staff members were open to understanding our work and sincerely interested in deliberating the matter with their Congressman, those meetings were clouded by the tough meetings from party members with no enthusiasm to experiment outside of party lines. After meeting with the community members from across the country, and hearing how policy change could absolve some of their most serious concerns, it is discouraging to see how political lines could run so deep that it prevents conversation and change.
By: Sharon Franklin
Kristina Marusic, of Environmental Health News reported on October 9, 2019 about the dangerous PFAS chemicals that show up in the bodies of people who eat takeout, fast food, and pizza are often at higher levels than in people who regularly cook at home. This is according to a new study, which is the first to link certain foods and PFAS exposures in Americans and adds to the mounting evidence that food packaging, (i.e. grease resistant boxes, pizzas and popcorn) is a major source of exposure to the toxics in people. PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) refers to a class of more than 5,000 chemicals that are used to make everything from food packaging and cook wear to furniture, carpets and clothing grease-, stain-, and water-repellent. They’re sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down naturally. These chemicals can accumulate in the body and have been linked to many health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, low birth weight and decreased fertility.
Dr. Laurel Schaider, who co-authored the study PFAS in drinking water (STEEP) says “We all know eating more fresh foods and more home-cooked meals is good for our health for many reasons,” and “I think our study adds further evidence to support that. She and her co-authors analyzed data collected between 2003 and 2014 from 10,106 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that tracks health and nutritional trends in the United States. Dr. Schaider also stated that “We found that every 100 calories of food purchased at a grocery store and prepared at home instead of at a restaurant was associated with 0.3 to 0.5 percent lower levels of PFAS in our bodies”.
Dr. Schaider concluded, while eating at home was associated with lower levels of PFAS than eating out overall, eating fast food and pizza were most strongly linked with higher levels of PFAS in people. “We know we’re exposed to PFAS from many different sources, “but our findings indicate that food consumption is an important pathway of exposure.” Ultimately, we need better regulations to keep harmful chemicals from getting into our food and products in the first place.”
Photo Credit: Jacob Styburski/flickr
We are All on the Titanic
Editors note: Peter Montague wrote this years ago and thought it was more relevant today than ever.
Environmental injustice arises when people of color and/or people of below-average income are (a) unfairly burdened with bad environments, or (b) unfairly denied good environments, or (c) harmed because vulnerabilities leave them especially prone to injury from “normal” or “average” circumstances.
Having been active in the Environmental Justice (EJ) movement for the last decade (and supplying it with information for the past 30 years), I’ve come to believe that the EJ frame is now too narrow. New information about environmental threats has changed the picture very substantially. We are all on the Titanic and we can see the iceberg ahead. On this voyage there are no lifeboats. A plutocratic oligarchy has seized the bridge and taken command of the wheelhouse. Instead of steering a true course to safety and prosperity for all, they are busily stuffing their pockets while they debate what we can all see looming ahead — isn’t it really just a patch of fog? Is it worth the trouble and expense to try to turn the ship? Shouldn’t we count on the invisible hand to steer us true?
The EJ movement originally demanded to move from steerage up to first class. But 30 years later the situation has changed; we can now see that such a move isn’t going to provide a full measure of justice for anyone. As we draw closer to the iceberg, in the ensuing panic people of color and the poor will be ignored and forgotten — perhaps jettisoned overboard. But justice continues to be the central demand of any strategy that can turn the ship. The EJ perspective is now crucial not only to people of color and of low income — it has become crucial for us all. Our national pledge of allegiance, “…with liberty and justice for all,” now means we must all demand environmental justice for everyone, remove the oligarchs from the wheelhouse, and turn the ship before it is too late.
We must not dilute the demands of people of color or people with low income. But today we can aim to build a broad, inclusive movement for change by recognizing that their legitimate demand for justice pertains now to a majority constituency — all those who are marginalized, disrespected, ignored, abused, hurt, and harmed. In sum, a call for environmental justice can now speak to the vast majority of Americans, whose environmental, social and economic needs are no longer being met. –Peter Montague