by Summer-Solstice Thomas, CHEJ Science & Tech Intern
On Wednesday July 31st, 2019, the morning air in Baytown, Texas filled with black smoke after an explosion the Exxon Mobil Olefins Plant. Nearby residents described the blast as so powerful that their houses shook and their windows rattled. Residents downwind of the plant were notified of a voluntary shelter-in-place, advising them to stay inside with their windows and doors shut. It was lifted four hours later after air monitoring had found no contaminant concentrations large enough to be “of concern.”
As one of the United State’s largest petrochemical facilities, the Baytown Olefins Plant, is one of three Exxon Mobil plants all around one mile from each other, forming a triangle of chemical processing and refining. The air cancer toxics risk, as reported by the 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), for a three mile radius zone with its center equidistant from these three facilities is 62 in a million. This means that if a million people were chronically exposed over a lifetime to the concentrations of air contaminants in this zone, 62 of them would contract cancer as a direct result of such exposure. This high level of cancer risk falls within the 99th percentile for the state of Texas and the 95th-100 percentile nationally, which means that the cancer risk for Baytown, Texas is some of the highest in the entire nation. Meanwhile, the NATA respiratory hazard index for the same zone is 3.3, indicating that the estimated long-term exposure to respiratory irritants is, on average, 3.3 times greater than the corresponding health-based reference concentration. This high level of respiratory hazard is also some of the highest in the nation: it falls within the 97th state percentile and 90-95th national percentile.
Here at CHEJ, we see Baytown as an example of a “sacrifice zone,” a region especially concentrated with intensive industry operations, leading to levels of chemical exposures that threaten the health of the community’s residents. Due to the phenomenon of white flight from metropolitan industrial centers in the 1960s, and the pattern of siting industrial facilities in areas with low property values, sacrifice zones are often communities of color and/or low socioeconomic status. The health burden experienced by these residents living near numerous chemical facilities is often compounded by limited access to healthcare and other wellness resources. Current regulatory policies don’t take into account the clustering pattern common to chemical facilities, leaving such communities disproportionately exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals.
Other examples of sacrifice zones are Detroit, Michigan, where 48217 has been dubbed “the most toxic zip code in the US,” or St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana where the NATA air toxics cancer risk is 500 in a million, over 15 times the national average. Unsurprisingly, these zones follow not only the pattern of extreme chemical exposure, but of this disparate burden falling on low-income communities of color. 48217 consists of predominately African-American residents, with an 89% minority population. Over half the population living within three miles of the largest facility in the area, a Marathon Petroleum refinery, falls below the poverty line. St. John the Baptist hosts another major Marathon refinery, where 34.1% of the people residing within three miles of the facility live below the poverty line. The parish itself is 63.6% minority. In 2017, this refinery emitted 79 tons, or 158,073lbs, of chemicals identified by the EPA as Hazardous Air Pollutants, defined as “those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects.”
These, and other facilities across America, emit huge amounts of air toxics every day, endangering the communities around them. More comprehensive and effective regulatory legislation is clearly needed to ensure not only that residents of Baytown, Detroit, and St. John the Baptist, but that every American, has clean air to breathe.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
by Liz Goodiel, CHEJ Science & Tech Fellow
This Friday, August 2, 2019 marks the anniversary of the historic evacuation of Love Canal. The landmark tragedy sparked an awareness across the nation to the environmental dangers present in everyday communities. The unfortunate reality of this event remains that the Love Canal is not an isolated event. Throughout the last half a century numerous towns and cities have come forward with cases of bad pollution. Despite decades of education and awareness, toxic tragedies have occurred and continue to occur in locations across the country. Many communities to date are still organizing together to fight similar incidents as Love Canal and continue to face challenges in their effort to achieve remediation or evacuation status.
Love Canal was an idyllic vision established by William T. Love in 1982 as paradise community connected to Niagara Falls by a canal. Due to economic failures, the canal project was abandoned and converted into a municipal and chemical waste dumping site by the Hooker Chemical Corporation and the City of Niagara. In 1953 the Hooker Chemical Corporation turned the land over the city where the canal was covered up, along with the secret chemicals it housed, and the construction of a new community began. With an understanding that the area was perfectly safe for residence, hundreds of homes were built as families migrated into the area.
Nearly 20 years later, the city disclosed information regarding the toxins present in the community, its subsequent health effects, and no details about how the government was going to right the wrong. Lois Gibbs, along with her neighbors, united over their shared frustration and general concern for their exposed families and established the Love Canal Parents Movement. Together the group voiced their concern and fought for change that finally came on August 2, 1978. The New York State Department of Health ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and children under the age of two to be evacuated. Just five days later, the rest of the community received relief as the government agreed to buy all 239 homes closest to the center of the canal.
Following the Love Canal evacuation, other communities began receiving attention in response to harmful pollutants poisoning the residents. One similar instance occurred only a few years later on the opposite side of the country. San Jose, California, a seemingly beautiful spot to raise a family, absent of any visible smoke stacks or toxic air releases, began noticing some unexpected birth defects in 1982. Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, a computer technology producer, found evidence of nearly 50,000 gallons of leaked toxic chemicals underground. The most alarming chemical discovery was that of trichloroethane (TCE), a cancer causing toxin. San Jose residents began raising concern when mothers of the area compared shared miscarriage experiences and birth defects among their young children. Nearly 50 days after the discovery of the leak by the state health department, a local newspaper released the disclosed information to residents. Larraine Ross, a distressed mother of a daughter with a serious heart defect took action and united 15 neighbors together to sue the Fairchild Corporation, along with the area’s main water supplier, Great Oak Water. The case concluded in 1986 with a multimillion dollar success settlement in support of nearly 530 affected residents in the Los Paseos area.
Despite decades of environmental activism from communities banning together to fight for clean air and water, there are still groups today fighting for a voice and an action for change. North Birmingham, Alabama has been a booming home to the steel and coal industry for decades. The facilities in the area have contributed chemical pollutants including arsenic, lead and benzo(a)pyrene. After constant investigation, in 2011 the EPA recommended a “time-critical removal action” for the 35th Avenue Superfund Site. The EPA determined a necessary clean up for the northern region of the community, yet years passed with no movement. In July of 2017 it was revealed why there was such a lag in government support for clean up. Alabama Representative Oliver Robinson was convicted for bribery by Drummond Company, a large contributor to the pollution in the region. Rep. Robinson took the bribes in an effort to keep the EPA from expanding the Superfund site and for keeping the area off of the NPL list for receiving advanced community pollution remediation. After the trial and years of battling pollution contributing facilities, community residents are still fighting for significant change and relocation away from the reach of cancerous toxins.
August 2, 1978 marked the beginning of a movement for communities to unite together for the shared vision of a clean backyard. The success of evacuation for Love Canal residents stands as an inspiration and model that through organization and persistence environmental change is possible. There are many cases throughout the last few decades that show the success cities and towns have had in community remediation. However, even today the battle still rages on as cities and towns across the country fight for the same right to clean air and water.
by Victoria Chappell, CHEJ Science & Tech Fellow
Despite the noticeable effect climate change has on health, the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations while promoting fossil fuels and downplaying mentions of climate change on government websites.
During the recent June G20 summit that occurred in Osaka, Japan, the U.S. was again split from the other 19 countries during discussions for climate change. While the other 19 countries recommitted to the full implementation of the Paris agreement, President Trump again refused to sign the climate change part of the communique, a recurring event since pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement back in June 2017.
Regardless, more Americans are pushing the government to do more in terms of policies and actions to control climate change. In a 2018 survey released by RFF’s Surveying American Attitudes toward Climate Change and Clean Energy project, public awareness and support for action on climate change has increased and is becoming an ever growing topic of discussion, especially for the 2020 election. Although many Americans are in support of government action, only around a third are in support of an extra tax of $100 a year to help. In Americans demand climate action (as long as it doesn’t cost much): Reuters poll, the author reiterates that support quickly drops when there is a personal price to pay, making it increasingly difficult for both Democrats and Republicans to formulate a plan for cleaner energy.
However, summers are becoming increasingly warmer and with it, the risk to human health rises. In response to the increase in illnesses and deaths, dozens of medical and public health organizations have signed the U.S. Call on Action on Climate Health and Equity in an effort of bringing the topic of climate change back to the forefront. This is one of the issues coming forward for the 2020 campaign season; urging government, businesses and leaders to recognize that climate change will require the coordination and cooperation of government, businesses, and communities alike.
Our generations, Millennials and Generation Z together, are calling climate change the “greatest public health challenge of the 21st century”, and we are aiming to promote policies and support candidates that will move us towards safe climate goals that will reap significant health benefits for future generations. To do this, we must ensure that climate change remain on the political agenda.
As we get closer to the 2020 elections, it becomes imperative that voters of all ages understand the costs affiliated with doing nothing – namely in personal health, environmental deterioration, and the negative consequences resulting in what we are not doing now that will impact future generations.
By the time the 2020 elections role around, even more of our new generation will be of voting age: if you’re angry about climate inaction, inform yourself of the candidate’s climate policies and go vote.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]
By Sharon Franklin
In a recent article from Inside Climate News, by Nina Pullano, U.S. Medical Groups Warn Candidates: Climate Change Is A ‘Health Emergency’, The American Medical Association and other major health groups are proposing a policy agenda for reducing climate-related health risks. Those risks include extreme heat waves like the one expected in Europe this summer. These leading medical organizations are urging political candidates “to recognize climate change as a health emergency” issued a call for urgent action on “one of the greatest threats to health America has ever faced.”
More than 70 health organizations signed a statement that, among other things, calls for a move away from fossil fuels. The groups cite storm and flood emergencies, chronic air pollution, the spread of diseases carried by insects, and especially heat-related illnesses.
Europe is anticipating an intense heat wave as well as parts of the U.S., where extreme heat has been the leading cause of weather-related deaths which have already experienced record-breaking heat this year. Additionally, the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association joined dozens of other organizations in signing the U.S. Call to Action on Climate Health and Equity. Recognizing that climate change poses a greater threat to children, pregnant women and marginalized communities, the groups said that social justice needs to be a mainstay of climate policy. Additionally, the American Medical Association and other major health groups are calling for hospitals and other healthcare systems to adopt “climate-smart” practices, including energy and water usage, transportation and waste management. Ed Maibach, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, said “At the same time, hospitals need to be prepared for events like the extreme heat expected to hit Europe.”
Recently, many of these same organizations publicly backed the twenty-one (21) children and young adults suing the United States Government over Climate Change. Additionally, the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association announced on July 8 that they were suing the current administration over the EPA’s decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan. , and replace it with a new rule, which would be only be a tiny fraction cleaner than not having any regulation at all.
Dr. Aparna Bole the incoming chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Environmental Health, said “public health can’t be fenced off from other policy concerns. Health, energy, transportation and food policy tend to be put in compartments, and “continuing to break them down and make sure that health is front and center in climate action is really important for us.” Dr. Bole went on to say, “We have this incredible opportunity right now to take urgent action to mitigate the impacts of potentially runaway climate change.” Dr. Boris Lushniak, former U.S. Deputy Surgeon General and Dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Health, added that one of the main goals is to keep climate change on the political agenda, because, “Climate solutions are health solutions.”
Photo Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Categories
Building a Kaleidoscope Movement
by Lois Gibbs
As we approach the 2020 elections, I am excited about the opportunities to engage in a broader pubic conversation about creating real social change. Elections provide us with opportunities to engage the public in conversations about serious deep changes that are needed, not only environmental and health but social justice issues across the board. Class, race, living wage, immigration policies, economic growth, climate change, environmental justice are all connected. We need to begin today to expand the movement and build bridges with other leaders, develop strategies and take advantage of the 2020 public conversation to move an agenda that is about people, protection, jobs, justice and so much more. Now is the time to plan and now is the time to build those bridges to work together for change.
Over the 38 years since the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) was founded, we have dedicated ourselves to broadening the base and strengthening the skills of the grassroots movement for environmental health. Our goals are to raise popular consciousness about fundamental problems in the current system, provide a positive, unifying vision, and build a sense of empowerment by reinforcing the power of an organized group of people to create change.
The Kaleidoscope Movement is a formation of groups at local, state and national levels that are joined together around building and strengthening community. The issues are varied, as are the class, race and geographical locations. What is common is the desire for justice, to prevent harm to human health, the economy, environment and the ability of our children to achieve the American promise. It is not anchored in a single political party or class of people, but rather inclusive, dynamic and strategic.
This is a movement that takes people where they are, listens to their concerns and builds power around their issues and concerns. It is not D.C. or policy focused, rather it’s focused on people, values and strategic place/practice-based goals. For example, our definition of “environmental health and justice issues” is where people live, work, learn, pray and play. Systemic change has come from this approach by building power at the local level.
The results historically have been very exciting. By organizing one family at a time, one church at a time, one school at a time, and one neighborhood at a time, CHEJ and partners have been able to accomplish things that have been out of reach to groups taking a policy or regulatory approach to systemic change. We have our supporters and grassroots activists to thank for this success. In fact, in most cases the policy has not kept up with the shifts in practices. Our methodology for change is to bring people together, build power around issues people care about that are strategic and fit into a larger vision of change that is needed.
CHEJ does not bring people together to agree on a platform or policy agenda and then try to move groups into action. Our approach, instead of top down, is to pick strategic issues that people care about and then move people directly into action from the bottom up. Through this process the public conversations raise fundamental values and the work is based on solutions that are source based for a more permanent change in public opinion and in practice.
The victories of changing the “practice,” are unlike regulatory or policies based wins. These victories are not as likely to a slide backwards or are enforcement centered. Consequently, they stay in place even when there is a change in elected representation or a decision maker.
Through these specific issue related efforts, CHEJ linked activists together to build a broad progressive movement. While organizing, educating, and building the base, we actively teach people about the root cause of their problems and the need to become active participants in the governance of their communities and state. Our work also helps activists experience the power of working collaboratively in local or statewide coalitions.
To continue to build a progressive movement, it is critical to find ways to remove the barriers between organized groups nationwide, identify common frames that can unite groups of groups, and take advantage of opportunities to flex this multi-faceted, multi-issued political muscle.
CHEJ works with diverse constituencies that focus on a single issue – such as nuclear disarmament activists, disease-related groups focusing on issues like birth defects or breast cancer, environmental justice leaders, firefighters, teachers, parents, faith-based leaders or toxics use reduction groups. We are all learning to support each other, respect each other’s issues and underlying shared values, and appreciate the value of speaking with a unified voice.
2020 offers us all the opportunity to continue to not only learn about one another’s cultures, issues, and tightly held values but to advance them through public conversations this election year. We all win if we continue to break down barriers between diverse segments of the environmental health movement and building bridges to related social justice movements like Black Lives Matter, Health Care for All, living wage campaigns, building a new economy and so many more.
I believe that by investing in ground up activities across lines of issues, race, gender and geographic boundaries, we can create the world we want. I’m looking forward to this challenge this year with the many opportunities that will present themselves during all presidential election years.
by Teresa Mills, CHEJ Organizer at Large/Small Grants Coordinator
As a small child growing up in the hills of Appalachia Ohio, I was not aware that communities sponsored July 4th parades, or fireworks. Our local drive-in theater did shoot off a few fireworks between movies; so my aunt and cousins would all pile into a car and go to the drive in, a major treat for my cousins and myself.
I remember laying on a blanket looking up at the sky in anticipation of what was about to take place. As our childhood excitement grew and grew, our aunt was more than happy that she brought a blanket and that we were out of her car.
As the first firework went off there were screams of joy and excitement followed by the silence of our childish glee. We had become amazed and almost hypnotized by the sights and sounds of what we were told was the day we celebrated our independence. I recall my cousins looking at each other with confused looks and one cousin asking, “What does independence mean?” Our poor aunt tried in vain to teach a bunch of rowdy six and seven-year-old girls what “Independence” meant and why we celebrate the day. I think we listened to her for about thirty seconds before starting to chase each other around the parked cars in the lot.
A few years later I learned what Independence Day was. At least what it was supposed to be. You know there is always a fine line between what we are told and what is reality. Growing up in a political family in Appalachia I was always told not to worry, the politicians would take care of things. Wait, what, you mean my uncle, my brother, and my grandfather would see that everything was ok, REALLY! I knew these people and knew that they didn’t know a whole lot more than I did. I saw politics play out in a small town and felt that this was not what I would call independence. It was more like a dictatorship. “Do as I say, because I said so” was the response to all my questions.
Today, things have only gotten worse. Every time we turn around, some elected suit is taking away yet another one of our civil and human rights. We are seeing fewer and fewer chances to participate in our own government, both federal and state. I think we all remember when the state governments were complaining that the federal government had too much control. Now look at it. Today, it is many of our states, influenced by corporate power/dollars, that have turned around and taken local control away from our cities, towns and villages. Boy now isn’t that the “pot calling the kettle black”!
America! Wake up this 4th of July! Celebrate the day and then on the 5th, do something to help take back control over your own government from corporate America! Don’t allow the same “Do as I say because I said so” to continue. Stand up! Raise your voice! Some say that our voice has been taken away; I believe we gave our voices away by not standing up to those who hold us down.
Get mad.
by Kenia French, CHEJ Communications Intern
A study from the University of Victoria found that humans likely consume 74,000-114,000 microplastic particles per year. How does this happen, and what does this mean for our health?
What are microplastics and where do they come from?
Every year, between 5 and 14 million tons of plastic flow into our oceans, and for a long time, we believed that it just stays there. You may have heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: an expanse of plastic litter larger than Texas floating in the middle of the Pacific ocean. In fact, wherever there’s a major ocean in the world, there’s also a massive garbage island sitting in the middle.
However, recent research suggests that these large expanses of plastic don’t just simply sit there: they degrade over time. This degradation has resulted in a phenomenon referred to as microplastic, or tiny particles of plastic smaller than 5 millimeters, often microscopic. These tiny particles of plastic have infiltrated not only our oceans, but all of the water systems on our planet.
Why are these tiny plastic particles so bad for marine ecosystems?
Microplastic pollution is particularly dangerous because it has a particle and chemical aspect. Microplastics have been found in over 114 aquatic species. Plastic particles fill fish’s stomachs and clog their organs, which has been linked to disrupted eating patterns and starvation. Filter feeders (think oysters) are particularly impacted because their feeding mechanism involves sifting tiny, microscopic organisms out of ocean water— microplastics inevitably get caught up in their dinner.
Microplastics have the potential to leach dangerous chemicals, like PCBs or BPA. While PCBs have been banned in the US since 1979, they aren’t banned worldwide, and many find their way into the ocean through illegal dumping or countries with less stringent regulations. These chemicals have been linked to liver and reproductive damage in many fish species, and to accelerating the destruction of coral reefs.
If microplastics are having their largest impact on marine life, how do they affect people?
The good news is that most microplastics that affect sea animals don’t make it back to affect humans. Microplastics remain in fish gut tissue, and haven’t made it to the muscle tissue, which is what we eat.
As the University of Victoria study found, though, it is clear that we are consuming an astounding number of microplastics from our everyday foods. Seafood is not the only vector for contamination: they found that tap water, bottled water, and sugar, are just a few sources of human microplastic consumption.
Should we be concerned about the potential impact of microplastics on our health?
According to the National Geographic, dosage is a key concept in toxicology. While 74,000-141,000 may seem like very large numbers, they may be quite small in terms of microplastic toxicity and may not be enough to have any impact on human health. Consuming plastic doesn’t really sound healthy, but everything is relative, and there isn’t yet any evidence linking microplastics to human health problems.
How can I limit my impact on microplastic pollution?
What is clear now is that plastic consumption is a problem for species that live on our planet, especially ocean species. If these plastics are harmful for our oceans, then they are probably aren’t the best thing for us to consume either.
There are alternatives: scientists have discovered ways to create biodegradable plastics, and people can push for bans on plastics responsible for leaching toxic chemicals, like our PCB ban. Overall, the best thing for a person to do to reduce plastic pollution is to try to limit your consumption of single use plastics. Single use plastics are plastics you only use once: plastic bags, like the ones your groceries are bagged in, are the main culprit, but plastic water bottles and product packaging are significant sources as well. Next time you’re at the grocery store, choose a paper bag, or better yet— a reusable one!
This is the question that journalist Jim Daley raised recently in an article published in Scientific American. According to the article, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is substantially changing the program that evaluates the toxicity of chemicals by shifting staff and program emphasis from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to duties related to implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Daley writes that “Former EPA officials contend that the shake-up takes chemical assessments out of the hands of career scientists, potentially to the detriment of public health.”
As evidence of this shift, Daley writes that that the agency has reduced the number of its ongoing chemical toxicity assessments from twenty to three.
The IRIS Program began in 1985 to support EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment by identifying and characterizing the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment. The IRIS program has become the most respected scientific program in the agency. Its health assessments are the backbone of EPA risk analysis work and is the preferred source of toxicity information used by EPA to determine public health risks. It is also an important source of toxicity information used by state and local health agencies, other federal agencies, and international health organizations.
The TSCA program on the other has a much narrower focus which is primarily on reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures, according to EPA’s website. Certain substances are not covered by TSCA including food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. While the 2016 amendment to TSCA greatly improved this regulation, it did not address its narrow focus. This shift began with the leadership of Andrew Wheeler who took over for a beleaguered Scott Pruitt as administrator of EPA in July 2018.
One EPA official who declined to be identified was quoted in the Daley article saying that IRIS and TSCA are “very different” in their approaches to evaluating the public health risks posed by exposure to chemicals. “One could make the argument that this is political interference, in that high-level people are saying which methodology we should be using to assess the safety of a chemical. “And the policy’s pretty clear that they’re not supposed to do that.”
Bernard Goldstein, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, who served as EPA Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) from 1983 to 1985, summed it up this way in the Daley article, “I really see this as part of a restructuring of EPA in such a way that science will have very little to do with what EPA is basing its regulation on, and that we will end up with much weaker regulations in terms of protecting public health. “It’s troubling, in large part because it’s very consistent with an overall approach – a very astute approach – to take out the inconvenient facts.” Also cited in the same article was a comment by Thomas Burke from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a former EPA lead scientist adviser and Deputy Administrator of ORD from 2015 to 2017, “’any reduction’ of the number of IRIS chemical assessments ‘is a loss for public health and, unfortunately, puts populations who are exposed at risk.’”
Read the full article here.
by Summer-Solstice Thomas, CHEJ Science & Technology Intern
In the small town of O’Brien, Texas, residents drank water that violated drinking water quality standards for months before one resident found out and altered his community. Facing financial stress, the city had switched from a treated reservoir to a groundwater source with violatingly high levels of nitrates to provide drinking water for its residents.
Nitrate pollution usually comes from fertilizers, as in agricultural towns like O’Brien, and can cause methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby” disease in infants. Nitrate levels in O’Brien schools were found to be 40% above EPA standards. Upon hearing the news, many residents switched to drinking bottled water or purchased individual water filters, but not all were financially able to.
O’Brien is just one example of residents suffering from public water quality violations, but they are not alone. In fact, millions of Americans consume unsafe public drinking water everyday.
Is US Drinking Water Safe?
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US has “one of the safest public drinking water supplies in the world”. Recent reports, however, have challenged that statement. In March, EPA’s Administrator Andrew Wheeler assured that 92% of public water in the US meets EPA standards.
Given that 90% of Americans, or 300 million people, rely on drinking water from a public source, the 8% that doesn’t currently meet EPA standards indicates that over 26 million Americans consume unsafe water daily. Additionally, while the EPA sets legal limits for over 90 drinking water contaminants, ensuring that these limits are not breached is dependent on proper funding and oversight. Based on the 22% decrease between 2009 and 2014 in funding for public water distribution by state and local governments nationwide, it is possible that more than 8% of the nation’s water is unsafe.
Lead Violations
While the CDC has determined that there is no safe blood level of lead for children, the EPA lead rule determines action must be taken if 10% or more of taps sampled have a lead level of 15 ppb or greater. Recently, this rule has come under scrutiny as many companies find ways around the regulation, by selectively testing certain taps, “pre-flushing” or sampling slowly to reduce samples’ lead concentrations.
Additionally, in 2016, CNN found 5,300 US water systems, serving more than 18 million people, to be in violation of this rule. When the lead rule was first implemented by EPA in 1991, 10 million lead lines served public water nationwide. While this number has decreased to 6.1 million lead lines, there are still 15-22 million Americans served by lead lines, predominantly in the Midwest.
Bacterial Violations
Of the 10,000 public systems violating EPA drinking water standards in 2015, 72% of them were bacteria violations. Bacterial drinking water illness outbreaks have been rising since 2000, with 42 outbreaks between 2013-2014, causing over 1,000 cases of illness. Such violations often occur from contamination of water supplies by animal manure from agricultural operations or sewage, causing 16 million cases of acute gastrointestinal illness annually.
Disparate Impact
Violations of water quality are not experienced equally across the nation, and instead they disparately impact communities of color and low socioeconomic status. Research has determined that the prevalence of nitrates and pesticides in drinking water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley, California’s agricultural powerhouse, is significantly higher in Latinx and low-income communities. After the well-publicized water crisis in Flint, Michigan, children residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were found to have greater elevation of blood lead levels when compared to their peers.
Categories
Stepping Out of Your Comfort Zone
It has been almost 40 years since the residents at Love Canal felt frustrated and angry that the newest scientific study found families had abnormal chromosome breakage, “a very rare observation in any population,” according to scientists. Not only does abnormal chromosome breakage indicate a higher risk of cancer, but also genetic damage in adults and children. However, the White House didn’t feel as though these anomalies were significant enough to warrant resident relocation.
That’s when residents decided to really step out of their comfort zone. They invited two EPA officials into their office building and closed the door. “You cannot leave until the White House evacuates us,” they told the officials.
Hundreds of people encircled the building (an abandoned home) and sat down: a non-violent action that received massive media attention. The media defined the action as the first domestic hostage taking, but the residents considered it to be detaining the EPA representatives to protect them from the angry crowd outside. Residents of Love Canal detained the EPA representatives for five hours before letting them go. An ultimatum was sent to the White House – “relocate residents by noon Wednesday or what we did here today will look like a Sesame Street picnic.
Precisely at noon on Wednesday the White House announced that everyone who wished to be moved could leave with federal government funding. Later the polluter Occidental Chemical reimbursed the government. No criminal charges were filed. One of the “hostages” sent a telegram saying, “I miss your oatmeal cookies, best wishes from your friendly hostage, Frank Napal.”
I am sharing this story to say sometimes you must do things outside of your comfort zone. No, I am not suggesting anyone ever detain federal officials. What I am saying is that all too often, leaders are not willing to do things that raise the bar and are risky. Even carrying signs in front of city hall or an EPA hearing is considered to be too risky for them. However, if you play by the rules, you are almost guaranteed to lose.
Why? Because the rules are defined by those in power to control everyday people. There is nothing, for example in a state or our country’s constitution, that says citizens can only speak for three minutes at a public hearing while their opponents generally get plenty of time, loosely disguised as explaining the project/plan.
Today, there is a big push by corporate power to make it a felony to protest even in a nonviolent, peaceful manner. In Texas, some legislature members are trying to push a measure that would subject those who trespass, damage or destroy a facility, or impair or interrupt operations to a third-degree felony including two to ten years in prison. Organizations found guilty of breaking the law would face a fine of up to $500,000 under another provision in the bill.
Finding creative ways around the “rules” is often the only way to make your voice heard, along with applying pressure to those you need to move to resolve the problem. But most of the time, that involves stepping out of your comfort zone. Here are some examples.
- One strategy you can implement is to hold a news conference ½ hour before a public hearing at the same place (or sidewalk nearby). Explain to reporters your objections to the format, the solution/problem the hearing is about and provide the reporters with questions they can ask of elected representatives, the corporation that benefits and offer community people to provide the “human impact” side of the story. Reporters are better prepared when interviewing people with real, targeted questions.
- In Georgia, in the black belt region, the community wanted to speak out against a proposed facility that threatened their air, water and land. However, every time someone did speak out in opposition, their car tires or personal property were vandalized. The message was clear: if you speak up, there will be retaliation. The solution to this problem is to stop speaking out as individuals; instead, speak as a group. At the next public hearing, 250 African American residents filled the auditorium. That alone frightened the corporation because they had never had so many local residents attend. Then, when the first speaker from the residents group went to the podium to speak, he broke into a church hymn. All 250 residents stood up and sang along with him. When the second person went to the podium, she sang a church hymn as well and everyone stood up and sang with her. The tables were turned as the local people began to take back their power and started feeling strong.
There are many ways to take back our democracy and have our voices heard, but simply writing letters, signing petitions, and playing by the rules is not enough. To make real, tangible change, you need to step out of your comfort zone and do something creative, together, and always non-violent.
