Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Backyard Talk

CHEJ Blog

Categories
Backyard Talk

Katrina: 10 Years Later – An Uneven Recovery

Two days ago marked the 10th anniversary of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast. The greatest impact was in the city of New Orleans where the failure of the federal levees submerged some 80% of the city. An estimated 400,000 people were evacuated or displaced from their homes and over 1,800 died, the majority of whom were from New Orleans.

There were bands in the street celebrating the city’s recovery. Specials on CNN and network TV. President Obama stopped by, as did former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. There was a conference hosted by The Atlantic recognizing the city’s resilience. Most major newspapers ran features commemorating that dreadful day and the city’s remarkable recovery. The city has been largely rebuilt and repopulated since that disaster.

Except, not really. Some areas, such as the Lower 9th Ward, that were hardest hit, have struggled to return to normal and face serious challenges, including persistent crime and intrinsic poverty. As detailed in a sobering feature in Mother Jones earlier this month, “Four of the city’s poorest neighborhoods, including the Lower Ninth Ward, are still largely abandoned, with less than half of their pre-storm populations.” NPR’s Greg Allen was quoted in the article following a visit to the area earlier this summer. “One of the first things you notice is the many empty lots, several on every street. Instead of houses, they now hold weeds and tall grass… Some streets are so filled with potholes, cars can’t drive down them. There are a few convenience stores and fast food stands, but no supermarkets or grocery stores.” The article continues: “Some residents in the neighborhood sold their properties to the state after the storm, Allen explained. Others wanted to rebuild their homes but did not receive enough federal money to cover the costs of reconstruction.” Some areas that were less severely damaged are recovering, with higher-earning residents moving into previously working-class neighborhoods. It’s not a pretty picture.

BuzzFeed News reporters also visited Louisiana and Mississippi speaking to dozens of people whose lives were changed by the storm. They published a series of articles “on how life, crime, and politics have shifted since the storm hit 10 years ago.” One feature questioned whether the gentrification that is occurring throughout the city was saving New Orleans or ruining it. “New bike lanes have been built, massive redevelopment projects are underway, and commercial areas like Broad Street in Mid-City … which once were home to liquor stores and check cashing joints, now have boutique tea shops, gourmet restaurants, and upscale grocery stores.”

While change is inevitable, what made New Orleans so unique is its people and its culture. If the changes that the city continues to go through prevent many of the people that made this uniqueness work from living there, what then what will the city really have gained?

Categories
Backyard Talk

New Study Highlights Reproductive Risks from Fracking Chemicals

Could pollution from unconventional oil and gas drilling cause reproductive problems? Scientists at the University of Missouri are trying to answer this question. A study published yesterday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives assessed the research so far on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing. The study presented research linking fracking to EDCs, and the authors recommended an increased focus on these compounds in assessing health risks from fracking pollution.

Endocrine disrupting compounds are a class of chemicals that can alter the delicately balanced endocrine system of the human body, interfering with processes involved in development and reproduction. Some EDCs prevent the endocrine system from carrying out normal functions, while others can mimic hormones naturally found in the body and cause increased endocrine activity. As the study authors note, EDCs are of particular concern because they can have effects at very low concentrations, especially during the early stages of development. Small doses of EDCs can cause drastic health changes, some of which can persist across generations.

One section of the study looked at the endocrine disrupting properties of individual chemicals in fracking fluid. Unfortunately, the identities of many of the approximately 1000 chemicals used in the fracking process are kept under wraps by industry, limiting the extent to which scientists can test any of the health effects they present. Of the chemicals the researchers were able to test, many had endocrine-disrupting properties. When the scientists assessed water samples from areas where drilling-related spills had occurred, they also found elevated endocrine disrupting activity. Chemicals involved in fracking processes are associated with reproductive effects, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and cancer, and several epidemiological studies cited in the paper found elevated risks for these problems in drilling-dense areas.

The study also focused on identifying gaps in our knowledge of EDCs in fracking chemicals. While our understanding of the impacts of individual chemicals is growing, we need to develop better methods for predicting and assessing how these chemicals might interact as part of a complex mixture, where the presence of multiple compounds could result in a more potent disruptive effect than that of one chemical alone. By studying concentrations of EDCs and their byproducts in people’s systems, we can determine what chemicals people are actually exposed to, and gather better information on whether these exposures are related to long-term health issues.

Overall, the study concluded that fracking health studies should include a significant focus on endocrine disrupting compounds. Among the many risks presented by fracking, exposure to complex mixtures of EDCs in the environment may prove to have extraordinary longterm effects.

Learn more:  http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/8/ehp.1409535.acco.pdf

Categories
Backyard Talk

Historic Environmental Justice Group Threatens to Sue EPA

August 26, 2015

Veteran St. Louis Activist Threatens to Sue EPA

Our group and others are filing a legal notice with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today demanding immediate action to stop oil and gas companies from dumping drilling and fracking waste in ways that threaten public health and the environment. We’ll like file a federal lawsuit in 60 days.

Statement of Laura Barrett of St. Louis, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice

“Our group, CHEJ, and others are filing a legal notice today with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency demanding immediate action to stop oil and gas companies from dumping drilling and fracking waste in ways that threaten public health and the environment. We’ll likely file a federal lawsuit in 60 days.

The oil and gas industry is growing by leaps and bounds.  EPA must do its job and update and enforce these vital regulations. Our water and air are threatened by toxic waste from the improper storage of fracking wastes while corporate polluters are allowed to run wild. Homes, small businesses, and low income and indigenous communities are being laid to waste by an industry that is virtually unregulated.”


Statement of Lois Gibbs, Founder, Center for Health, Environment and Justice

“For public safety, EPA must update its woefully outdated 25+ year old regulations on the fast growing oil and gas industry.  I have been called the “Mother of the Superfund” because of the work that I did to get relief for children and families poisoned by toxic wastes in Love Canal.  We won relocation for over 800 families because President Carter and EPA finally stepped up.  The EPA must act now before more rural, indigenous, innocent communities are destroyed.”

More information is available here.

Categories
Backyard Talk

I’m Dying of Cancer … It Was Preventable

Mary has terminal lung cancer. She never smoked. But what she did do is walk around the local park every morning 24 laps. She believed that she was doing a good thing for her health, getting exercise and fresh air.

Unfortunately, the park that she walked daily was found to be contaminated with radioactive materials. It’s all part of the St. Louis historical work on the Manhattan Project. Mary attended the local meeting this past week about the cleanup of the radioactive wastes. Officials told her that they were not going to close the park that she once walked around daily because the children are back in school. The children, they believe wouldn’t spend much time in the park because of school so they didn’t need to take any  action.

Outraged that no one would close the park, the park she believed was the root cause of her now death sentence, Mary decided to do something about it.  Mary stood in front of the park with a sign that asked people to ask her why she was there, so she could tell them her story. How her grandson will never really know his Nana because she will be gone before they can do much together.

Today the park that Mary once walked laps around  is closed, because Mary wouldn’t leave the entrance with her yellow sign “Park Closed,”  until it was officially closed to innocent children and families. Thank you Mary.

The unfortunate truth is that it took a victim of radioactive exposure, a mother and grandmother to take a stand and protect the innocent from known harm. Where are our health protectors?  Where are the local, state and more importantly federal health authorities that have jurisdiction  and decision making powers when such decisions are needed. Who are they afraid of?

I’m am so tired of the federal government who has investigated and defined the cleanup and testing of this site and so many other sites, turn their heads when it comes to making a decision about protecting the public health. This is not the case when the public is placed at risk from food poisoning or a drug that proved to be more harmful than thought. Why are people exposed to radioactive wastes or toxic wastes the abandoned child? Why is there No Protection or Unequal Protection under government authorities when it comes to working class or low wealth families?

Time and time again we at CHEJ have seen that families are ignored when it comes to the real life threat of exposures to materials that will cause cancer and other diseases. It is well past time that the health professionals who took an oath “to do know harm” to step up to the plate and protect innocent families in the same manner, in the same time frame, as they do families exposed to food related or drug related health impacts.

To hear Mary speak to this issue you can connect to the Youtube video and begin at 1:59, but be sure to have a box of tissues handy to wipe your eyes because the personal testimony is very powerful and sad.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Renewables Become the Second Most Popular Source of Electricity

By: Katie O’Brien
Renewables have just become the second most popular source of electricity in the World! Making it the first time since 2001, natural gas was bumped from the number two spot. While coal still holds the number one spot, this is a huge step in the right direction for clean energy.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), 41% of electricity still came from coal, but over 22% came from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and wave power. The increase in renewables can be attributed to 34 countries that are apart of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that work together to seek answers to common problems, identify good practices and provide a platform to compare policy experiences. The increase however is not caused by a growth in renewable infrastructure, but rather an enormous decrease in coal electricity production. A study done by West Virginia University shows that there will be 39% decrease in coal production by 2035.
Europe has been a frontrunner in renewables. In the first quarter of this year, the U.K. alone produced over 22% of their power solar sources. Last year, Scotland provided enough electricity through wind power to power 72% of homes within the country. The European Renewable Energy Council has predicted that by the year 2050 (or sooner), that the European Union will have a completely renewable energy supply for the entire E.U. territory.
The U.S. is also working towards a more renewable future. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, in 2004, investments in renewable energy were around $9 billion. In the first quarter of 2015, that number rose to more than $50 billion. With renewables on the rise, and fossil fuels on the decline, the World is looking to a greener, cleaner, and brighter future.

Categories
Backyard Talk

70 Years Later: Dropping the Nuclear Bomb

On August 6th 70 years ago, the U.S. government dropped a nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Estimates on how many people were killed range from 140,000 to 200,000. It was the first time a nuclear weapon had ever been used in war. Three days later, the U.S. dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki. These events are largely credited for ending World War II.

Tens of thousands gathered at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima on the morning of August 6th to commemorate the dropping of the bomb and to recall the horror of that day 70 years ago. The city has done a remarkable job of memorializing this event and telling the story of what happened to the city and its people in the days following the dropping of the bomb. One photographer who took pictures in the immediate aftermath of the bombing buried his film to be discovered years later, undamaged by the radiation. Many of his photographs can be found in the Peace Memorial Museum that brings the horror to life in vivid black and white images.

I made a visit to Hiroshima several years ago while traveling to Japan for the Rachel Carson Trust of Japan. The exhibits at the Peace Memorial Museum do a remarkable job of reenacting the impact of the bomb on the city and its people. And if that were not enough, the museum hosts a hibakusha or “atomic bomb person” who tells their story of witnessing and surviving the bombing. Their words bring the bombing to life in an unforgettable way. According to a story in the Washington Post, the city is now training young people to be “memory keepers” in order to continue disseminating the tales of the survivors, the average age of whom is 80. There are over 200 atomic bomb story-tellers who are learning the testimonies of the survivors in order to continue telling their stories.

It seems quite important to many of the Japanese people that they not forget how the bombings came about and the devastation caused by the bombings. This sentiment is in stark contrast, however, to the intentions expressed by Japanese Minister Shinzo Abe who supports proposed changes in the Japanese pacifist constitution that was written by its American occupiers in 1945. But many in Japan feel that its pacifist ways have done the country well and challenge Abe not to renounce its existing constitution.

Regardless of how Japan moves forward with its internal struggle to address its role in the war, you cannot help by take-away the key message clearly intended at the museum and peace park and that is the destructive power of nuclear weapons and importance of living in a world without nuclear weapons. A message the U.S. among other countries are reluctant to adopt.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Families Expose to Toxic Chemicals Lives’ Matter

I am so frustrated and cannot understand how to win equal protection of health for all people.  I’ve been doing this work for over thirty years and observed that unlike food contamination or infectious disease, where health agencies move at the speed of light to keep people safe, when the source is toxic chemicals from a corporation, people are sacrificed.  I’m looking for ideas from those who read this blog.  Just recently we saw the call to action to protect public health  around the cilantro scare.

This week I received requests for help from local leaders CHEJ is working with that related to health studies and public health impacts from chemicals in their environment.

One study around hydro fracking, researchers found that pregnant women living near clusters of fracked wells were more likely to have babies with lower birth weights.  The second study found higher rates of hospitalization for heart conditions, neurological illness, and other conditions among people who live near fracking sites.

Those studies were not enough to stop fracking in the communities. In fact, health authorities said they believe it may not be the fracking at all – it could just be a random clustering of medical problems.

The third study was around a low wealth African American community in Birmingham, Alabama. Adjacent to the community is Walter Coke Facility that manufactures coke, toluene sulfonyl acid, produces pig iron from iron ore and more.

The Federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted a study to determine the health risk to community families based upon exposures to arsenic, lead, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in residential surface soil and homegrown garden produce in the communities collected from November 2012 through January 2015.

ATSDR concluded that:

  • past and current exposure to arsenic found in surface soil of some residential yards could harm people’s health. Children are especially at risk.
  • past and current exposure to lead found in surface soil of some residential yards could harm people’s health. Swallowing this lead‐contaminated soil could cause harmful health effects, especially in children and in the developing fetus of pregnant women.
  • long‐term exposure (i.e., many years) to PAHs found in the surface soil of some residential yards is at a level of concern for lifetime cancer risk.

The agency’s recommendation was for parents to:

  • monitor their children’s behavior while playing outdoors and prevent their children from intentionally or inadvertently eating soil;
  • take measures to reduce exposures to residential soil and to protect themselves, their families, and visitors;
  • have their children tested for blood lead; and
  • for EPA to continue testing for arsenic and lead in the soil and continue with its plans to cleanup additional properties (patch quilt of clean up not community wide as though the wind won’t carry toxic dust from one yard to another) to reduce levels in residential surface soil.

There was no mention of what the polluter should do. No mention of relocating families from the area to safe housing somewhere else. There was no mention of health monitoring or a clinic for people, especially children who are exposed and sick.

What level of human tragedy, suffering and loss of life will it take to stop the poisoning of American people from toxic chemicals?  The ethics behind the two responses of food/infectious disease versus chemical threats to public health is unethical.  Families being exposed to toxic chemicals matter just as much as everyone else. It’s time our health agencies stopped treating them as sacrificial families to protect corporate profits.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Neglacting the Marshall Islands

By: Amelia Meyer


In the early 50s the United States Atomic Energy Commission announced the establishment of Pacific Proving Grounds on about 2000 islands in the North pacific, including the Marshall Islands.  They conducted over a hundred nuclear tests there. In the Marshall Islands the United States conducted more Nuclear Testing there than in any other location in the world. This has had a significant impact on their health for the past few decades. There were several serious birth defects and an abundant amount of cancer cases throughout the Marshall Islands. In 1990 the Marshall Islands were paid over seven hundred million dollars to compensate for the radiation health issues. However this is not nearly enough to repay for the lives lost and defects that were caused.

Now the Marshall Islands are suffering significantly again. Climate change and rising carbon dioxide levels have affected many impacts of our world in the past few years. One serious issue is sea level rise. Cities all over the world are suffering from impacts of flooding and sea level rise. Severe weather, warmer ocean temperatures, and the melting of the glaciers have significantly affected sea level rise. A country that is impacted the most currently is the Marshall Islands.

Over the past couple years there have been dozens of floods throughout the Marshall Islands. These stem from stronger storms and a variety of weather events. However it’s mostly from the rise of the sea level surrounding the whole country which is composed of over a thousand Islands and over twenty coral atolls. Around seventy thousand people live in the Marshall Islands but many natives are moving to Arkansas. Why?

Hundreds of homes have been destroyed by the floods and many babies, children, and adults have floated away. The citizens of the Marshall Islands are so terrified of the water that they want to be as land locked as possible. Therefore they have been moving to Arkansas. If they have not moved yet they are planning to. Unfortunately the Marshall Islands will not last long because of Sea Level Rise. It is expected that by 2020 most of the Islands will have sunken under the water. This is also an environmental risk to the Ocean and aquatic ecosystems because of the Nuclear Testing that was done earlier. Overall the Marshall Islands have been neglected and suffered a significant amount due to Climate Change and Nuclear Testing and the country and its residents deserve attention and support from society.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Risks & Rewards of Nanoremediation

Michael Crichton’s 2002 novel Prey features a terrifying interpretation of nanotechnology, when swarms of “nanobots” become self-aware and predatory. His book is entirely fictional, but even outside the realm of popular culture, mentions of nanotechnology can stoke our fears about what might happen if science advances beyond our control.

What is nanotechnology? Any technology that works with and manipulates particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in length or width can fall under the nanotech umbrella. Particles of this size are too small to see with the naked eye – they are about the size of a virus or of your DNA. In the real world, predatory nano-swarms don’t top the list of scientists’ concerns. Instead, they are engaged with determining the environmental and health impacts of our increasing use of nanotechnology in medicine, energy generation, communication technology, and even environmental remediation.

In the environmental field, nanotechnology is used to remediate or clean up polluted groundwater, wastewater, soil and sediment. Nanoremediation methods use materials at the nanoscale to reduce pollutant levels at contaminated sites. Nanomaterials have several properties that make them well-suited to this task. They are tiny in size, enabling them to enter very small spaces and travel further and more widely than larger particles. They also have a high surface area relative to their mass, making it easier for them to react with compounds. (Karn et al., 2009).

When nanoparticles interact with toxic compounds, they operate in one of two ways – breaking down the compounds, or immobilizing them. Nanoparticles can cause reactions that transform toxic compounds to less harmful products. They also can bind to the compounds, immobilizing them and preventing them from exerting further harm on the environment. Iron nanoparticles are one of the most commonly used compounds, used to break down or bind and immobilize harmful contaminants (Karn et al., 2009).



[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”]

Site remediation with iron nanoparticles. Credit: Lehigh University


According to the EPA, federal, state and local governments, as well as private industry, are expected to spend billions of dollars each year cleaning up hundreds of thousands of contaminated sites over the next three decades. Researchers have concluded that by using nanotechnology in environmental remediation, we have the potential to reduce the cost, time and effort involved with cleaning up contaminated sites (Karn et al, 2009). One major advantage of nanoremediation is its ability to be used as an on-site, or in situ, treatment method. Removing and transporting toxic sediment or soil can involve excessive time and effort, and in situ methods like nanoremediation eliminate this cost.

However, concerns naturally emerge any time we introduce new compounds to the environment. While nanoparticles are designed and used to reduce contaminant toxicity, they may have the potential to generate harmful byproducts, or products that are even more mobile in the environment. While nanomaterials typically stay in or near the site where they are applied, several studies have shown their ability to travel larger distances, carrying with them absorbed contaminants (Karn et al, 2009). Recent research has also investigated the potential for nanoparticles to enter the food chain and bioaccumulate.

Nanoremediation has the potential to revolutionize contaminated site cleanup, but it also carries unknown risks. Balancing these risks and benefits will be critical to the future of environmental management. The good news? We are (probably) safe from predatory nanobots.

Image: National Science Foundation

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk

What you need to know about Obama’s energy plan

By: Carmen Mann

The Obama administration recently released a new plan calling for more reductions in America’s carbon emissions from power plants. Obama called it the “single most important step America had ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” The Clean Power Plan seeks to increase required cuts in carbon emissions from the power sector. The goal is to slash emissions by 32% from recorded 2005 levels by the year 2030. It also calls for a national shift toward renewable energy, including solar and wind energy, and to move away from coal-fire power.

This policy has been under the works for years, and has chosen to focus on the energy sector because power plants account for 1/3 of America’s carbon pollution and is the largest source of carbon pollution in the county. The new plan is based on the idea that energy consumption can be reduced through consumer-side efficiency standards. It arguably will also push new technological advances in energy across industries in the future.

The Obama administration also did a good job framing the new plan. Instead of labeling it as a climate solution, which many people have become desensitized to, they made it a national issue and a human issue. The administration argues that the push to renewable and cleaner energy will help national security by making the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy, help to fix the economy, and will improve public health.

The Clean Power Plan leaves the concrete action of cutting emissions up to the states. Each state will be able to put its own plan together for cutting emissions which will be approved by the federal government in late 2016. This acknowledges that not every state is starting from the same place when it comes to emissions and energy, and that each state will most likely have to take its own technological path to reach the 2030 goal. There have been some concerns that giving the states the power to act will bog down any real solution through politicized debates on how the state can best achieve the overall goal.

Many industry groups and states that have relied on coal-based energy have voiced their own concerns and have vowed to challenge the new requirements made by the Clean Energy Plan. They argue that the new regulations will drive up energy prices, putting both affordability and reliability of the energy sector at risk.