Backyard Talk Homepage

Heat Waves Rolling In

Photo credit: Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun via AP

By Leila Waid.

The beginning of summer has already brought immense heat waves throughout the world. Countries in Southeast Asia, such as India and Thailand, already had extreme heat waves in April—with UNICEF stating that the extreme temperatures posed a risk to 243 million children. In the Southwest U.S., June has also seen record-breaking extreme temperatures in early June. With the summer just beginning, how many more heatwaves will the world endure this season, and how many individuals will be at risk?

Heat waves are a significant public health issue because of the variety of health issues they pose. They are a prescient environmental justice issue because, due to climate change, the temperatures will keep climbing to unbearable levels. A study using modeling techniques has found that heat waves will become more extreme and longer-lasting in the latter half of the 21st century. An alarming finding from another study forecasts that “the limit for survivability may be reached at the end of the twenty-first century in many regions of the world” because the combination of high heat and humidity levels (referred to as the wet-bulb temperature) can pose extreme danger to human health.   

One way that heat waves impact human health is by increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is already the number one cause of death in the U.S. According to the American Health Association, close to 50% of the American population has some form of heart disease. This finding means that half of Americans are at an even more increased risk from heat waves. Along with impacting those who already have heart issues, heat waves are also associated with the development of heart disease – with epidemiological studies showcasing that increased temperatures can lead to the development of ischemic heart disease.

Increased temperature places undue stress on the body, and these changes can cause “imbalances in the autonomic control of the heart, increase local arterial pressures, induce systemic inflammation, and impair clotting responses.” Thus, heat waves place those with pre-existing heart disease in increased danger and also increase the risk of heart disease development in the rest of the population. One study modeled how climate change will impact cardiovascular rates in the future and found that death from heart disease could increase from 162% to 233%. Currently, extreme heat causes an estimated 1,651 deaths annually from heart disease. The study projects that this number could increase anywhere from 4,320 to 5,491 deaths by the mid-21st century.  

As with most aspects of health, the impacts are not felt equally across the populations due to societal factors. For example, those with lower socioeconomic status face worse health outcomes during heat waves. One study examined whether insurance status played a role in heat-induced heart attacks and found that it was a critical factor in individuals’ health outcomes. Based in New York, the study found that individuals without health insurance – a stand-in for socioeconomic status (SES) – had a higher risk of myocardial infarction (heart attacks) during extreme heat even than those with health insurance. Another study conducted in Hong Kong found similar results – older individuals with lower SES were more likely to be admitted to the hospital during heat waves than those with higher SES.

Climate change continues to cause record-breaking heat waves year after year, and thus, we need to be aware of all of the risks these temperatures pose to our health. At an individual level, it is essential to understand what factors can place you at risk and to avoid outside activity, if possible, during these extreme temperatures. At a community level, we must look out for one another. For example, this summer, check up on your elderly family members and neighbors and be aware of signs of heat exhaustion and heat strokes in others so that you can provide assistance in case of emergencies. And at a societal level, keep fighting for and supporting climate change policies!

Backyard Talk Homepage

Current Research Is Predicting More Than 50% Of American Adults Will Have Cardiovascular Disease by 2050

By Sharon Franklin.

Current Research Is Predicting More Than 50% Of American Adults

Will Have Cardiovascular Disease by 2050

Is It Related to Their Environment ???

On March 27, 2024, the American Heart Association released new research stating that people who live in areas with social and environmental adversities may have up to twice the increased risk for developing heart disease and stroke.  In this study, environmental adversities included air and water pollution and potentially hazardous and/or toxic sites.  Dr. Sarju Ganatra, M.D., senior author stated, “This study is one of the first to examine the impact of both social and environmental factors in combination and looked at the complex interplay between them,”  

As reported on June 4, 2024 by Jen Christensen, CNN Health, Medical and Wellness Unit that further new research from the American Heart Association Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050   finds that approximately 61% of US adults will have cardiovascular disease by 2050. This is alarming because it has increased from 28 million in 2020, and now it is predicted that 45 million adults will have some type of cardiovascular disease by 2050. 

The biggest driver of this trend will be the large number of people who have or will develop high blood pressure, which makes them much more likely to develop dangerous problems like a heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular problems (i.e. heart attacks, atrial fibrillation or “a-fib”, heart failure and congenital heart disease).  By 2050, 22% of the US will be over the age of 65, and this aging population will be another factor contributing to these trends, because the older you get, the more likely you are to have heart problems.

By 2050, people who identify as Hispanic will make up about a quarter of the United States population and are projected to have the greatest population growth for cardiovascular disease or stroke, and people who identify as Black will be 14.4% and the number of people who identify as Asian will also increase to 8.6%, according to the US Census predictions   .  

The June 4, 2024 Heart Association report also offers a closer look at the heart health of children. It finds “concerning trends” in key risk factors, including a predicted increase in the number of kids living with obesity, in large part due to a lack of exercise and poor diet. The report projects that the number of American children with obesity will jump from 20.6% in 2020 to 33% in 2050, meaning 26 million kids will have obesity by that time.  The study also projected that the number of people with high cholesterol will decline due in part to the sharp increase in the number of people who take drugs called statins, which can reduce cholesterol.

So, What Can We Do Now?  The research suggests:

  1.  Prevention efforts to improve population health would be important, and would save America a significant amount of money.  (The costs including direct health care costs and productivity losses are expected to almost triple to more than $1.8 trillion by 2050.)
  • The creation of clinical and policy interventions specifically to help people of color, who are already disproportionally affected by heart problems and who tend to have less access to basic affordable health care.
Backyard Talk Homepage

Who Decides How Toxic is Toxic?

By Stephen Lester.

Years ago, when I first got involved in toxics work, I thought that determining the toxicity of a chemical was based on the evidence, the scientific evidence on exposure and health outcomes, primarily in people. Now I know better.

Take for example, the case of asbestos. Earlier this year, the USEPA banned asbestos use in the United States. This was not an immediate ban, but one in which the industry has 5 years to phase out its reliance on asbestos.

Despite mounds of evidence collected over decades on the dangers of asbestos, this toxic mineral has continued to be used in the US in brake lining, sheet gaskets and in the production of chlorine. This asbestos is mostly  imported, as asbestos was last mined in the US in 2002. Think about that. How is it possible that a known human carcinogen linked to more than 40,000 deaths a year is still legally being used in this country?

It was more than 40 years ago that scientific consensus concluded that asbestos was a highly carcinogenic substance, that ship workers had higher rates of a very rare form of lung cancer called mesothelioma and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos.

EPA tried in 1989 to ban asbestos, but its regulation was overturned by a federal judge who allowed asbestos use to continue and for companies to import it. There was also the Ban Asbestos in America Act introduced in the early 2000s that would have banned importing manufacturing and distributing asbestos, but it was never voted on by Congress.   

How does a chemical as toxic as asbestos stay on the market despite clear evidence of its toxicity and impact on people? The answer is the political power and influence of the companies that stand to benefit from its use in products such as brake lining, sheet gaskets and in the production of chlorine. The biggest users of asbestos have made arguments for decades that have prevented EPA from taking action to restrict the uses of asbestos. For example, the American Chemistry Council who represents the chlorine industry has argued it “would make it difficult for water utilities to buy chlorine, threatening the safety of the nation’s drinking water.”

These companies challenge the agency at every step of the regulatory process with legal and scientific questions and political fights. An article in the Washington Post last year quoted Bob Sussman, former EPA deputy administrator during the Clinton Administration, saying “Industry’s game plan has been to attack EPA for overreaching even while working to assure that EPA accomplishes far less than the public and many in Congress expected.” It’s a strategy calculated to make a struggling agency even weaker and more paralyzed by making every decision  contentious and contested.”

The scientific evidence in isolation can evaluate the toxicity of a chemical. But it’s the political and economic factors that drive decisions on how well people are protected from exposure to toxic chemicals, not the science. Toxic chemicals are not restricted or controlled, they are managed. In large part this is because the scientific evidence linking exposure to low level mixtures of toxic chemicals is very limited and incomplete. So, in the absence of clear evidence, the government and the politicians cannot rely on the science to answer the questions people have about whether their health problems are caused by the chemicals they were exposed to. 

This situation is not likely to change any time soon. People will continue to be exposed to toxic chemicals whether it’s asbestos, lead, trichloroethylene or any of hundreds of other toxic chemicals. Corporate America has enormous control over EPA, FDA and other government agencies that regulate toxic chemicals. Don’t expect these agencies to protect you, even when they want to. It’s what the companies want that dictates what happens. It’s the companies that decide whether a chemical is toxic in a community setting or even in a workplace. It’s the companies that decide how much a chemical or a mixture of chemicals that you can be exposed to. It’s the companies that decide, not the scientists and not the people who were exposed.    

Backyard Talk Homepage

The Power of Brand Storytelling in Environmental Justice Nonprofits

Photo Credit: Adobe Stock

By Gregory Kolen II.

In the realm of environmental justice, where the intersection of social equity and environmental protection is paramount, effective communication is key. For nonprofits working within this space, brand storytelling is not just a marketing tool; it’s a powerful instrument for change. It shapes public perception, galvanizes support, and ultimately drives the mission forward. Here, we delve into the importance of brand storytelling for environmental justice nonprofits and highlight some exemplary cases.

The Essence of Brand Storytelling

At its core, brand storytelling is about crafting and conveying a narrative that resonates with your audience on an emotional level. For environmental justice nonprofits, this involves articulating the interconnectedness of environmental issues with social inequities, and the human stories that underscore these realities. It transforms abstract concepts into tangible experiences, fostering empathy and motivating action.

Building Trust and Credibility

Nonprofits often rely heavily on public support, whether through donations, volunteer work, or advocacy. A compelling brand story helps build trust and credibility, which are crucial for sustaining this support. By consistently sharing stories of their impact, struggles, and victories, organizations can cultivate a loyal and engaged community.

For instance, The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has effectively used storytelling to highlight the plight of communities affected by climate change. Their campaigns often feature personal stories of individuals from vulnerable regions, creating a relatable and urgent narrative that underscores the necessity of their work.

Engaging Diverse Audiences

Environmental justice issues often disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Effective storytelling can bridge gaps, engaging diverse audiences who might otherwise feel disconnected from environmental causes. By amplifying the voices of those directly impacted, nonprofits can foster a more inclusive dialogue.

WE ACT for Environmental Justice, based in Harlem, New York, exemplifies this approach. Through their storytelling efforts, they highlight the health and environmental challenges faced by their community, while also celebrating local leaders and activists. This not only educates a broader audience but also empowers the community by giving them a platform.

Driving Advocacy and Action

Storytelling is a catalyst for advocacy. It has the power to transform passive observers into active participants. When people connect emotionally with a story, they are more likely to take action—be it signing a petition, attending a rally, or donating to a cause., a global grassroots movement to combat climate change, leverages storytelling to mobilize people worldwide. Their campaigns often focus on personal stories of those affected by fossil fuel projects, making the issue more relatable and urgent. This has been instrumental in their success in driving global action against climate change.

Inspiring Hope and Empowerment

Amid the often daunting challenges of environmental justice, storytelling can also inspire hope and empowerment. By sharing success stories and highlighting positive changes, nonprofits can foster a sense of possibility and motivate continued efforts.

The Sierra Club, one of the oldest and largest environmental organizations in the United States, uses storytelling to highlight their victories in environmental protection and justice. By showcasing the tangible impacts of their campaigns, they inspire their supporters and attract new allies to their cause.

Crafting an Effective Brand Story

For environmental justice nonprofits looking to harness the power of storytelling, consider these key elements:

  1. Authenticity: Ensure your stories are genuine and reflect the true experiences of the communities you serve.
  2. Relatability: Highlight personal stories that your audience can connect with on an emotional level.
  3. Clarity: Clearly articulate the link between environmental issues and social justice.
  4. Visuals: Use compelling visuals to complement your narrative and enhance engagement.
  5. Call to Action: Encourage your audience to take specific actions to support your cause.


In the fight for environmental justice, the power of a well-told story cannot be overstated. It humanizes complex issues, builds trust, engages diverse audiences, drives action, and inspires hope. For nonprofits dedicated to this cause, mastering the art of brand storytelling is not just beneficial—it’s essential for making a lasting impact. By continually refining and sharing their narratives, these organizations can foster a more just and sustainable world for all.

Backyard Talk Homepage

Air Pollution: The Silent Killer

Photo credit: Freepik

By Leila Waid.

Air pollution poses a major risk to human health and is the fourth leading cause of death globally. Although air pollution regulations, such as the Clean Air Act, have drastically reduced the number of deaths and illnesses in the United States, there is still an unacceptably large number of deaths from air pollution. For example, two in five Americans live in areas that are above the threshold for safe air pollution exposure, as set by the EPA. 

Air pollution refers to particles, gases, and contaminants not found in pure air. They include dangerous material that is introduced into the atmosphere, usually through human activity, such as burning fossil fuel. The five air pollutants of highest concern – and those monitored under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards – are tropospheric ozone (ground-level ozone or the “bad” ozone), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Of the six pollutants, particulate matter is one of the biggest threats to health. Particular matter is divided into two categories: PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 are particles less than 10 micrometers in size, and PM2.5 are those less than 2.5 micrometers. 

The World Health Organization has set the limit for PM2.5 at 5ug/m3 (microgrammes per cubic meter). Only 0.001 percent of the world meets this threshold. And in the U.S., the majority of Americans are exposed to much higher levels than that standard. Even more alarmingly, some researchers argue that there is no safe level of exposure to PM2.5. Various peer-reviewed studies, such as this epigenetic study, found that even exposure below the strict WHO standard can still cause adverse health effects. 

PM2.5 is a major environmental health concern because it is ubiquitous in the environment, causing dangerous levels of exposure for most of the world, and the microscopic and irregular shape of these particulates leads to them evading the body’s defense systems. Compared to PM10, PM2.5 is much more likely to enter the bloodstream. In general, the structure of our lungs – particularly the bronchioles and the alveoli – does a great job of expelling the foreign particles we inhale. However, PM2.5 can evade these defense mechanisms and cause havoc on our bodies and health. 

What are the health effects of PM2.5? The Health Effects Institute estimates that, globally, 40% of all Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) deaths and 20% of all diabetes deaths are associated with exposure to PM2.5. And in the U.S., it is estimated that PM2.5 attributed to 47,800 deaths in 2019. 

Air pollution is a silent killer. With the criteria pollutants, such as PM2.5, being invisible to the human eye, we don’t take this threat as seriously as we should. We utilize an out-of-sight, out-of-mind philosophy with air pollution, and most of us take for granted how vital clean air is to our health and well-being. Every day, we breathe in harmful chemicals from fossil fuel combustion and then don’t even realize the detrimental health effects of those actions. The adverse health effects of air pollution can appear as cancer, heart disease, respiratory issues, or a myriad of other medical diagnoses without the affected individual ever realizing the outsize role that air pollution played in that health outcome. 

Backyard Talk Homepage

Tennessee EJ Groups are Suing FERC

Photo credit: John Partipilo

By Franklin Sharon.

On May 1, 2024, Anita Wadhwani of Tennessee Lookout reported that Tennessee environmental groups have filed a suit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over its approval of a pipeline that will wind through mostly poor and Black Middle Tennessee communities. This pipeline will supply methane gas to a new Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) powerplant near Clarksville.

What Are the Groups Asking For?  The Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices are asking the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set aside a January order approving the 32-mile pipeline through Dickson, Houston and Stewart Counties. Below is a proposed system map of the Kinder Morgan pipeline that runs through these three Tennessee counties.

Represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), these environmental groups say the construction and ultimate operations of the pipeline poses a host of avoidable risks to the communities and natural resources that lie in its path. These groups have criticized federal regulators for caving to pressure from the Tennessee Valley Authority and the company building the pipeline, Tennessee Gas Pipeline.

According to an analysis by FERC, The proposed pipeline’s route goes through eleven (11) communities, seven (7) of which are disproportionately in poor or Black communities and three (3) of which have minority populations of 50% or more. Additionally, the pipeline would cut through dozens of streams that feed into the popular Harpeth River.

Other concerns raised by environmental groups centers on the danger of pipes leaking methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a key contributor to climate warming. The groups also issued a warning, that the costs which TVA is incurring to complete this project will ultimately be borne by consumers in the form of higher energy costs. 

Why is This Pipeline So Controversial?  The pipeline project is intended to supply natural gas to a new TVA plant in Cumberland City, which is approximately 20 miles southwest of Clarksville.  This plant is one of eight gas-powered plants that TVA has announced and is drawing criticism from environmental groups for its continued reliance on climate-damaging fossil fuels instead of investments in renewable energy.

Why Is This Important?  Spencer Gall, SELC attorney, said “FERC’s decision to greenlight this project ignored the harm the pipeline and gas plant would inflict on Middle Tennessee and beyond,”

“FERC is supposed to safeguard the public interest, not rubberstamp unnecessary pipeline projects that will harm our communities, hurt the climate, and contribute to higher power bills”.

Backyard Talk Homepage

EPA Passes Regulations for Forever Chemicals: Good News and Bad News

Photo credit: Demphoto

By Stephen Lester.

Earlier month, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized drinking water standards for a group of substances known as Forever Chemicals. These chemicals include PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHXs, PFBS, and GenX and are generally described as polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS chemicals are present everywhere in the environment, degrade very slowly and posed health risks to people who are exposed to them. They are called forever chemicals because they break down so slowing that they are around for centuries, essentially forever.

This new regulation requires that these forever chemicals be added to the substances that EPA requires all public drinking water systems to routinely monitor. Some water companies will start testing for PFAS in drinking water as early as 2027 in 3 years, but these restrictions don’t go into effect until 2029, five years from now. This regulation does not apply to private or individual wells, just to large public water systems.

While it’s good news that PFAS chemicals will be restricted in drinking water by 2029, this decision also highlights the slow cumbersome way that chemicals are regulated in this country. Although EPA made clear that there are significant and severe adverse health effects associated with these chemicals, the agency did not restrict their production or use in consumer products, just their presence in drinking water, and not for another 5 years. So, Dupont, 3M as well as other companies will continue to make these chemicals for use in consumer products. Furthermore, this new regulation only applies to 5 of the thousands of different PFAS compounds that have been identified.

Why does this make any sense? It certainly does not make any public health sense. EPA acknowledges the adverse health effects of these chemicals at extremely low levels, to the point where some researchers feel that there is no safe level of exposure to PFAS chemicals, yet EPA takes no action to restrict the production of these substances and gives water companies five years to meet its new standards. And for the companies that manufactured these chemicals – primarily DuPont (and several subsidiaries) and 3M – there’s no action against them or accountability for producing these substances for more than 50 years, even though for decades they opposed any regulatory action by EPA.

Over these years of delay, these companies slowly began moving away from the  PFAS chemicals that were targeted as “bad actors” – PFOA and PFOS – and began producing and using other PFAS chemicals about which virtually nothing was known about their toxicity. EPA has allowed this to happen even though the adverse health effects for most of these substances are not known. Somehow EPA seems good with issuing no restrictions on the production of potentially toxic consumer products and instead offers general advice to the public on steps they can take to avoid PFAS chemicals if they choose to do so.

There is something seriously wrong with our system for regulating toxic chemicals when the companies that use dangerous toxic chemicals to make consumer products for profit get off Scot free and the EPA offers advice to individuals on how to avoid these toxic products.

Industry began using these polyfluoroalkyl substances in the 1940s in consumer products such as nonstick cookware (Teflon) and in food packaging, to waterproof clothes, stainproof furniture and in certain manufacturing processes. They were also widely used in firefighting foams to extinguished fires, especially at airports and on training grounds for firefighters. PFAS chemicals gained public notoriety about 10 years ago when they began showing up in drinking water at military bases, such as the Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, NH. The US military estimates that there are over 600 military bases with PFAS contamination.

The adverse health effects associated with these forever chemicals include reproductive effects; developmental effects such as low birth weight, bone variations, and behavioral changes; damaged immune function such as reduced ability to fight infections; interference with the body’s natural hormone functions, including the thyroid; kidney and testicular cancer; liver damage; and increased cholesterol.  

For specific details about EPA’s new PFAS drinking water regulation, click here.

Backyard Talk Homepage

Bridging the Gap Between Science and Action

By Jordan Martinez.

As an intern at the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, I have written several papers on the effects of different chemicals on the environment and on human health. The purpose of these articles is to provide information for chemically impacted communities throughout the country. I am working with community members in East Palestine, Ohio. Their questions led to me writing these papers, however these questions have applications beyond the community in East Palestine, and can be helpful to other chemically impacted communities around the world.

The first of these papers that I wrote was on the burning of lithium ion batteries. Lithium ion batteries, such as those in electric vehicles like Teslas, release several toxic gasses when they catch on fire. In this paper, I discussed what those gasses are, how they affect human health, and what makes them from more common chemicals used in everyday life, such as fluoride in toothpaste. This paper came from questions from residents in East Palestine, however the information shared in this paper represents helpful information for residents in other communities as well. Some communities may live near a facility that produces lithium batteries, where risk from these gasses may be higher during an accident. Some individuals may work with lithium ion batteries on a regular basis, such as  car mechanics. These papers serve to help individuals overall, and I’m glad to be making this information available to the public for free.

I’m currently writing about the use of the Affordable Care Act for chemically impacted communities. Within the law of the Affordable Care Act exists Section 1881A, which outlines the use of medicare benefits for individuals exposed to environmental health. I am investigating how this section of the ACA can be utilized for chemically impacted communities, and what the exact process is for utilizing medicare benefits for impacted individuals.

These papers highlight educational health and science information that may benefit communities, especially those working with CHEJ. It is my hope that scientific information can be easily accessible to communities in a digestible manner. Not everyone is a scientist, and for community leaders working to help their communities, they may not be able to read scientific papers. This may be due to not having the capabilities to read papers, since academic research papers are often filled with jargon that can be quite difficult to understand for non-scientists. Another reason is simply time. Reading papers is time consuming, and even if a community leader can read papers, there may be too many tasks that need to be done, limiting the absorption of scientific knowledge, therefore preventing the use of scientific information in helping to benefit communities. This is why it is crucial that we make inclusive science communication, so that community stakeholders can be involved in scientific knowledge without having to be scientists. I write these papers for CHEJ so I can help bridge the gaps between science and the community, and I am grateful for the work of others who do the same.

Backyard Talk Homepage

The PFAS Fight

By Leila Waid.

Environmental justice is in a constant legal battle that, depending on the court’s philosophy, sometimes sees wins for public health safety and but other times faces significant setbacks. March saw a major regression for plastic pollution regulation and the ongoing fight to ban PFAS. On March 21, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – a conservative-leaning court that has obstructed substantial progressive policies over the years – blocked EPA efforts to ban PFAS in plastic containers.

The company behind the lawsuit is Inhance Technology, who specializes in treating plastics. Some of their listed services include “barrier packaging” and “surface technologies,” which they use to make plastics stronger and more durable. Although not explicitly stated on their website, the process by which they treat these plastics includes PFOA, a type of PFAS. PFAS are used in various products for their ability to repel water and oil. These properties allow for the stronger and more durable plastics. However they do not disclose or make it clear to the consumer that they are using a controversial chemical that has been linked in many health studies to various diseases and even death. In fact, Inhance Technologies goes as far as to promote their company as being eco-friendly, stating on their website that they “want to make things better for the world” by reducing plastic. This and other similar statements on the company website make it seem like they are protecting the environment when, in reality, they are contributing to the plastic pollution that endangers everyone’s health – a clear example of greenwashing.

In December 2023, the EPA sent a notice to Inhance Technologies to stop using PFAS in their manufacturing process. In response, they sued the agency. The main debate in the case was if the EPA had the right to put a stop to the process since Inhance had been using PFAS for over 40 years. The EPA argued that it only discovered the usage in 2020 so it should be considered a new process. Ultimately The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Inhance, stating the EPA did not have the right to place a restriction since it was not a new process, even if the EPA just found out about it. However, what if a company never discloses the use of harmful chemicals to the EPA? Using the logic and reasoning of this case, the EPA would be unable to block that process because they didn’t catch it in time. Notedly, the court did not deny the dangers of PFAS to the human body; they only overturned the restriction because the process was not new to Inhance.

What is most frustrating about environmental justice setbacks such as these is that, while the litigation is ongoing, the PFAS, or forever chemicals continue to be manufactured and cause massive pollution. Inhance Technologies argued that they can’t be restricted by the EPA under Section 5 because they have been treating plastics with PFAS for forty years. How much pollution have they added to the environment? How much more will be added by organizations such as these that hide behind a façade of greenwashing and yet contribute to so much of the environmental and human health degradation faced today. 

Court cases can take years to win. And during those years, PFAS continues to bioaccumulate within our bodies and environment. So, while immense national-level policies, such as the PFAS ban that the EPA tried to put in place, are extremely important, we also need to focus on individual and local-level change. For example, we must educate ourselves and our communities about the dangers of PFAS and become informed consumers of what plastic-containing products we buy. If we know that a company uses PFAS in its manufacturing process or partners with companies that do, then we need to be mindful of that and boycott those products. 

Backyard Talk Homepage

Commitment to Tackling Risks Posed by Toxic Chemicals

Photo credit:  Ivan Bandura/Unsplash

Reshare by EHN Curators

In a recent development highlighting a personal commitment to addressing the perils associated with toxic chemicals, the current administration has intensified efforts to mitigate environmental and health risks.

According to Chris D’Angelo’s coverage in The Huffington Post:

  • The administration has initiated measures to limit hazardous waste and chemical exposures, including restrictions on open burning of waste explosives and the evaluation of cancer-causing chemicals.
  • Despite these efforts, the handling of the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, involving the burning of vinyl chloride, has drawn criticism for its potential health and environmental impacts.
  • The EPA’s proposed rule to limit the open burning of waste explosives aims to protect communities but does not directly address the concerns raised by the East Palestine incident.

“Toxic smoke, thick with poison, spreading through the air and into the lungs of our troops. When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same — headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer. My son Beau was one of them.”

— President Joe Biden

Hazardous waste and toxic chemicals can wreak havoc on public health and ecosystems. Chemicals that seep into soil and waterways can disrupt habitats, harm wildlife, and contaminate food chains. This not only affects biodiversity but can also compromise the resources people rely on, like clean drinking water and productive agricultural land.

EHN visited residents still picking up the pieces four months after a catastrophic train derailment dumped toxics in East Palestine, Ohio.