Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Toxic Tuesdays

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Hydrofracking: Radiation Risk

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Hydrofracking: Radiation Risks

Hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, is a process for accessing gas and oil deep within the earth. The process involves creating a well and drilling about one mile deep into the ground. Once it has been dug deep enough, cement is poured into the opening around a steel pipe to create a barrier between the fracking process and underground water sources. Then the drilling continues deeper into the earth, this time at an angle until it becomes horizontal. The length of that horizontal drilling can last up to three miles in length. Next, more cement is poured around the hole to create a barrier with the surrounding environment. Then a perforating gun is sent down the well into the horizontal section. There, it punctures the bedrock, creating multiple cracks that are 30 inches deep.

These cracks, or fissures, are created so that water, sand, and chemicals can be sent down into those newly made cracks. The water mixture causes further fracturing, like giant tree branches, in the bedrock that goes deep into the ground and releases oil and gas. The resource-intensive process can use up to 9.7 million gallons of water per one well. In addition, the wastewater that comes back from this process is radioactive and full of toxic chemicals that are hazardous to human health.

All that water then becomes unusable because of the naturally occurring radioactivity brought up from the ground with the waste. The health effects of the radioactive wastewater on humans are vast. The radioactivity is caused by the “naturally-occurring radionuclides” that are made up of uranium, thorium, and radium. These elements are hazardous to human health and can cause adverse health effects and even death with exposure to high levels, or concentrations, of the chemicals in the fracking water. Other than the radioactive chemicals found in fracking water, the industry also mixes over 1000 other chemicals into the water. These can include, but are not limited to, lead, PFAS (forever chemicals), ammonia, hormone disrupting chemicals, diesel, benzene and diesel. Exposure to these chemicals in the fracking wastewater can cause cancers, such as leukemia, hematologic (blood), urinary, and thyroid cancers. Exposure can also cause developmental health issues in children and neuromotor skill impairment. Heart disease is another area of concern, with communities close to hydrofracking sites having significantly higher heart attack rates.

Currently, most of the wastewater is stored in underground wells, but this storage solution can seep into the water supply in a variety of ways, as discussed in a peer-reviewed article published by Environmental Health Perspectives. Radioactive fracking wastewater can end up in so many different areas, from drinking water to consumer items. The reason why this is allowed has to do with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005 and the creation of the Halliburton Loophole. The loophole prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating the fracking industry or its wastewater. That means radioactive wastewater can end up in drinking water, but the agency cannot confront the company responsible.

Despite claims from fracking companies that the fracking-contaminated water is appropriately handled, radioactive wastewater finds its way back into the environment. The fracking wastewater can even be found in store-bought items. For example, the product AquaSalina is a de-icer that is sold in stores such as Home Depot and Lowe’s and contains the harmful chemicals. This product is available for public purchase and was even used by the state of Ohio. In 2019 alone, the Ohio Department of Transportation used a million gallons of the product. Outcry and protests from the impacted communities and environmental groups lasted for years until the state of Ohio agreed to ban the use of the product on their roads.

How can you take action on this issue? Contact your Congressional representatives today to let them know you support the reintroduction of H.R.2133, the FRESHER Act of 2021. The proposed bill would give the EPA the power to control wastewater discharge from oil and gas operations – meaning fracking wastewater would have regulation at the federal level.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Vinyl Chloride

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride is a chemical belonging to the family of compounds called organochlorides, which include other highly toxic chemicals including trichloroethane and the infamous pesticide DDT. Vinyl chloride is a man-made chemical that presents itself as a colorless and highly flammable gas under standard temperatures and pressures. This chemical used to have numerous industrial applications including as an aerosol propellant and refrigerant but concerns over its toxicity have relegated its use to the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Vinyl chloride is also created as a byproduct of the combustion of tobacco.

Exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride is extremely hazardous and can cause death. Inhalation of even small quantities of vinyl chloride has been observed to cause dizziness, a feeling of inebriation, and even loss of consciousness. The effects of prolonged exposure to vinyl chloride include lung irritation, breathing complications (especially for people with asthma), central nervous system problems, and cancer. Vinyl chloride is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and is significantly associated with multiple forms of liver cancer, brain and lung cancers, lymphoma and leukemia.

Exposure to vinyl chloride occurs primarily in occupational settings – in PVC and vinyl chloride factories – or near landfills where other organochloride compounds accumulate and ultimately break down into vinyl chloride.

Recently, vinyl chloride has been in the news since the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio spilled over 1 million pounds of this chemical into the surrounding environment. Authorities handled the spill by burning the vinyl chloride to prevent an explosion (remember that vinyl chloride is extremely flammable), but by doing so they released dioxins – chemicals that are created from the combustion of vinyl chloride and other organochlorides. These dioxins (chemicals we wrote about in last month’s Toxic Tuesday) are extremely toxic and are linked to cancer, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, infertility in adults and impairment of the immune system.

CHEJ was asked to help the community in East Palestine and our Science Director, Stephen Lester, recently participated in an expert panel where he noted the improper handling of the vinyl chloride spill. CHEJ will continue helping the community in East Palestine through our community organizing training and our technical assistance capacity.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

From Risk Assessment to Presumption

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

From Risk Assessment to Presumption

The last several issues of this series in Toxic Tuesday have addressed the difficulty in interpreting health risks when people are exposed to toxic chemicals. The last issue focused on the failure of the risk assessment approach to address these difficulties and the many critical limitations which make it inadequate and inappropriate for assessing public health risks. 

Despite these limitations, the government still relies on the risk assessment model as the “go-to” method to determine if the health problems people are suffering are due to exposures occurring or suspected of occurring in a community. Risk assessment fails to answer the basic question that people ask when exposed to toxic chemicals: How will my health, or the health of my children or family, be affected by these chemicals?

What we have seen over the years is that risk assessment cannot answer this question, no matter how well done or how much context is provided to help reduce misuse and misunderstanding. People exposed to toxic chemicals live for years with their exposures as scientists do health studies, health assessments, evaluate data on exposures and try to estimate risks. In most cases, people are told that the risk assessment shows that the level of toxic chemicals that people were exposed to are not likely (or some similar caveat) to cause any adverse health effects. Consequently, little, if any action is taken to protect communities exposed to toxic chemicals.

As part of CHEJ’s Unequal Response Unequal Protection campaign, we have been working with community leaders and environmental health scientists to develop a new approach that centers community leadership to address the difficult questions about chemical exposures. Instead of trying to determine if the health problems reported in a community were directly caused by the specific exposures to toxic chemicals occurring in that community, we adopted the approach  used by the federal government when considering adverse health effects suffered by veterans, active military, first responders, 9/11 victims and others exposed to toxic chemicals while serving their country.

In these situations, the government recognized that critical scientific information linking exposures and health outcomes was missing or incomplete thus making it necessary to make “presumptions” about exposures leading to the health problems suffered by these groups. This recognition led to the government providing health care, treatment, compensation and other assistance needed due to exposure to toxic substances suffered while serving our country. In communities where people have been exposed to toxic chemicals through no fault of their own, the government would extend a similar application of the presumptive approach. 

The presumptive approach asks what scientific information is sufficient to take action to protect people exposed to toxic chemicals? We propose the following approach to answer this question.

  1. Using existing and newly generated environmental sampling results collected in the impacted area, government (or an expert team of scientists) would compile a list of toxic substances to which the community is exposed.
  1. An independent committee of environmental and public health experts would then review the literature and determine what adverse health effects/diseases are associated with the toxic chemical(s) identified. Exposure to a chemical will be presumed to cause an adverse health effect if the evidence linking the chemical and the health effect is at least as likely as not, based on the strength of the studies found. The diseases with a positive association to the toxic substances present in the community would be used to decide which diseases will be presumed to be associated with the chemicals identified in the community.

Based on results of this approach, appropriate action to safeguard the health of the community can be taken. This decision could include remedies to lessen exposures and lessen the risk of injury and the effects of exposure. They might also include evacuation, providing a clean water supply, closing a polluting facility or implementing new emissions limitations.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

2-Butanone

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

2-Butanone

2-Butanone is an industrial chemical that is also known as methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). It manifests itself as a colorless liquid under standard conditions, tends to evaporate into the air (volatize) quickly, and is quite flammable. 2-Butanone is manufactured in large amounts for use in paints, glues, and other finishes because of its properties as a strong solvent and because of how quickly it can evaporate. It is also released into the air from the combustion process of vehicles.

Exposure to 2-butanone causes severe irritation to the eyes, nose, throat, and skin at high concentrations. Nervous system effects such as headaches, nausea, and dizziness have also been reported. Chronic health effects, those that develop due to long-term exposure to small quantities, are much less well understood.

Damage to the peripheral nervous system has been documented in individuals who sniffed glue, with 2-butanone being a significant part of the volatizing chemicals from glues. Liver, kidney, and respiratory effects were also observed in detailed studies of 2-butanone exposure in animals, while birth defects and malformations were observed in one rat study.

Exposure to 2-butanone can happen from a number of sources. Landfills and other contaminated industrial sites or factories tend to be significant sources. Although 2-butanone tends to evaporate into the air in these sites, because it has strong solvent properties, it also tends to sift through the soil into groundwater. Once there, it can remain trapped for several weeks. Active landfills that receive constant streams of paints, glues and similar products; or factories that produce or utilize 2-butanone can become significant hubs for exposure. If 2-butanone finds its way into drinking water sources, it can create a major exposure problem given its ability to remain present in water for an extended period of time.

Although groundwater and, potentially, drinking water can be easily contaminated by 2-butanone near factories and landfills, there is no federal drinking water standard for it. Certain states have taken a more precautionary approach and established local drinking water limits. For instance, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Minnesota have all set a guidance level of 4 mg/L. This proactive decision to limit the quantity of this potentially dangerous chemical should be an example to other states and the federal government.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Classic Toxicology No Longer Works

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Classic Toxicology No Longer Works

The dose makes the poison is the most basic principle of toxicology. The first chapter in every toxicology textbook discusses how the response to a poison depends on how much of the poison you are exposed to (often referred to as the “dose”). This principle assumes that chemicals act by overwhelming the body’s defenses at higher doses. It also assumes that at some lower dose, there is no harm or no effect.

But this basic principle may no longer hold true as what we know about exposures to toxic chemicals is changing. Some time ago, Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, wrote an overview paper on the changing science in the field of environmental health. She wrote in this paper that the antiquated perception of how chemicals act is being replaced by a “better understanding of the actual characteristics of modern environmental chemicals.”

These characteristics include the timing and vulnerability of exposure, exposures to mixtures, effects at low doses, and genetic alterations called “epigenetics.” Birnbaum addressed each of these frontiers of toxicology and discussed how each affects our understanding of the link between the environment and public health.  

It’s clear now that the body’s response to toxic chemicals is complex and not as predictable as classic toxicology would lead us to believe. Chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) and dioxin cause adverse effects at low doses, not predictable by classic toxicology. No longer can you safely assume that at some low dose there is no harm. Birnbaum makes it clear that within traditional toxicity “… [testing] of effects at some high doses are no longer adequate to [determining] the full spectrum of response from a given chemical.” What’s more, the effects observed at low doses may be different than those observed at higher doses.

We also now know that there are critical “windows of exposure” during development that determine effects – the same exposure at different times can result in different effects. There are also enhanced periods of vulnerability during prenatal development that “program” the bodies’ physiology leading to diseases in later life. According to Birnbaum, this phenomenon has been demonstrated for hypertension, coronary heart disease, and neurological and cognitive development.

Another advance in our understanding of toxicology comes from the field of epigenetics, or the study of changes in DNA expression that are independent of the DNA sequence itself. We now know that exposures to chemicals can alter the normal triggering mechanism that turns genes on or off that determines a person’s observable traits, such as blue eyes or susceptibility to diabetes or other illnesses. Says Birnbaum, “[We’re] born with our genes, but epigenetic changes occur because of environmental influences during development and throughout life.”

These advances in toxicology raise many questions about the adequacy of traditional methods of assessing the impact of exposure to chemicals like BPA or dioxin, not to mention mixtures. Regulatory agencies have not integrated this new science into the methods they use to assess public health risks and it’s likely to take some time before traditional toxicologists accept this new thinking and integrate it into their methods for assessing public health risks. In the meantime, recognize that some of what public health officials are telling you is antiquated and no longer applicable to the world we live in.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Polyvinyl Chloride

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Polyvinyl Chloride

Polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as “PVC” or “vinyl,” is the second largest commodity plastic in production in the world today, with an estimated 48.8 million tons produced worldwide in 2018. PVC is used in a wide range of products including pipes and tubing, school materials, product packaging, children’s toys, and several building materials.

PVC can safely be considered the worst plastic for our health and environment, as it releases dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer and other serious health effects from manufacture to disposal. The first problematic chemicals that can leach out of PVC products is phthalates. These are a group of industrial chemicals that are added to PVC to promote plasticity and flexibility. Because they are not chemically bound to PVC, these chemicals can leach out due to heat, pressure or simply time. Once they are out in the environment, they can enter our bodies and cause adverse health conditions such as hormone disruption, birth defects, infertility and asthma. Lead is another chemical that is commonly found in PVC. Lead exposure is especially dangerous for growing children, who can suffer from nervous system development problems and learning disabilities.

Aside from direct exposure to PVC, the manufacturing and disposal process of PVC can release harmful chemicals called dioxins. Dioxins are formed and released when PVC is burned (during disposal) or manufactured under high heat and pressure. They are a highly toxic group of chemicals that build up in the food chain, cause cancer and can harm the immune and reproductive systems. Their toxicity is of such concern that they have been targeted for global phase out by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

As mentioned previously, exposure to PVC through everyday consumer products can be significant. Children’s toys can be substantially bad offenders, although CHEJ’s PVC campaign of the late 2000s made a difference in removing a lot of PVC from the toy market. Other items that remain problematic are children’s backpacks, shower curtains, rain boots, raincoats, vinyl flooring and roofing, plastic food containers, and pet toys.

CHEJ helped develop a resolution from the American Public Health Association (APHA) – a policy statement that has the full backing of the organization – back in 2011. CHEJ was instrumental in convincing the APHA to endorse reducing PVC in facilities with vulnerable populations such as nursing homes and hospitals. This was a monumental statement from the premier public health organization in the country about the dangers of PVC.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Hydrogen Sulfide

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas that has a strong rotten egg odor. It is produced naturally by the decaying process of organic matter and can also be released from crude petroleum, natural gas, and volcanic eruptions. Hydrogen sulfide is a very common gas that is generated in large farms and food processing plants, sewage treatment facilities, and landfills.

Since it is such a common compound found in large industrial operations, the health effects  of acute exposure to hydrogen sulfide are rather well defined. At high concentrations, at or above the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health’s (NIOSH) Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 10 parts per million, exposure to hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes and respiratory system.  At higher concentrations, it can cause apnea, convulsions,  dizziness, weakness, insomnia, and even death.

However, long-term chronic effects of exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide are just now gaining some attention. A study published in 2015 looked at the effects of low-level exposure to hydrogen sulfide among Iranian workers from a natural gas processing plant and found elevated numbers of altered hemoglobin in the blood of those exposed. This can lead to a condition known as methemoglobinemia, which causes developmental delays and intellectual disabilities – symptoms that are even more detrimental in children. Other health effects have been documented, but the association to long-term exposure is less well defined. These include problems with the retina, respiratory problems, and neurological effects.

These findings become significant because a large number of industrial facilities in the US produce hydrogen sulfide around residential areas. Landfills are perhaps the locations where hydrogen sulfide emissions are most common. A group in Bristol VA that is working with CHEJ is suffering from constant hydrogen sulfide (among other chemicals) odors from a landfill that leave the community with headaches and other health problems. CHEJ continues to work with the community to close the landfill.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Atrazine

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Atrazine

Atrazine is one of the most common herbicides used in the United States, with over 70 million pounds applied to crops each year. Used mostly in large scale agriculture of crops such as corn, sugarcane, and pineapples, atrazine is the most widely detected herbicide in drinking water. Figures vary, but a conservative estimate puts measurable levels of atrazine in the drinking water of nearly 30 million Americans in 28 states. With so many people exposed to this compound, it is worth examining any potential effects it may have on people.

Atrazine seems to have three ways of harming human health. Firstly, research suggests it alters the levels of key hormones animals. In male frogs, for example, atrazine has been observed to trigger the development of female sex characteristics. In a more recent study, abnormalities in the male reproductive organs of marsupials exposed to atrazine have been documented. Secondly, atrazine seems to have detrimental reproductive effects. There are significant associations between exposure to the herbicide and effects such as increased risk of miscarriage, reduced fertility, low birth weight, and increased chance of birth defects. Finally, there is evidence that atrazine could have carcinogenic effects. Animal studies have found a strong connection between atrazine and breast cancer. More research is required to see if this connection holds in exposed human populations.

Atrazine levels in drinking water are capped at 3 micrograms per liter (µg/L) by the EPA. This Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) as it is termed, however, is not based on health protective data, but on feasibility considerations for public water treatment systems. The state of California has developed entirely health-based protective values that are much smaller – 0.15 µg/L. This value should be the benchmark for drinking water systems, especially those in the Midwest where seasonal spikes of atrazine of more than 6 times the MCL have been recorded.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Wildfires

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Wildfires

With news of the massive wildfire outside California’s Yosemite Park covering over 18,000 acres of land in June 2022, we wanted to talk about the problems associated with forest fires and pollution. Wildfires are destructive in their own right but are not what one would typically consider a source of pollution. Fires serve many natural purposes – they clear dead organic materials from forests and return valuable nutrients to the soil for instance. But when they reach large proportions and burn uncontrollably, they can release a number of air pollutants that decrease air quality and can cause significant health problems in nearby communities.

A number of air pollutants can be released from wildfires. Heavy metals like lead, zinc, and manganese have been found in elevated levels in the air and in the soil after wildfires, especially in areas that contained man-made buildings and other structures. Nitrogen oxides, a widespread air pollutant that has national air quality standards for indoor air, can be released in significant quantities during a forest fire. These chemicals can cause several respiratory problems such as increased inflammation of the airways, cough and wheezing, and reduced lung function.

Perhaps the most serious health threats from forest fire pollution comes in the form of particulate matter pollution. Particulate matter is a mix of very tiny solid and liquid particles suspended in air. These particles range in size but can be so small that they can enter a person’s lungs and remain lodged deep inside them. The health effects associated with this form of pollution are similar to those of nitrogen oxides. Short term effects such as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation; coughing; sneezing; runny nose; and shortness of breath are common. In the long-term, severe effects like chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function and increased mortality from lung cancer and heart disease have been observed.

The drought currently being experienced by California and much of the continental US is fueling fires like the one outside Yosemite, and we can only expect more in the future. Climate change driven by human activity is creating these drought conditions and in turn making wildfires like this one much more common occurrences. The pollution created by these fires in turn will affect those that cannot afford to move to avoid it, who more often than not are low-income and minority communities. We need to be conscious that the emission of greenhouse gasses by industry is not just a problem that will affect us and our children in the future, but is something that is killing people now.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Flooding

Toxic Tuesdays

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

< Back to Toxic Tuesdays

Flooding

Massive flooding in the state of Kentucky in late July 2022 claimed the lives of 38 people – yet another example of extreme weather events driven by the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. We touched upon this broad issue in a previous Toxic Tuesday about the wildfires that scorched the state of California not long ago. This edition will analyze the problem of massive flooding from the perspective of toxics.

The flooding in Kentucky on its own has had devastating consequences in the region – personal property was lost or damaged, access to clean water was scarce, and poor sanitary conditions lead to a rise in diseases in the affected population. However, another major problem to the region’s health was not talked about much or even quantified; the problem of potential leaks, spills, or accidental releases of chemicals from facilities that handle or house these chemicals.

CHEJ tried to quantify this problem in the eastern part of Kentucky. This effort, lead by our intern Hunter Marion, utilized EPA’s EJ Screen database to look at the 17 counties in eastern Kentucky that were hit the hardest. Within these counties, we wanted to determine if there was an unusually large number of chemical facilities that could be susceptible to flooding, and how close they were to the population centers. We defined these facilities as:

  • Facilities that are required by law to have Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to guard against chemical leaks or spills due to extreme weather events
  • Hazardous waste facilities (including hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities)
  • Underground storage tank facilities
  • Wastewater discharge facilities

Our analysis could not yield a definite number of chemical facilities or their exact distance from the populated areas. However, we were able to use the EJ screen to place each of the 17 affected counties into a percentile of the overall US population with regards to proximity to chemical facilities. This will become clearer with an example.

In the chart above, the population of Bell County (far right) is in the 84th percentile in terms of proximity to an RMP facility. This means that, on average, a person living in Bell County is closer to an RMP facility than 84% of the US population. To put it in another way, only 16% of the US population live closer to an RMP facility than a resident of Bell County, on average.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from the following charts:

We can see across the board that a few counties continuously rank high among proximity to chemical facilities as we have defined them. Bell County is the largest offender with its average resident being closer to hazardous waste facilities than 79% of the rest of the US, closer to underground storage tanks than 64% of the rest of the US, and closer to wastewater discharging facilities than 98% of the US. Clay, Knott, and Harlan counties follow closely.

These relatively high numbers mean that residents in eastern Kentucky where flooding was at its most damaging are comparatively closer to facilities that can spill, leak, or accidentally release dangerous chemicals than the average person in the US. This should alert authorities to do something, given that the area is prone to flooding.

Learn about more toxics