Anger builds at EPA over radioactive landfill. “We believe that it would be within the power of the president to issue an executive order to clean up the bureaucratic 
administrative mess at West Lake Landfill, put one government agency in charge, said Ed Smith.” Matt LaVanchy, a local fire department official, told radio station KTRS that he believes the fire could be less than 1,000 feet from the radioactive material, and is trying to train firefighters for possible outcomes.
CHEJ has been working with this community for years and agrees that it is time Obama steps in and commands action. EPA refuses to . . . Republic Service has failed nearly every step and people are dying. Time to take the site out of the hands of the incompetent and move the families down wind of the site. Read more here.
Tag: health
YES! The people of Clark County, Ohio showed up last night in force….
- Their Health District attendance counters stopped at 650, with more people coming in the door.
- US EPA’s Joan Tanaka said in all her 20 years’ work on Superfund sites, she had never seen such a huge crowd.
EPA’s purpose in coming to Clark County was to tell residents what information they wanted us to know….
- They listened politely to too many power point slides that were unreadable, too many reassurances that were not believable, and too much talking that glossed over or avoided the real questions.
Their united purpose last night was to tell EPA what they wanted them to know–and boy did they do just that.
In summary the people were clear that they:
- Do not and will not accept their proposed plan.
- Want all hazardous wastes permanently removed from the Tremont City Barrel Fill.
- Will continue to work with Ohio EPA and our elected leaders to change their remedy.
- Do not trust EPA, their reassurances, or their ability to protect our health and water source forever.
Our preference last night was made very clear….We want permanent removal of all hazardous wastes at the Barrel Fill.
U.S. EPA: Dig it up! Truck it out! Protect our water!
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.
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
House Passes GMO Labeling Ban Bill
By: Katie O’Brien
On July 23, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill preventing individual states from requiring labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients (GMOs). This bill bans states like Vermont, which recently passed GMO labeling laws, from labeling grocery items that contain GMOs. Supporters of the bill claim that there is no scientific consensus of the harm GMOs can cause, and therefore felt that the government should step in to regulate. But many studies claim that GMO foods have risks. While the government claims there is no concrete study that proves health harm from GMO ingredients, since they were introduced in 1996; there has been a rise in chronic illnesses, food allergies, reproductive issues and other disorders such as autism. GMOs also increase the use of toxic herbicide, which can harm ecosystems, reducing bio-diversity. According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, who are supporters of the bill, 80% of packaged foods contain GMOs, and more than 90% or U.S. corn and soybean crops are grown with genetically modified seeds.
The bill known as The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 creates a standard for the voluntary labeling of foods with GMO ingredients. It also created a certification process for companies that want to label their food GMO free, similar to the method of organic food labeling. Thus making it more difficult for companies who choose not to include GMOs in their product. The bill also allows the term “natural” to be included on labels of food containing GMOs. Democrats tried to amend the bill to stop the labeling of GMO foods as “natural”, but failed. The bill passed even though many surveys and polls, as in one done by the Mellman Group, states that at least 90% of the country does want to know what’s in the food they buy.
People have a right to know what is in the food they consume. Many groups have formed in opposition to the bill, which was nicknamed DARK, Denying Americans the Right-to-Know Act, because it will keep consumers in the dark. In an increasing world of transparency, the food industry is falling behind. Consumers should have readily available information about the food that they and their families eat. Opposition to the bill hopes that the senate will ultimately defeat the “DARK” act.
Last month, the nation’s third largest home improvement chain – Menards – agreed to phase out the use of phthalates in its vinyl flooring by the end of the year. In a statement in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Menards spokesperson Jeff Abbot said, “We are still aware of the phthalate concern and have been working diligently with our vendors to eliminate any flooring products that contain phthalates.” Menards, which follows the lead of Home Depot and Lowes, has roughly 285 stores in 14 states.
This announcement follows a report by the Health Building Network (HBN) that the world’s largest flooring manufacturers, Mohawk and Tarkett, are also phasing out the use of phthalate plasticizers. Rochelle Routman, VP of sustainability for Mohawk, told HBN that it “long ago” phased out the use of ortho-phthalates in all the vinyl floors that it manufacturers, and is working to eliminate them from third party manufactured floors. HBN reported in April that Tarkett, the world’s second largest flooring company, has phased out the intentional addition of phthalates to its flooring.
The decisions by these major retailers and by global manufacturing companies portends an end to the use of phthalates in consumer products. Consumers simply do not want to take risks, especially with their children, that they can avoid.
The August 2015 issue of Consumer Reports makes clear what parents should do if they have vinyl flooring in their home – regularly mop vinyl floors that contain phthalates and wash toddlers’ hands, especially if children crawl on the floors. Consumers Union tested 17 vinyl floors and found small amounts of phthalates on the surface layers – enough however to warrant action by parents. “Although phthalate levels are very low, we recommend that parents of toddlers wet-mop often and wash those little hands after they’ve been crawling on a vinyl floor,” it reports. Frequent cleaning could help remove dust particles which are known to accumulate phthalates commonly used in these floorings.
Phthalates migrate from PVC, can accumulate in people’s bodies, and can cause developmental harm. Some phthalates are carcinogens.
Rather than worry about moping the floor and washing your children’s hands, most parents want nothing to do with vinyl flooring. The risks are too great and the market forces are following this lead.
Categories
Red Meat and Climate Change
By: Amelia Meyer
Climate change is a serious issue for the health and the future of our ecosystems and society. Most of the focus from politicians, media, and scientists is on pollution from coal, cars, and sources of energy. Also the focus for the future is on renewable energy, conserving water, sea level rise and electric cars. But a significant contributor to climate change and the future of our food resources is the consumption of red meat. Red meat contributes a significant amount of more CO2 than vegetables, chicken, and pork.
One way to make a large difference is to actually involve society in making a change towards climate change. People are not educated about how the raising of cattle destroys forests worldwide. Including being the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon destroying over 700 thousand km2 so far. The amount of manure produced and resources needed to care for cattle is enormous as you can see in the graphic below it emits almost four times the amount of greenhouse gasses than chicken does and over thirteen times the amount that broccoli does. Producing one ¼ pound hamburger uses about a hundred and ten gallons of water. People are informed that showering for a less amount of time is good for the environment and water supply but eating less red meat would make a larger impact.
The consumption of red meat worldwide is excessive but in America alone we eat three times more than the global amount of meat intake a day. This is not only negative for the environment but also for the health of our society. Research has proven that red meat can lead to breast cancer, heart issues, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. A way to make a significant difference would be to become a vegetarian. However I know this would be a hard switch for a lot of people. Another way to make an impact is to eliminate your meat intake besides chicken because as you can see chicken is significantly lower on the amount of CO2 that it emits. In addition even a small change such as reducing the amount of red meat that you eat every week from four times to two times can help the environment significantly and the health of yourself and society.
Food shortage is already a serious issue worldwide and it will be a more significant problem by 2050. By that time in order to provide food for the projected population at that time our food production needs to increase 40 percent from what we currently have right now. This is not an easy goal to reach because of changes in landscapes, climate change, and agriculture that are occurring now and will continue to happen for the next fifty years.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/projects/meatless_monday/resources/meat_consumption.html
Categories
By: Katie O’Brien
Congratulations New York! The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued their Findings Statement on June 29, 2015, bringing their seven-year review of fracking to an end. This is big news because the state sits on 12 million acres of Marcellus shale. This formation of rock has natural gas reserves that have put states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia on the energy production map. New York is the first state with significant potential to produce major natural-gas resources that has banned fracking.
It wasn’t easy for New York to achieve this ban. Although there are many known and unknown health effects of fracking, the industry yields high profits which allows some people to see a pay raise instead of the threat that stands before them. Energy companies and some local communities fought the ban. Some NY towns even threatened secession. Many people in those communities were hoping to lease their land to energy companies and reap the economic benefits. Some states are even banning fracking bans. In May, both Oklahoma and Texas signed bills that prohibit towns from banning oil and gas operations. According to the National Law Review, Oklahoma’s ban was signed even amid “warning from the state’s own government that a recent dramatic spike in earthquakes is linked to wastewater injection”, which is a main process of fracking. Against all the odds, New York won the right to protect their communities from the aftermath of fracking.
The state of New York reviewed the process and health repercussions of fracking for seven years. New York DEC commissioner Joe Marten said based on the Findings Statement, “prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative. High-volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. This decision is consistent with DEC’s mission to conserve, improve and protect our state’s natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state.”
The DEC’s Findings statement is based on a lengthy report about the fracking process that began in 2009. The DEC has been working on the statement since December 2014, when Marten stated that too little was known about the health impacts of fracking to support the ban. The statement concluded that there are no alternatives to the environmental and health risks that fracking causes. Because of this, New York joins Vermont in outlawing the risky practice.
Opponents of the ban are expected to file lawsuits, and although the fracking ban can be rescinded, Earthjustice, the attorneys representing the case, guarantee “to stand alongside the state in any legal challenge”. This is a big win for both the state of New York and the environmental justice community as a whole.
Click here to view the DEC’s full Findings Statement.
A recently published scientific paper came to a striking conclusion – “the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies.” In other words, exposure to multiple chemicals at low doses, considered individually to be”safe could result in various low dose effects that lead to the formation of cancer. This is a remarkable observation and conclusion. It is also an important advance in the understanding of the risks chemicals pose to society.
Organized by the non-profit Getting to Know Cancer, a group of 350 cancer research scientists came together in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2013 to address the question of continuous multiple chemical exposures and the risks these exposure pose. Referred to as the Halifax Project, this effort merged two very distinct fields – environmental toxicology and the biological mechanisms of cancer – and provided the opportunity for researchers to look at the diversity of environmental factors that contribute to cancer by examining the impact that exposure to very small amounts of chemicals can have on various systems of the body.
A task force of nearly 200 scientists formed at this meeting took on the challenge of assessing whether or not everyday exposures to mixtures of commonly encountered chemicals have a role to play in cancer causation. The researchers began by identifying a number of specific key pathways and mechanisms that are important in the formation of cancer. Then they identified individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals that are commonly found in the environment that had some potential to disrupt these systems. A total of 85 environmental chemicals were identified.
The authors found that 59% of these chemicals (50/85) had low dose effects “at levels that are deemed relevant given the background levels of exposure that exist in the environment.” They found that only 15% of the chemicals reviewed (13/85) had a dose-response threshold and that the remaining 26% (22/85) could not be categorized due to a lack of dose-response information. The authors concluded that these results help “to validate the idea that chemicals can act disruptively on key cancer-related mechanisms at environmentally relevant levels of exposure.”
This is an incredibly important observation because it challenges the traditional thinking about how cancer forms in the body. It challenges the notion that all cancers share common traits (considered the “hallmarks of cancer”) that govern the transformation of normal cells to cancer cells. The authors also discuss how the results in this paper impact the process of risk assessment which even its most sophisticated model fails to address continuous exposures to mixtures of common chemicals.
The authors point out how surprisingly little is actually known about the combined effects of chemical mixtures on cancer related mechanisms and processes. This effort however seems to be a very positive step forward.
To read the full paper, go to <http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/Suppl_1/S254.full.pdf+html>.
Categories
ATSDR Fails Community Once Again
In July of 2013, an explosion occurred at the WTI/Heritage Thermal Services (HTS) hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, OH. Incinerator ash that had built up on the inside of the incinerator stack suddenly fell off causing a huge cloud of dust contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic substances to be released from the stack. An estimated 800 to 900 pounds of ash were released into the surrounding community. The plant manager advised residents to wash fruits and vegetables from their gardens and to replace food and water for pets and farm animals. Save Our County, a local group that has been fighting to shut down the incinerator for more than 20 years and other local residents were quite alarmed by what happened and asked whether this latest accident further put their health at risk.
The state regulating agency’s response was to invite the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate what risks the residents might have suffered. More than a year later, ATSDR released its report which concluded that the “trace amount of toxic metals in the surface and subsurface soils of the residential area west of the HTS facility affected by the July 2013 ash release are not expected to harm people’s health. The reason for this is that the concentration of these metals found in the soils are below levels of health concern.”
It’s not clear how ATSDR came to this conclusion when some of the data included in the report clearly show contaminant levels that exceeded levels of health concern. Two (of 13) soil samples, one on-site and one off-site, both downwind, had the highest levels of contaminants of concern (though they never disclosed what these levels were). The arsenic levels found in the surface soil of the surrounding community generally exceeded public health levels of concern, ranging from 14 to 57 parts per million (ppm), averaging 20 ppm. The public health level of concern is 15 ppm.
There is also data on two wipe samples (of 8) collected by HTS immediately after the accident that were found to contain 3,600 ppm arsenic; 13,000 ppm lead and 8,000 ppm nickel. These samples were collected from areas on-site where trucks at the facility were staged. These are all extraordinarily high and well above public health levels of concern.
Similarly, two wipe samples collected from the community had arsenic levels at 277 ppm and lead at 819 ppm, both levels well in excess of levels of public health concern. The report refers to a third sample collected from the surface of a black S10 pick-up truck with arsenic at 296 ppm and lead at 1,046 ppm also well above public health levels of concern.
Despite all of these results that exceeded public health levels of concern, ATSDR concluded that there is no cause for alarm and that the toxic metals released into the community “is not expected” to harm people’s health. It’s like someone at ATSDR wrote the conclusion without ever reading the report or looking at the data.
The ATSDR report simply ignores the data that exceeds public health levels of concern and draws its conclusions as though these high levels did not exist. How can anyone trust a government agency that operates this way?
This is what communities across the country have grown to expect from ATSDR – conclusions that are unresponsive to community concerns about potential health risks but protective of industrial pollution. Some things never change.