Waste is found dumped at a marsh near the mouth of Neshaminy Creek to the Delaware river in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on Feb. 6, 2019. Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Melanie Benesh, Legislative Attorney
From the beginning, the Trump administration has aggressively slashed environmental regulations. A New York Times analysis identified 100 environmental protections that have been reversed or are in the process of getting rolled back. The administration's record on chemical safety has been especially hazardous for the health of Americans, especially children.
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017" target="_blank">One year into President Trump's term,</a> EWG detailed how the Trump administration has stacked the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lawyers and lobbyists, undermined worker safety and cooked the books on chemical safety assessments. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic" target="_blank">Midway through his second year,</a> we reported how the EPA reversed a ban on a brain-damaging pesticide, delayed chemical bans and killed a rule to protect kids from toxic PCBs in schools. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/08/10-ways-trump-has-undermined-chemical-safety" target="_blank">Last year,</a> we reported that the EPA had rescinded safety rules at chemical plants, rubber-stamped untested new chemicals and silenced researchers.</p><p>As Trump's first term nears its end, things are even worse. Here are 10 more ways the Trump administration has continued to make life more toxic for Americans.</p>
1. Failed to Aggressively Regulate Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’
<p>The toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS contaminate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/" target="_blank">more than 2,200 sites</a> across the nation. Because they never break down in the environment, PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="_blank">forever chemicals</a>." They build up in our bodies and are linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms and reduced effectiveness of vaccines. Even though the EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank">since at least 1998</a>, they remain virtually unregulated.</p><p>In February 2019, the EPA released a toothless PFAS "action plan" that lacked deadlines for action and failed to address the use of PFAS in everyday products, contamination from PFAS air emissions or disposal of PFAS waste, among other concerns. A year and a half later, key goals from the plan, including regulating PFAS under the Superfund law and setting drinking water standards, remain unfulfilled.</p><p>When Congress stepped in and sought to designate PFOA and PFOS – the two most notorious and well-studied PFAS – as "hazardous substances" and to set deadlines for agency action, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">threatened a veto</a>. Trump's EPA also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-13738/long-chain-perfluoroalkyl-carboxylate-and-perfluoroalkyl-sulfonate-chemical-substances-significant" target="_blank">weakened a rule</a> designed to regulate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/06/final-decision-epa-fails-protect-public-toxic-forever-chemicals-consumer" target="_blank">PFAS in consumer products</a>.</p>2. Allowed a Rocket Fuel Chemical to Stay in Drinking Water
<p>Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that also frequently contaminates drinking water sources. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function, which can also harm <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/kids-still-risk-rocket-fuel-chemical-food-and-water" target="_blank">childhood brain development</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/html/2011-2603.htm" target="_blank">Almost a decade ago,</a> the EPA determined that these harms warranted regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency then dragged its feet for years. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160218" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council sued</a> to force the EPA to finally set a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. In a <a href="https://www.freshlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/12/Doc-38-Consent-Decree.pdf" target="_blank">court-approved consent decree</a>, the EPA agreed to propose a standard by October 2018 and finalize it by 2019. However, the EPA sought extensions and failed to meet these deadlines.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/26/2019-12773/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-perchlorate" target="_blank">EPA finally proposed a drinking water standard</a> in June 2019 but also suggested that it might not regulate perchlorate after all. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-13462/drinking-water-final-action-on-perchlorate" target="_blank">A year later, </a>the EPA withdrew its decision to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.</p>3. Allowed Scores of New Chemicals, Including New Toxic PFAS, Onto the Market Without Adequate Oversight
<p>In 2016, Congress substantially changed the way new chemicals are approved under the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/new-tsca-bill-falls-short-protecting-americans-toxic-chemicals#.WwLUddMvwWo" target="_blank">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, or TSCA.</p><p>Under the old law, chemicals were frequently approved by default, often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/off-the-books-ii-more-secret-chemicals/new-chemicals" target="_blank">without any health and safety information</a>. As a result, unsafe chemicals were allowed to be used for years or decades before the health and environmental hazards came to light. Inadequate oversight of new chemicals can also lead to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/harmful-chemicals-removed-from-products-often-replaced-with-something-as-bad-or-worse/" target="_blank">regrettable substitution</a> – when chemicals are finally found to be unsafe, they are often replaced by unstudied chemicals that may be just as or even more toxic.</p><p>The 2016 update was supposed to fix the new chemicals program by requiring the EPA to make an affirmative safety finding on new chemicals and restrict use if industry failed to provide sufficient safety data. Nonetheless, the Trump EPA has approved scores of new chemicals in a process that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/12/09/when-will-epa-fully-explain-and-legally-justify-its-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="_blank">lacks transparency</a> and <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">contravenes the 2016 law</a>. The EPA has also <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/05/trumps-epa-flouting-law-when-approving-new-chemicals-here-are-3-examples" target="_blank">ignored known health concerns</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="_blank">limited its consideration of worker risks</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/the-trump-epa-is-illegally-denying-requests-for-public-files-on-new-chemicals/" target="_blank">denied requests for public files</a> in the new chemicals program.</p><p>The EPA has also exploited loopholes in the new law to quickly approve new chemicals, including toxic PFAS. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/07/28/greasing-the-skids-the-trump-epa-is-green-lighting-dozens-of-new-pfas-under-tsca/" target="_blank">A recent investigation</a> found that the EPA has been quietly approving new PFAS chemicals, through a provision known as the low volume exemption in the new chemicals program. As a result, the EPA is greenlighting new PFAS chemicals on an expedited basis, without public scrutiny. One PFAS, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/01/27/what-connects-cross-country-skiing-and-chemical-safety/" target="_blank">used in ski wax</a>, was approved despite a finding that the chemical could "waterproof the lungs," resulting in severe health impacts.</p><p>Since the law was updated in 2016, the EPA has reviewed more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/statistics-new-chemicals-review" target="_blank">3,000 new chemicals</a> submissions. More than 1,000 of these chemicals have been approved through the low volume exemption, and since 2016, manufacturers have begun producing at least 900 new chemicals, many without adequate safety data. Environmental groups have <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">sued the EPA</a> over its failures to protect the public and the environment from risks from new chemicals. </p>4. Failed to Protect Workers From a Deadly Paint-Stripping Chemical
<p>Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that is responsible for <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/us-deaths-from-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">more than 60 deaths</a> since 1980. In the final days of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0001" target="_blank">EPA proposed a ban</a> on "methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal."</p><p>After significant pressure from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-reconsiders-ban-on-potentially-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">families who lost loved ones</a> due to methylene chloride exposure, the Trump EPA eventually issued a final rule in 2019. However, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-bans-consumer-sales-methylene-chloride-paint-removers-protecting-public" target="_blank">EPA narrowed the rule</a> so that it would apply only to consumer<em> uses</em> of methylene chloride, not commercial uses. That means workers are not protected, even though a <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/workers-rights/epa-restricts-sales-of-deadly-paint-strippers-after-years-of-delays/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity investigation</a> found that most deaths from methylene chloride take place at work.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/final-risk-evaluation-methylene-chloride" target="_blank">separate EPA evaluation</a> of methylene chloride found that manufacturing, disposal and several other uses of methylene chloride pose no "unreasonable risk." Environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-sued-for-leaving-workers-exposed-to-deadly-chemical-in-paint-strippers" target="_blank">the rule</a> and the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trumps-epa-sued-over-understating-risks-of-deadly-chemical" target="_blank">recent evaluation</a>.</p>5. Cooked the Books on the “Civil Action” Chemical
<p>Trichloroethylene is a chemical solvent made infamous by the book and movie "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PHjIly2N0" target="_blank">A Civil Action</a>." The EPA considers it to be a known carcinogen, and it is one of the primary contaminants that sickened scores of veterans who served at <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune" target="_blank">Camp Lejeune</a>, in North Carolina.</p><p>As with methylene chloride, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning three uses of TCE: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0163-0001" target="_blank">spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing</a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0001" target="_blank">vapor degreasing</a>. In December 2017, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-indefinitely-delays-bans-deadly-chemicals" target="_blank">shelved these proposed bans</a>, claiming that it would study those uses in a separate ongoing risk evaluation of TCE.</p><p>However, the EPA dramatically rewrote the accepted science on TCE in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-trichloroethylene" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> released in February. As <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/industry-s-behest-epa-caves-banning-civil-action-carcinogen-lays-ground" target="_blank">EWG warned</a> in 2018, the solvents industry aggressively lobbied the EPA to ignore a key <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241384/" target="_blank">2003 study</a> finding that TCE causes heart deformities in developing fetuses. TCE's connection with fetal heart defects was an important basis for the Obama EPA's decision to ban three uses of TCE. An <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303240#bib0190" target="_blank">independent review</a> of the EPA's science found that "prenatal exposure to TCE can cause human cardiac defects" and that the study "remains a valid choice" for assessing risk.</p><p>The lobbyists succeeded. The EPA's draft risk evaluation questioned the study's design and minimized its significance. An <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/epa-scientists-found-a-toxic-chemical-damages-fetal-hearts-the-trump-white-house-rewrote-their-assessment/" target="_blank">investigation by Reveal News</a> compared the draft risk evaluation with a leaked earlier draft. It found that the earlier draft had relied extensively on the 2003 study and used it as a benchmark for the risk calculations. Reveal also reported that then-EPA chemicals safety chief Nancy Beck – "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/scariest-trump-appointee-you-ve-never-heard" target="_blank">the scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of</a>" – ordered that the risk evaluation be rewritten to downplay the risks of TCE. With the EPA giving significantly less weight to risks from fetal heart deformities, it's unlikely the agency will finalize the proposed bans.</p>6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including Formaldehyde
<p>The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/03/epa-iris-toxic-chemicals/" target="_blank">frequent target of chemical industry attacks</a> because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.</p><p>In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3534381/Combined.pdf" target="_blank">defund</a> the IRIS program. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697212.pdf" target="_blank">a Government Accountability Office report</a> disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.</p><p>One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf" target="_blank">known human carcinogen</a>. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="_blank">ready for release</a>. However, answering <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/01/29/document_pm_02.pdf" target="_blank">questions for the record</a> following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."</p><p>Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-list-next-20-chemicals-undergo-risk-evaluation-under-tsca" target="_blank">conduct its own assessment</a> of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.</p>7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections
<p>Industrial chemical pollutants are often discharged into drinking water supplies. But the Trump administration has made it a priority to roll back the<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank"> Clean Water Rule,</a> which more clearly defined which kinds of bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act. EWG's analysis found that the Clean Water Rule, if implemented as proposed by the Obama administration, would have protected drinking water sources for more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="_blank">117 million Americans</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">EPA's own science advisors</a> have opposed the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, but the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-completes-repeal-clean-water-rule-imperiling-drinking-water-sources-117m-people" target="_blank">repealed</a> it in 2019, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-administration-finalizes-repeal-pollution-rule-threatening-drinking-water-sources-117" target="_blank">proposed its own rule</a> in January and <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank">finalized it</a> in April. The new rule covers far fewer bodies of water and would leave 234,000 miles of small streams unprotected. EWG estimates that at least 72 million Americans draw at least half their drinking water from small streams.</p><p>Because of the repeal, those bodies of water will no longer be subject to pollution limits. Protection for small and seasonal streams and wetlands is important because they often flow into larger bodies of water, including sources of drinking water. Polluted drinking water sources <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/" target="_blank">strain municipal water utilities</a> tasked with filtering out contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and risk exposing the public to more <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state-of-american-drinking-water.php" target="_blank">contaminants that aren't regulated</a> under the act.</p>8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos
<p>Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20375022" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a>. An estimated <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Jukka%20Takala&orcid=0000-0001-5722-7052" target="_blank">40,000 Americans</a> die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6165892895625819539&q=corrosion+proof+fittings+v+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=20006" target="_blank">the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.</a></p><p>After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-new-safety-law-epa-picks-first-10-chemicals-review" target="_blank">first 10 chemicals</a> reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.</p><p>Instead, when the EPA released its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-asbestos" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-trump-epa-acted-unlawfully-refusing-consider-legacy-use-asbestos-lead" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.</p><p>Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/25/2019-08154/restrictions-on-discontinued-uses-of-asbestos-significant-new-use-rule" target="_blank">published a rule</a> requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">leaked documents</a> show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.</p>9. Proposed a Loophole for Toxic Air Pollution
<p>In July 2019, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-14252/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act" target="_blank">Trump EPA proposed to reverse</a> a longstanding policy requiring large power plants, refineries and other industrial polluters to always meet certain strict controls, even after reducing emissions. The new rule creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act regulations that would allow large industrial facilities to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf" target="_blank">reclassify themselves</a>, from "major sources" of air pollution to "area sources."</p><p>That change would allow them to opt out of strict pollution control standards, called "maximum achievable control technology," and substantially increase their emissions of dangerous air pollutants. EPA's own data shows that more than <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-26/pdf/2019-14252.pdf" target="_blank">3,900 large facilities</a> that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications" target="_blank">emit pollutants like mercury and benzene</a> could take advantage of this loophole. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2020/02/19/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole/?conversion_pg=www.momscleanairforce.org%2Fthe-racism-of-the-epa-agenda%2F" target="_blank">The Environmental Defense Fund</a> estimates the loophole could increase toxic air emissions by as much as 480 percent, or almost 50 million pounds per year. </p><p>This rollback is especially alarming in the midst of the global coronavirus pandemic. Studies have found that people who live in areas with <a href="https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/07/17/why-air-pollution-is-linked-to-severe-cases-of-covid-19/" target="_blank">high levels of air pollution</a> are at greater risk for severe cases of COVID-19.</p>10. Continuing Its Quest to Censor Science
<p>In 2018, the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science" target="_blank">proposed a disastrous rule</a> significantly limiting the kinds of science the agency can rely on to justify environmental regulations. The rule would have prohibited the agency from using studies that don't make their underlying data publicly available or whose results can't be replicated. That change would prevent the EPA from including in its future risk assessments most <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/scientific-medical-academic-groups-urge-epa-drop-transparency-rule" target="_blank">human health studies</a>, because personal medical data must remain confidential. The rule would undermine studies that are foundational to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html" target="_blank">clean air regulations</a>.</p><p>The proposal sparked enormous opposition from scientists, academics and environmental health advocates. More than 600,000 public comments were submitted to the agency, the vast majority in opposition. In September 2019, the EPA dropped the proposal from its regulatory agenda. </p><p>But the Trump EPA is at it again. In March, the agency issued a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">supplemental proposal</a> that is actually <a href="https://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/ewg-comments-epa-strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="_blank">worse than</a> the original proposal. The 2018 proposal applied to all "dose response" studies, but the new proposal applies to all studies. The new proposal also applies retroactively, which means the EPA could use it to gut existing regulations.</p><p>As these actions – and dozens of others – show, the Trump EPA has aggressively worked to erode and eliminate vital environmental and public health protections. The public needs an EPA that will prioritize people and planet over polluters and profit.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA OK's Rocket Fuel Chemical for Water Supplies - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA OKs 'Emergency' Use of Bee-Killing Pesticide on 13.9 ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From Coal Plants - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Pexels
By Allison Johnson
Most people who buy organic do it because they want to eat healthier. It's true – switching to an organic diet rapidly decreases exposure to a wide range of pesticides, including glyphosate (the main ingredient in Roundup). According to a new study published in Environmental Research, glyphosate levels in families' bodies dropped 70% in just one week on an organic diet. The researchers concluded that diet is a major source of glyphosate exposure and that eating organic reduces exposure.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU2MDQyNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDcxNTUxNX0.b_BV9lltmowMk5Wed_5HmjAcZ8lj9QJrZY06nGjg5iU/img.png?width=980" id="d34c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4a67133955312355b2c92de9a53fbfee" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Friends of the Earth / https://foe.org/the-study/
<p>But the health benefits of organic agriculture extend far beyond our individual dinner plates. Organic farming offers a comprehensive alternative to chemical agriculture, and it protects our soil, air, water, wildlife, and critically – our farming communities – from toxic pesticides.</p><p>The purpose of pesticides is to kill. So it's not surprising that widespread use of these chemicals poses a serious public health threat. Diet alone exposes us to a frightening cocktail of pesticide residues, and toxic pesticides pose much <a href="https://law.ucla.edu/news/exposure-and-interaction-potential-health-impacts-using-multiple-pesticides" target="_blank">more severe</a> health threats to <a href="https://www.organic-center.org/organic-agriculture-reducing-occupational-pesticide-exposure-farmers-and-farmworkers-0" target="_blank">farming communities</a>.</p><p>Food system workers and their families and communities – who are <a href="http://www.pesticidereform.org/environmental-justice/" target="_blank">disproportionately Latinx and low-income</a> – bear the brunt of <a href="https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20singles%20compressed.pdf" target="_blank">harm from toxic pesticide use in agriculture</a>. Farmworkers are at risk from direct exposure to harmful chemicals when mixing and applying pesticides, as well as while working in fields; as a result, they suffer <a href="http://www.farmworkerjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/aExposed-and-Ignored-by-Farmworker-Justice-singles-compressed.pdf" target="_blank">more chemical-related injuries</a> than any other U.S. workforce. Exposure also extends beyond the workplace. Workers can carry pesticides home on clothes, shoes, and skin, inadvertently exposing their children and other family members, and pesticide drift can harm people living, working, and learning near farms.</p><p>These exposure routes add up. And weaning our agricultural system off its addiction to toxic chemicals is an uphill battle.</p><p>We've seen recent wins on pesticide issues in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html#:~:text=Just%20weeks%20after%20the%20deal,warn%20consumers%20of%20the%20risk." target="_blank">courts</a> and in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/191009" target="_blank">some</a> <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200320" target="_blank">states</a>, but it can take decades of fighting to end the use of a single pesticide. For example, NRDC petitioned the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end use of the brain-toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos in 2007; thirteen years later, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/nrdc-takes-epa-court-again-protect-childrens-health" target="_blank">we're still in court</a> demanding that EPA protect public health. Meanwhile numerous similar <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/181024-0" target="_blank">organophosphate</a> chemicals also remain in our fields and our bodies.</p><p>This pesticide "whack-a-mole" problem makes organic farming a potent addition to our public health toolbox, especially in farming communities: organic farmers do no use most synthetic pesticides, so organic farming eliminates a wide range of health threats posed by farming with toxic chemicals.</p><p>The health crises facing farm workers and rural communities needs urgent attention, particularly in light of the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/covid-19-farmworkers-among-highest-risk-studies-show/" target="_blank">added burdens</a> from the COVID-19 crisis. Kendra Klein and Anna Lappé <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2020/aug/11/pesticide-danger-organic-food-roundup-study" target="_blank">got it right</a>:</p><p>"As long as we treat organic food as if it's a shopping preference instead of a public good, we will miss the opportunity to fight for a desperately needed shift in how we farm."</p><p>We should all be able to eat without exposing anyone to toxic pesticides. That's why we support more public investment in organic in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lena-brook/ca-farm-school-survives-challenging-budget-year" target="_blank">schools</a>, in the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/farm-bill-can-make-or-break-organic" target="_blank">Farm Bill</a>, in <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/house-climate-report-food-ag-are-part-climate-solution" target="_blank">climate policy</a>, and beyond. The stakes are high – but the solutions are within reach.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson" target="_blank" style="">Allison Johnson</a> is a Sustainable Food Policy Advocate at the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank" style="">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em></p><p><em style="">Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/allison-johnson/organic-farming-protects-communities-toxic-chemicals" target="_blank" style="">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
International Monetary Fund / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Sir David Attenborough wants a ban on deep-sea mining.
<p>The 93-year-old conservationist spoke out <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/sir-david-attenborough-hopes-coronavirus-crisis-will-not-hinder-uk-climate-change-summit-11955590" target="_blank">in an interview with Sky News Thursday</a> in conjunction with a new report that warns of the potentially devastating consequences of extracting metals and minerals from the deep places of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">ocean</a>. The practice could harm <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_self">biodiversity</a>, limit the ocean's ability to support life and even disrupt its ability to store carbon, worsening the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>. </p>
<p>"We should not go in and trash an area of the globe about which we know hardly anything until we've done the proper research - in short we want a moratorium against action of industrialising the deep-sea," Attenborough told Sky.</p>
<div id="76e5f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="FJWZ3I1584105773"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1237983319540850688" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Please join our call – alongside Sir David Attenborough – for governments to declare a moratorium on #DeepSeaMining… https://t.co/tMmLLIess6</div> — Fauna & Flora Int. (@Fauna & Flora Int.)<a href="https://twitter.com/FaunaFloraInt/statuses/1237983319540850688">1583993198.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The <a href="https://cms.fauna-flora.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FFI_2020_The-risks-impacts-deep-seabed-mining_Report.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> Attenborough backed was published by <a href="https://www.fauna-flora.org/" target="_blank">Flora and Fauna International</a> (FFI) Thursday, a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_self">conservation</a> group of which Attenborough serves as vice president. It comes as there is growing interest in deep-sea mining, defined by FFI as mining below 200 meters (approximately 656 feet), as deposits of minerals used in batteries and mobile phones are discovered, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/david-attenborough-calls-for-ban-on-devastating-deep-sea-mining?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&fbclid=IwAR17aGXn2dgIWqgKYQvM7jASuEYcjV69PoNUj5Fmr8r2YETn7T-ryH7illI" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. The international rules governing the new practice will be decided at a meeting of the UN International Seabed Authority in July.</p><p>While the impact of mining above 200 meters is well understood, science has yet to learn much about the deep ocean, making it difficult to assess mining's impacts there. The FFI report is the <a href="https://www.fauna-flora.org/news/sir-david-attenborough-urges-halt-deep-sea-mining-plans-wake-alarming-new-scientific-report" target="_blank">first</a> to seriously consider the risks of the practice, and it drew some troubling conclusions.</p><p>Deep-sea mining could:</p><ol><li>Disturb pristine ecosystems</li><li>Create far-reaching plumes of sediment that could kill <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a> far from the mining site</li><li>Kill microbes in sediments and hydrothermal vents that reduce methane and carbon</li><li>Disrupt the ocean's "Biological Pump" that distributes nutrients and sucks carbon out of the atmosphere</li><li>Expose deep-sea life to toxic metals</li><li>Worsen <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean-acidification" target="_self">ocean acidification</a> through the mining of sulphide deposits on the seafloor</li></ol>
<div id="b34eb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="UW1SE51584105774"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1238052679395442695" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">📢📰Today's report from @FaunaFloraInt warns of the impacts of #DeepSeaMining on the health of the ocean, our planet'… https://t.co/mtTdyTNpZj</div> — Marine CoLABoration (@Marine CoLABoration)<a href="https://twitter.com/Marine_CoLAB/statuses/1238052679395442695">1584009735.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The risk of such impacts in a little-understood ecosystem is why Attenborough is joining FFI in calling for a ban on the practice.</p><p>"Whatever you do please do the science before you go in and destroy - because that's what it is - mining is a polite word, mining also means destruction. Destruction of an ecosystem of which we know pathetically little," he told Sky.</p><p>FFI acknowledged that deep-sea mining is sometimes portrayed as part of the solution to the climate crisis, because it is a potential source of many metals needed for lithium-ion batteries. However, Director Pippa Howard wrote that the risks associated with the practice made it necessary to search for other solutions, such as developing less-metal dependent technologies like hydrogen fuel cells or batteries from materials extracted from sea water.</p><p>"We need to shatter the myth that deep-seabed mining is the solution to the climate crisis!" Howard <a href="https://www.fauna-flora.org/news/depth-deep-seabed-mining-not-answer-climate-crisis" target="_blank">wrote</a>. "It is nonsense that this form of mining is a 'light' alternative to terrestrial mining and that all the cobalt, nickel, copper and manganese lying 'for the taking' on the bottom of the oceans are some kind of silver bullet."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Attenborough: 'If We Wreck the Natural World, We Wreck Ourselves ... ›
- David Attenborough Gives Stark Warning in New BBC Climate ... ›
- David Attenborough: 'Population Growth Must Come to an End ... ›
- Race to Mine Deep Seabeds, With Unknown Ecological Impacts ›
- Climate Champion David Attenborough Breaks Jennifer Anniston's Instagram Record - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Aerial view of Parque da Cachoeira, which suffered the January 2019 dam collapse, in Brumadinho, state of Minas Gerais, Brazil — one of the country's worst industrial accidents that left 270 people dead. Millions of tons of toxic mining waste engulfed houses, farms and waterways, devastating the mineral-rich region. DOUGLAS MAGNO / AFP / Getty Images
By Christopher Sergeant, Julian D. Olden
Scars from large mining operations are permanently etched across the landscapes of the world. The environmental damage and human health hazards that these activities create may be both severe and irreversible.
<p>
Many mining operations store enormous quantities of waste, known as tailings, onsite. After miners excavate rock, a processing plant crushes it to recover valuable minerals such as gold or copper. The leftover pulverized rock and liquid slurry become tailings, which often are acidic and contain high concentrations of arsenic, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" rel="noopener noreferrer">mercury</a> and other toxic substances.<em></em>
</p>
<p class="">
<em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/mine-waste-dams-threaten-the-environment-even-when-they-dont-fail-130770" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130770/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<p>Mining companies store tailings forever, frequently behind earth-filled embankment dams. Over the past 100 years, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4159306" target="_blank">more than 300 mine tailing dams worldwide have failed</a>, mainly due to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4159306" target="_blank">foundation weakening, seepage, overtopping and earthquake damage</a>.</p><p>We are <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/" target="_blank">research scientists</a> studying <a href="https://flbs.umt.edu/newflbs/about-flbs/people/page-elements/flbs-people/people/chris-sergeant/" target="_blank">how humans affect rivers</a>. In our view, the damage caused by stored mine waste often outweighs the benefits that mining provides to local economies and the technology industry.</p><p>This issue is especially urgent now in a region of the Pacific Northwest where Alaska and British Columbia meet. This zone, known as the <a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/story-golden-triangle-british-columbia/" target="_blank">Golden Triangle</a>, is studded with mineral claims and leases. We believe that rivers in this area could be severely damaged if proposed mega-projects are allowed to proceed.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="372c3ad1f46eb18bad4b4843cb648517"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYYwzAvQIF8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Catastrophic Failures Renew Old Worries
<p>Tailings dam failures range from the 1966 <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-150d11df-c541-44a9-9332-560a19828c47" target="_blank">Aberfan disaster</a> that buried a Welsh village to multiple spills over the past decade in <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/mine-tailings-dam-failures-major-cause-of-environmental-disasters-report/" target="_blank">Canada, China, Chile and the United States</a>. The <a href="https://www.icold-cigb.org/" target="_blank">International Commission on Large Dams</a>, a nongovernmental organization, warned in 2001 that the frequency and severity of tailings dam failures was <a href="http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/2891-TailingsDams.pdf" target="_blank">increasing globally</a>.</p><p>Two catastrophic and highly publicized failures at the <a href="https://www.mountpolleyreviewpanel.ca/" target="_blank">Mt. Polley dam in Canada</a> in 2014 and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dam-collapse-at-brazilian-mine-exposes-grave-safety-problems-110666" target="_blank">Brumadinho dam in Brazil</a> in 2019 finally catalyzed a response. The <a href="https://www.icmm.com/" target="_blank">International Council on Mining and Metals</a>, the <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/" target="_blank">United Nations Environment Programme</a> and the independent organization <a href="https://www.unpri.org/" target="_blank">Principles for Responsible Investment</a> drafted a "global standard for the safe and secure <a href="https://globaltailingsreview.org/" target="_blank">management of mine tailings facilities</a>." The first public review of the standard was completed in December 2019, and its authors plan to finalize their recommendations by the end of March 2020.</p><p>The standard aspires to achieve "zero harm to people and the environment and zero tolerance for human fatality." Reducing the likelihood of future dam failures and minimizing damage if one does break are appropriate goals, but our research suggests that the concept of "zero harm" is false and potentially dangerous.</p><p>Why? Because once in place, tailings dams and their toxic reservoirs require maintenance forever. Even if there is no catastrophic failure, these dams and their surrounding infrastructure can cause ecological harm in multiple ways. They require artificial water diversions and releases, which upset natural flow patterns in surrounding streams and modify water temperature and concentrations of metals. And polluted groundwater seepage from unlined reservoirs or failing liners is often hard to detect and treat.</p><p>These ecosystem modifications directly affect organisms on land and in the water downstream. Every decision to allow a mine to proceed with a tailings storage facility indelibly transforms rivers and their ecosystems for hundreds to thousands of years.</p>
International Rivers at Risk
<p>Today these decisions loom large in the Golden Triangle, home to the Taku, Stikine and Unuk Rivers – three of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9" target="_blank">longest undammed rivers in North America</a>. Salmon from these rivers have supported indigenous communities for millennia, generate <a href="https://www.mcdowellgroup.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FINAL-Southeast-Alaska-Transboundary-Watershed-Economic-Impacts-10_10red.pdf" target="_blank">tens of millions of dollars in economic activity annually</a> and provide a dependable source of food for organisms ranging from insects to brown bears.</p><p>We calculate that 19% of the total drainage area of these three rivers is staked with mineral mining claims or leases. This includes 59% of the Unuk River watershed, along with the entire Iskut River corridor, the largest tributary to the Stikine River.</p><p>We have identified <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ipseXInQJTFPt1wtac431c9AEmDHJqb05qqRwFTOlNU/edit#gid=0" target="_blank">dozens of mines in exploratory or production phases</a>. Some industry representatives call these statistics irrelevant because only a small portion of the claims will convert to economically viable projects. But from our perspective, the fact that vast areas of these watersheds are included in initial explorations implies that few rivers in this region are safe from potential mining development.</p><p>Most proposed projects in the Golden Triangle will require open pit mining and tailings storage. As one indicator of their potential scale, the <a href="https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse#v=57.72808,-129.82688,10.301,latLng&t=3.43&ps=50&bt=19840101&et=20181231&startDwell=0&endDwell=0" target="_blank">Red Chris Mine</a>, which has operated since 2015 in the headwaters of the Stikine River, maintains a tailings reservoir dam that is permitted to ultimately stand 344 feet (105 meters) high and contain approximately 107 billion cubic feet (305 million cubic meters) of tailings. The heights of the failed dams at Mt. Polley and Brumadinho were 131 feet (40 meters) and 282 feet (86 meters), respectively.</p><p>Those heights pale in comparison to dams proposed for three metal mines in the Stikine and Unuk watersheds, including KSM, Galore Creek, and Schaft Creek. The tallest of four dams <a href="https://www.miningdataonline.com/reports/KSM_PFS_PEA_112016.pdf" target="_blank">planned for KSM</a> would measure 784 feet (239 meters) – one of the highest dams in North America, and the second highest in Canada.</p><p>At KSM, economically viable ore will be transported from open pits to a processing facility and tailings storage reservoir, accessed via twin tunnels built under a glacier. After what the project proponent calls the 53-year "life of mine," Seabridge Gold proposes to treat runoff water from the piled waste rock <a href="https://www.miningdataonline.com/reports/KSM_PFS_PEA_112016.pdf" target="_blank">for at least 200 years</a>.</p><p>Each component of these proposed mines is an incredible engineering feat that will cost billions of dollars to construct and more to clean up later. From the perspective of maintaining an ecologically healthy watershed, the life of the mine is just beginning when operations close.</p><p>In contrast to more conventional water storage dams, which are licensed and built for a finite operating life, tailings dams must hold back their slurry forever. The likelihood of leaks or dam failure compounds over this multigenerational time period as facilities age and projects no longer generate revenue.</p>
Accurately Assessing Risk
<p>Rivers are the arteries of coastal Alaska and northwestern Canada, draining pristine snow and ice-covered mountains and pumping out cold, clean water to support fish, wildlife and people. Here and elsewhere, we believe that regulators should take a measured and cautious view of current and planned tailings facilities.</p><p>Dam failures are <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4040075" target="_blank">increasing in frequency</a>, and often are so large that true cleanup or reclamation is not possible. Before more are built, we see a need for independent science to provide a means of honestly assessing the risk of storing mining waste.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Controversial Amazon Gold Mine Close to Getting Permit, Say ... ›
- 58 Dead, 305 Missing in Brazilian Dam Collapse - EcoWatch ›
- Russian Mining Giant Admits to Polluting the Arctic With Wastewater - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
5 Biggest Pesticide Companies Are Making Billions From 'Highly Hazardous' Chemicals, Investigation Finds
20 February
Health + Wellness
Worker spraying toxic pesticides or insecticides on corn plantation. D-Keine / E+ / Getty Images
Poor people in developing countries are far more likely to suffer from exposure to pesticides classified as having high hazard to human health or the environment, according to new data that Unearthed analyzed.
<p>The analysis shows that the world's top five pesticide makers are making billions, accounting for more than 36 percent of their income, from chemicals that are proven to hazards to humans and the environment and are contributing to the precipitous demise of bee populations, as Unearthed reported.</p>
<p>The researchers found that the sale of these highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), disproportionately occurred in poorer nations, which often have fewer regulations than industrialized nations, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/20/firms-making-billions-from-highly-hazardous-pesticides-analysis-finds" target="_blank">according to The Guardian</a>. In India, for example, sales of HHPs were nearly 60 percent, while in the UK it was just 11 percent. </p>
<p>The report from the investigative team at Unearthed focused on the practices of Bayer, BASF, Corteva (formerly Dow and DuPont), FMC and Syngenta, which are continuing to sell HHPs like neonicotinoids and glufosinate that have been banned in other parts of the world, according to the produce industry publication <a href="http://www.fruitnet.com/fpj/article/180959/pesticide-firms-profit-off-hazardous-products-says-report" target="_blank">Fresh Produce Journal</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/20/pesticides-croplife-hazardous-bayer-syngenta-health-bees/" target="_blank">Unearthed</a> dove into data collected by Phillips McDougall, the leading agribusiness analysts, from buyer surveys that concentrated on the best sellers in the top 43 pesticide buying countries, as The Guardian reported.</p>
<p>While regulations have stopped the sale of certain pesticides in Europe, the U.S. and Canada, it has hardly slowed down chemical companies, which sold $4.8 billion worth of products containing HHPs in 2018, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/20/firms-making-billions-from-highly-hazardous-pesticides-analysis-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. Bayer called the analysis "misleading" but did not offer proof of that assessment.</p>
<p>Since the investigation focused on just 43 countries, it covered less than half of the companies' global sales. That suggests that the companies actually made billions more from pesticides that regulatory agencies have said pose hazards like acute poisoning or chronic illness in people, or high toxicity to bees and other wildlife, <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/20/pesticides-croplife-hazardous-bayer-syngenta-health-bees/" target="_blank">according to Unearthed</a>. </p>
<p>The investigation found that pesticide manufacturers sold the majority of its highly hazardous pesticide in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India, where experts say the risks posed by using these chemicals are greatest, according to Unearthed. The biggest market for HHPs were for corn and soya crops. </p>
<p>About a quarter of sales were from products known to be human carcinogens or dangerous to reproductive health. Another 10 percent were toxic to bees. An additional 4 percent of chemicals sold are acutely toxic to humans. Every year, nearly 200,000 suicides are linked to pesticide poisoning, almost entirely in developing countries, according to The Guardian. </p><p>"This investigation shows that there is a huge disconnect between what those companies are saying in the international policy arena and what they are actually doing," Meriel Watts, a senior science and policy advisor to the Pesticide Action Network, said to Unearthed.</p><p>Baskut Tuncak, the United Nations' <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/BaskutTuncak.aspx" target="_blank">special rapporteur on toxic substances</a> and human rights, told <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/20/pesticides-croplife-hazardous-bayer-syngenta-health-bees/" target="_blank">Unearthed</a>, "There is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture."</p><p>"Whether they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, persist in the environment, or accumulate in a mother's breast milk, these are unsustainable, cannot be used safely, and should have been phased out of use long ago," Tuncak said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 5 Flowers to Attract Beneficial Insects to Your Beds - EcoWatch ›
- Insects Could Go Extinct Within a Century, With 'Catastrophic ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
America's national bird is threatened by hunters. Not that hunters are taking aim at the iconic bald eagle, but bald eagles are dying after eating lead bullets, as CNN reported.
<p>The <a href="http://www.capefearraptorcenter.org/" target="_blank">Cape Fear Raptor Center</a>, North Carolina's largest eagle rehab facility, has recently treated seven eagles for lead poisoning, executive director Dr. Joni Shimp told CNN. The center also said that 80 percent of the eagles it has had to euthanize since November were because of lead poisoning. </p>
<p>Similarly, officials from the <a href="https://www.hiwr.us/" target="_blank">Hatteras Island Wildlife Rehabilitation</a> in North Carolina said that 70 to 80 percent of the eagles they treat have high levels of lead in their system, and the effects are devastating, <a href="https://www.wtkr.com/news/experts-say-hunters-are-killing-eagles" target="_blank">according to WTKR</a> in North Carolina and coastal Virginia.</p>
<p>"The bird is lethargic, it's limp, it may have vision problems, staggering, legs not working correctly," explained Lou Browning of <a href="https://www.hiwr.us/" target="_blank">Hatteras Island Wildlife Rehabilitation</a> to <a href="https://www.wtkr.com/news/experts-say-hunters-are-killing-eagles" target="_blank">WTKR</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/16/us/bald-eagles-dying-lead-poisoning-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> explained, hunters use lead bullets to kill deer and other animals. When the eagles feast upon the dead animals, they are indirectly exposed to toxic levels of lead. </p>
<p>"Hunters in no way, shape or form intentionally try to kill an eagle, vulture or any other species," Shimp said to CNN. "If the deer isn't killed immediately and runs and the hunter can't find the deer, the eagles and vultures find it and ingest the lead."</p>
<p>Shimp also explained some of the neurological problems that result from lead exposure to eagles. She told CNN that the eagles will show a "lack of judgment when flying across roadways, the inability to take flight quickly resulting in being hit by cars, seizures and death."</p>
<p>The bullets hunters use often scatter into tiny fragments that travel through an animal's body. </p>
<p>"It's often said a piece of lead the size of a grain of rice is enough to take down an eagle," Doug Hitchcox, a naturalist from Maine Audubon, said. Maine had five cases of eagles dying from lead poisoning in January alone, <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/local/maine-wildlife-advocates-look-to-curb-lead-poisoning-in-bald-eagles/2224560/" target="_blank">according to NECN</a> in New England. </p>
<p>Hunters and bird advocates agree that changes in ammunition would go a long way to solving the problem. That small change makes a big impact for eagles. "The most direct thing would be to switch to copper bullets instead of lead," Browning said to <a href="https://www.wtkr.com/news/experts-say-hunters-are-killing-eagles" target="_blank">WTKR</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, David Trahan, the executive director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine said that education and outreach are essential to prevent the problem, <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/local/maine-wildlife-advocates-look-to-curb-lead-poisoning-in-bald-eagles/2224560/" target="_blank">according to to NECN</a>. He also advocates using copper bullets, especially for big animals like moose where pieces of meat are often left behind.</p>
<p>"If you're going to kill an animal and leave it in the woods like that, let's use a copper bullet," Trahan said to <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/local/maine-wildlife-advocates-look-to-curb-lead-poisoning-in-bald-eagles/2224560/" target="_blank">NECN</a>. He added, "I know of no hunter who wants to hunt an animal and knowingly kill a bald eagle."</p>
<p>Trahan also felt that outreach could protect people as well, since lead is toxic to us as well. </p>
<p>"If I give meat to kids, to family, I want to make sure I'm not providing something to them that could be harmful," he explained to <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/local/maine-wildlife-advocates-look-to-curb-lead-poisoning-in-bald-eagles/2224560/" target="_blank">NECN</a>, suggesting that lead bullets be used in training and at gun ranges, where it won't come into contact with wildlife.</p>
<p>According to the American Bird Conservancy, millions of birds every year die from lead poisoning, as CNN reported.</p>
<p>"It's an overall US problem. The lead poisoning increases during deer season but we see it all year," Shimp said to CNN. "Some times it's chronic low-grade exposure over time that also brings them down."</p>
<p>She too suggests that large stores should sell copper bullets. </p>
<p>"We need to target the big chain stores and get them to carry copper bullets," Shimp said to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/16/us/bald-eagles-dying-lead-poisoning-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "Then I can set up education days at these stores, with a vulture, red tail (hawk) or eagle and show the hunters and point them to the copper ammo. Then we can start to win this war ... the war on lead, not on hunters."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 5 Essential Reads on Endangered Species - EcoWatch ›
- New Farm Bill Contains Sneak Attack on the Environment With Toxic ... ›
- Bald Eagle Nest Spotted in Cape Cod for First Time Since 1905 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Researchers found byproduct of coal in an ice core extracted from Shishapangma Mountain in the Himalayas, seen above. ccdoh1 / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
New research has found that soot dating back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution made its way across Europe to settle on the top of the Himalayas, according to a new study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
<p>The findings show the byproduct of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" rel="noopener noreferrer">coal</a> burning dating back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 1780. It was found in an ice core extracted from the Dasuopu glacier, at an elevation of over 23,600 feet, on the Shishapangma mountain, according to the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/02/04/1910485117" target="_blank">study</a>. Shishapangma is the world's 14th largest mountain.</p>
<p>The mountain, which had deposits of toxic material from the late 18th century, is 6,400 miles from London, where the Industrial Revolution started. </p>
<p>"Unintended consequences were and are still part of human history," lead author Paolo Gabrielli, from the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center, Ohio, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/soot-industrial-revolution-himalayas-1486439" target="_blank">told Newsweek</a>. "I see irony in the fact that we humans did not learn this lesson and we still believe to have everything under control."</p>
<p>The research team from Ohio State that published the study was part of a march larger group of scientists that traveled to Dasuopu in 1997 to drill ice cores from the glacier, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200210153343.htm" target="_blank">according to a press release</a> from Ohio State. The ice cores are useful for providing a trove of data, including snowfall records, atmospheric circulation and other environmental changes over time. The Byrd Center has on of the world's largest collection of ice cores. </p>
<p>Gabrielli and his colleagues analyzed an ice core that they believe formed between 1499 and 1992, looking for 23 trace elements. They found higher-than-natural levels of a number of toxic metals, including cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc, from around 1780. These metals are all by-products of burning coal, which were likely transported by winter winds, which travel around the globe from west to east, according to <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/himalayan-glacier-shows-evidence-of-industrial-revolution" target="_blank">Cosmos Magazine</a>.</p>
<p>"The Industrial Revolution was a revolution in the use of energy," Gabrielli <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200210153343.htm" target="_blank">said in a statement</a>. "And so the use of coal combustion also started to cause emissions that we think were transported by winds up to the Himalayas."</p>
<p>However, Gabrielli did note that some of the trace materials found, notably zinc, may have come from large forest fires, especially the large ones used in the 19th century to clear land for agriculture, <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/himalayan-glacier-shows-evidence-of-industrial-revolution" target="_blank">according to Cosmos Magazine</a>.</p>
<p>"What happens is at that time, in addition to the Industrial Revolution, the human population exploded and expanded," Gabrielli said, as <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/himalayan-glacier-shows-evidence-of-industrial-revolution" target="_blank">Cosmos Magazine reported</a>. "And so there was a greater need for agricultural fields and, typically, the way they got new fields was to burn forests."</p>
<p>The most abundant contamination of toxic metals was found in layers frozen between 1810 and 1880, which researchers say was likely caused by wetter-than-normal winters, which caused more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ice">ice</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/snow" rel="noopener noreferrer">snow</a> to form, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/soot-industrial-revolution-himalayas-1486439" target="_blank">Newsweek reported</a>.</p>
<p>Gabrielli and his team also reported that samples from the 20th century showed trace amounts of another toxic material: <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" rel="noopener noreferrer">lead</a>. </p><p>The lead is likely from its use as a gasoline additive. </p><p>"The levels of metals we found were higher than what would exist naturally, but were not high enough to be acutely toxic or poisonous," Gabrielli said. "However, in the future, bioaccumulation may concentrate metals from meltwater at dangerous toxic levels in the tissues of organisms that live in ecosystems below the glacier."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Living in Hope and Fear Beside India's Retreating Himalayan Glaciers ›
- Scientists Find Plants Are Growing Higher up the Himalayas ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
World’s Largest Producer of Toxic Pesticide Chlorpyrifos Ends Its Production
07 February
Health + Wellness
Children's health is most at risk from exposure to chlorpyrifos. Cavan Images / Cavan / Getty Images
Corteva, formerly part of the chemical manufacturing giant Dow Chemical, announced today that it would stop making chlorpyrifos — a toxic, brain-harming pesticide commonly sprayed on various U.S. food crops, including apples, oranges, and berries — by the end of the year.
<p>The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-corteva-agriculture-pesticide/corteva-to-stop-making-pesticide-linked-to-kids-health-problems-idUSKBN20023I" target="_blank">decision by the chemical's biggest producer</a>, which cited declining sales, marks a watershed moment in the drawn-out fight by environmental, labor, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" rel="noopener noreferrer">public health</a> groups to ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" rel="noopener noreferrer">chlorpyrifos</a> and protect children, whose health is most at risk from exposure. The move by Corteva will likely reduce the more than <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190508-1" target="_blank">five million pounds</a> of chlorpyrifos that are sprayed on U.S. food crops each year. "After years of pressure and increasing public concern, the end of chlorpyrifos is finally in sight," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass" target="_blank">Jennifer Sass</a>, senior scientist at NRDC, says.</p>
<p>Adapted from World War II nerve gases, the chemical sticks around on our food and makes its way into our drinking water and air, exposing farmworkers and those living in agricultural areas.</p><p>While Corteva continues to claim the pesticide is safe, the science has long disagreed: In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miriam-rotkin-ellman/epa-toxic-pesticide-fruitsveggies-puts-kids-risk" target="_blank">itself concluded</a> that the chemical contaminates the national food supply at unsafe levels. Exposure brings along with it serious risks to the developing brains and nervous systems of children and fetuses, such as learning disabilities, ADHD-like symptoms, and reductions in IQ.</p>
<p>"The science, policy, and public pushback all aligned around this chemical being too dangerous for use on our food and in our fields, making today's announcement an eventual forgone conclusion," Sass says.</p><p>The fight against chlorpyrifos isn't over. A federal ban — proposed by President Obama but reversed by the Trump administration soon after taking office — has <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/epa-still-doesnt-want-ban-pesticide-harms-kids" target="_blank">yet to be put in place</a>, a decision that a coalition of labor and health groups, including NRDC, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/nrdc-takes-epa-court-again-protect-childrens-health" target="_blank">continue to fight in court</a>. Chlorpyrifos also remains available and in use in other parts of the world.</p>
<p>"We will be watching the manufacturer's statements to ensure that the sunset of chlorpyrifos is as quick and as complete as possible," Sass says. "Ridding the American marketplace of this pesticide is a huge step, but it cannot be allowed to continue to threaten the health of kids in other global markets."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- California, Nation's Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on ... ›
- 'Finally!': Court Orders EPA to Stop Stalling Potential Ban on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
1982 American Petroleum Institute Report Warned Oil Workers Faced 'Significant' Risks From Radioactivity
24 January
Health + Wellness
Radiation warning sign at the Union Carbide uranium mill in Rifle, Colorado, in 1972. Credit: National Archives / Environmental Protection Agency, public domain
By Sharon Kelly
Back in April last year, the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency decided it was "not necessary" to update the rules for toxic waste from oil and gas wells. Torrents of wastewater flow daily from the nation's 1.5 million active oil and gas wells and the agency's own research has warned it may pose risks to the country's drinking water supplies.
<p>On Tuesday, a major new <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-gas-fracking-radioactive-investigation-937389/" target="_blank">investigative report</a> published by Rolling Stone and authored by reporter Justin Nobel delves deep into the risks that the oil and gas industry's waste — much of it radioactive — poses to the industry's own workers and to the public.<em></em></p>
<p>"There is little public awareness of this enormous waste stream," Nobel, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/user/justin-nobel" target="_blank">who also reports for DeSmog</a>, wrote, "the disposal of which could present dangers at every step — from being transported along America's highways in unmarked trucks; handled by workers who are often misinformed and underprotected; leaked into waterways; and stored in dumps that are not equipped to contain the toxicity."</p><p>Additional documents obtained by Nobel and shared with DeSmog show that a report prepared for the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute</a> (API), the nation's largest oil and gas trade group, described the risks posed by the industry's radioactive wastes to workers as "significant" in 1982 — long before the shale drilling rush unleashed new floods of wastewater from the industry — including waste from the Marcellus Shale, which can carry <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109" target="_blank">unusually</a> high levels of radioactive contamination.</p>
A Trillion Toxic Gallons
<p>Oil and gas wells pump out nearly a trillion gallons of wastewater a year, Rolling Stone reported. That's literally a river of waste — enough to replace all the water flowing from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico for more than two and a half days.</p><p>Much of that wastewater, often referred to by the industry as "brine," carries high levels, not of familiar table salt, but of corrosive salts found deep below the Earth's surface, as well as toxic compounds and carcinogens.</p><p>That water can also carry serious amounts of radioactive materials. The Rolling Stone report, labeled "sobering" by the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/an-impeachment-media-diet-calls-for-moderation-a-hillary-scoop-is-the-ringer-for-sale/" target="_blank">Poynter Institute</a>, described levels of radium as high as 28,500 picocuries per liter in brine from the Marcellus Shale, underlying Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and West Virginia, levels hundreds of times as much as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would allow in industrial discharges from other industries.</p><p>The oil and gas industry's waste, however, isn't regulated like most other industry's wastes, slipping instead through loopholes carved out in the nation's cornerstone environmental laws, including <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw/special-wastes" target="_blank">exemptions</a> for the industry in federal laws covering hazardous waste.</p><p>"If I had a beaker of that on my desk and accidentally dropped it on the floor, they would shut the place down," <a href="https://cmdis.rpi.edu/faculty/yuri-gorby" target="_blank">Yuri Gorby</a>, a microbiologist who'd studied radioactive materials at the U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Energy, told the magazine. "And if I dumped it down the sink, I could go to jail."</p>Crude Oil, Gas, and Radiation
<p>"It is well-known that some naturally occurring elements, uranium for example, have an affinity for crude oil," the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/1982%20API%20Analysis%20of%20RADIONUCLIDES%20in%20oil%20and%20gas%20industry.pdf" target="_blank">1982 API report </a>says, noting that uranium can decay into elements like radium-226 ("a potent source of radiation exposure, both internal and external," API's report explained) and radon-222 (which can "cause the most severe impact to public health," it observed).</p><p>"Almost all materials of interest and use to the petroleum industry contain measurable quantities of radionuclides that reside finally in process equipment, product streams, or waste," the 1982 report notes.</p><p>"This contamination can produce <u>significant occupational exposures</u>," API's report continued (emphasis in original).</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjYwNDA1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTgwNzUzOX0.f1riTcj11_moES2_oDX-Ye5j9Y1uIiK6YnuN7TV7ghk/img.jpg?width=980" id="22808" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2735eb5edfa7c55183a14a31a3d3208e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Excerpt from a 1982 report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute and titled "An Analysis of the Impact of the Regulation of 'Radionuclides' as a Hazardous Air Pollutant on the Petroleum Industry."
<p>API's report focused on the possibility that the federal government might step in and regulate those radioactive materials under the Clean Air Act or under federal Superfund laws.</p><p>"Depending on the mode of definition," the report adds, "very small quantities of petroleum products could easily contain reportable quantities of [radioactive materials]." A chart lists amounts as small as a half a barrel of crude oil or 17 cubic feet of natural gas as containing "one reportable quantity of uranium or radon" under the most restrictive definition.</p><p>The report labels uranium "a somewhat different dilemma" than radon gas. "We estimated earlier in this paper that significant quantities of uranium potentially enter our refineries via crude oil," the report continues. "Little is known of its fate, however."</p><p>"Since the law of conservation of matter must apply, it can only end up in the product, the process waste, remain in the process equipment, or escape into the environment," the report notes, calling for more study, particularly of the industry's refining equipment and waste.</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and"></div>
<script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script>
DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.js", {
responsive: true,
container: "#DV-viewer-6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and"
});
</script><noscript>
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723/1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.pdf">1982 API Analysis of Radionuclides in Oil and Gas Industry (PDF)</a>
<br />
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723/1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.txt">1982 API Analysis of Radionuclides in Oil and Gas Industry (Text)</a>
</noscript>
<p>Some of the report's most stark language warned about the possibility of federal regulation of the industry's radioactive wastes.</p><p>"It is concluded that the regulation of radionuclides could impose a severe burden on API member companies," the report says, "and it would be prudent to monitor closely both regulatory actions."</p><p>API spokesperson Reid Porter provided to DeSmog the group's response to the Rolling Stone investigation.</p><p>"We take each report of safety or health issues related to energy development very seriously," Porter said. "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of our workers, the local environment, and the communities where we live, operate, and raise families. Natural gas and oil companies meet or exceed strict federal and state regulations and also undergo regular inspections to ensure that all materials are managed, stored, transported, and disposed of safely. Through regular monitoring, ongoing testing, and strict handling protocols, industry operations are guided by internationally recognized standards and best practices to provide for safe working environments and public safety."</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> also pointed to a one-page <a href="https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Environmental-Stewardship/NORM-In-the-Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Industry.pdf" target="_blank">document</a> titled "<span style="background-color: initial;">NORM</span> [naturally occurring radioactive materials] in the Oil and Natural Gas Industry." As of publication time, <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> had not responded to questions from DeSmog regarding the 1982 report.</p>
10 Years Later, Hazards 'Widespread'; 20 Years Later, Workers Sue Over Cancers
<p>Over a decade later, problems persisted, other documents indicate. "Contamination of oil and gas facilities with naturally occurring radioactive materials (<span style="background-color: initial;">NORM</span>) is widespread," a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Peter%20Gray_NORM%20Contamination%20in%20the%20Petroleum%20Industry%2C%201993_Society%20of%20Petroleum%20Engineers.pdf" target="_blank">1993 paper</a> published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers warned. "Some contamination may be sufficiently severe that maintenance and other personnel may be exposed to hazardous concentration."</p><p>Nonetheless, the paper focused on the potential for "over-regulation."</p><p>"Where possible, industry input should be directed to minimize an over-regulation of NORM contamination in the industry," author Peter Gray, an expert on radioactivity who formerly worked for Phillips Petroleum Co., wrote. He added that concentrations of radioactive contamination at the time were "relatively low and do not usually present a health hazard to the public or to most personnel in the industry," but added that some facilities "may be hazardous to maintenance personnel in particular."</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum"></div> <script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script> DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.js", { responsive: true, container: "#DV-viewer-6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum" }); </script><noscript> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724/Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.pdf">Peter Gray NORM Contamination in the Petroleum Industry, 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers (PDF)</a> <br /> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724/Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.txt">Peter Gray NORM Contamination in the Petroleum Industry, 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers (Text)</a> </noscript><p>The 1993 paper notes that some oil-producing states had passed or were considering passing laws to protect against the industry's radioactive wastes, noting in particular that Louisiana and Mississippi had regulations in effect, and that Louisiana had required "radiation surveys of every petroleum facility in the state."</p><p>But state and federal regulators largely failed to act, Rolling Stone found. "Of 21 significant oil-and-gas-producing states, only five have provisions addressing workers, and just three include protections for the public, according to <a href="http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2018/02/Geltman_FP-2.pdf" target="_blank">research by [Elizabeth Ann Glass] Geltman</a>, the public-health expert," the magazine reported. "Much of the legislation that does exist seems hardly sufficient."</p><p>In documents dated nearly two decades later, from a 2011 lawsuit brought by more than 30 Louisiana oilfield workers who'd developed cancer, plaintiff's experts described as resulting from their exposure to radioactive materials at work.</p><p>The 2013 plaintiff's expert <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/OCCUPATIONAL%20EXPOSURES%20TO%20RADIOACTIVE%20SCALE%20AND%20SLUDGE_Coleman%20et%20al%20v.%20H.C.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> describes in detail how jobs like roustabout, roughneck, and derrickman can expose workers to radioactive materials, including a sludge where radioactive elements concentrate that collects inside pipes and so-called "pipe scale," or crusty deposits that also attract radioactive materials. The case <a href="https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/doc1/08518908036" target="_blank">ended</a> in October 2016, following a long string of settlements on unspecified terms by individual plaintiffs in the case, public court records show.</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and"></div>
<script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script>
DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.js", {
responsive: true,
container: "#DV-viewer-6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and"
});
</script><noscript>
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726/OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.pdf">OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES to RADIOACTIVE SCALE and SLUDGE Coleman Et Al v H C (PDF)</a>
<br />
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726/OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.txt">OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES to RADIOACTIVE SCALE and SLUDGE Coleman Et Al v H C (Text)</a>
</noscript>
Tracking the Trucks
<p>Nobel's Rolling Stone exposé depicts radioactive drilling waste sloshing into a striking array of corners.</p><p>For example, to keep dust down, the "brine" can be spread on roads, like a stretch in Pennsylvania where Nobel describes a group of Amish girls strolling barefoot. Nobel adds that contractors pick up waste directly from the wellhead and that in 2016 alone, more than 10.5 million gallons were sprayed on roads in the northwestern corner of Pennsylvania.</p><p>The waste has also been sold at Lowe's, bottled as "AquaSalina" and marketed as a pet-safe way to fight ice and salt, though an Ohio state lab found it contains radium at more than 40 times the levels the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows in discharge from industry. And the radium-laced waste is spilled from trucks transporting it, in potential what the article indicates may be a violation of federal law.</p><p>One brine truck driver, identified only as a man named Peter from Ohio, started taking his own samples after being told by another worker with a radiation detector that he'd been hauling "one of the 'hottest loads' he'd ever seen," Rolling Stone reports. "A lot of guys are coming up with cancer, or sores and skin lesions that take months to heal," Peter told the magazine. Tests by a university lab found radium levels as high as 8,500 picocuries per liter, the article adds.</p><p><span></span>One expert, scientist Marvin Reisnikoff, who'd served as one of the plaintiff's experts in the lawsuit brought by the Louisiana oilfield workers and co-authored the 2013 report, told Rolling Stone that a standard brine truck rolling through Pennsylvania might be carrying radioactive wastewater at levels a thousand times higher than those allowed under federal Department of Transportation (<span style="background-color: initial;">DOT</span>) limits. But, a <span style="background-color: initial;">DOT</span> spokesperson told Rolling Stone, federal regulators rely heavily on industry self-reporting, and the rules seem generally unenforced.</p><p>Environmental groups immediately called for congressional hearings into the drilling industry's radioactive wastes.</p><p>"This alarming report brings into stark relief what we already knew to be true," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones said in a statement calling for a congressional investigation, "that highly toxic and radioactive waste generated by fossil fuel drilling and fracking cannot be stored or disposed of safely, and in fact is often being intentionally dispersed in our communities."</p><p>"It is imperative that Congress hold hearings soon to examine and expose the full extent of the threat oil and gas waste poses to families and workers throughout America," he added, "and take urgent action to halt fracking and the legal and illegal dispersal of the waste currently taking place."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/22/american-petroleum-institute-oil-workers-radioactive-nobel-rollingstone" rel="noopener noreferrer">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Uranium Mining's Toxic Legacy: Why the U.S. Risks Repeating ... ›
- EPA Proposal Could Raise Radiation Exposure Limits - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Pteris melanocaulon thrives in abandoned areas after an open pit copper mining operation. Mary Jean Apuan / Mongabay
Filipino scientists have discovered what might be the next big indigenous plant material for rehabilitating a mining site teeming with copper and arsenic — and it's a largely ignored local fern.
<p>Published in the peer-reviewed journal Chemosphere, the study by a group of scientists led by Rene Claveria of the Ateneo de Manila University records the unique ability of <em>Pteris melanocaulon</em> to absorb copper in its roots and arsenic in its leaves in large doses.<em></em></p>
<p>"It's not common for ferns to absorb both high concentrates of copper and arsenic," Claveria, an environmental geology expert, tells Mongabay. "Plants don't do it simultaneously in large doses. It's something new."</p><p>The fern was spotted in the mossy areas of an abandoned mining site in the province of Surigao del Norte by the scientists scouring major mining sites across the Philippines to study copper metallophytes under a government-funded research program.</p><p>The study of metallophytes, plants that have the ability to thrive on soils with high concentrations of heavy metals that are too toxic for other plant species, has been a growing interest among scholars, particularly for their possible use in phytoremediation, the process of cleaning up mineral-rich soil and groundwater using plants and trees.</p>
<p>"It's not common for ferns to absorb both high concentrates of copper and arsenic," Claveria, an environmental geology expert, tells Mongabay. "Plants don't do it simultaneously in large doses. It's something new."</p><p>The fern was spotted in the mossy areas of an abandoned mining site in the province of Surigao del Norte by the scientists scouring major mining sites across the Philippines to study copper metallophytes under a government-funded research program.</p><p>The study of metallophytes, plants that have the ability to thrive on soils with high concentrations of heavy metals that are too toxic for other plant species, has been a growing interest among scholars, particularly for their possible use in phytoremediation, the process of cleaning up mineral-rich soil and groundwater using plants and trees.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjUwMjI4Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTY0NjQ3OX0.3iKZcQz-vGHIsS0z9LvKilNx0cFXNWMIJa4MHUWOdYw/img.png?width=980" id="767f1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3f84b638d1941a4140c76089cdf74a4e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A fern species that flourishes in the mossy slopes of an open pit copper mining site in Surigao del Norte, a province in Mindanao. Teresita Perez / Mongabay
<p>"We are interested in metallophytes … plants that grow on mining areas," Claveria says. "While analyzing all these plants, we decided that fern is the most suitable for our study because they have higher amounts of absorbed copper and arsenic and other metals."</p><p>The decision to narrow down to ferns came with scholarly backing: the <em>Pteris</em> genus, which includes around 300 species of ferns, feature other popular metallophytes that absorb arsenic. But unlike other widely researched species, <em>P. melanocaulon</em> was mostly unknown, in part due to the scarcity of research journals on the plant. Existing surveys conducted by the team across various large- and small-scale mining sites showed that it only proliferates in two areas in the Philippines.</p><p>"When we focused on ferns, there was one that stood out: the <em>P. melanocaulon</em>, which we didn't see in any other mining sites we surveyed," Claveria says. "We found it in Surigao [del Norte] and later on, in Carmen [in Cebu province] … and this fern happens to grow in areas [within these sites] that are supposedly barren."</p><p>The mossy open slopes left behind by open pit mines, notorious for their high levels of arsenic and copper concentrates, were the perfect breeding grounds for <em>P. melanocaulon</em>, which thrive in lush clusters that overpower the other plants in the Surigao del Norte mining site, Claveria says. Curious about the fern, they recovered samples and conducted initial tests to measure its copper absorption capabilities in 2014.</p><p>The results showed that the plant's roots have "anomalously high" concentrations of copper, Claveria says. After publishing their findings in the <em>International Journal of Phythoremediation</em> in 2015, the team expanded their research on the plant and threw arsenic into the mix.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjQ5OTAxMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTcyNzY1NH0.AgJ_5hIJp-G_Euq3S1qB15N3Tp-srdgf0gCZUhrHSME/img.png?width=980" id="fdba5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e080f211718530294353c23505d6296" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Rene Claveria and Teresita Perez examining plants in Surigao del Norte. Teresita Perez / Mongabay
<p>The logic was since the fern survives alongside other species that are known arsenic metallophytes, maybe it could also absorb arsenic.</p><p>After collecting another set of samples, they conducted a series of tests that verified their hypothesis: the fern does indeed absorb the toxic mineral and stores it in its stems and leaves. They took the research a little further and funded a greenhouse to propagate spores of <em>P. melanocaulon</em> at Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro province, where they experimented with the potted plants.</p><p>They added different concentrations and solutions of arsenic to uncontaminated soil in a series of experiments that lasted for six weeks. The plant's ability to absorb arsenic varied, adjusting to the concentration of the element in the soil, much to the researchers' surprise. The team noted two important observations: that the fern contained more arsenic concentrate than the soil it was planted on, and that despite exposure to high levels of arsenic, it showed no symptoms of toxicity.</p><p>"<em>P. melanocaulon</em> is an accumulator of [arsenic], with the plant having higher amounts of [arsenic] than that of the soil," the study says. The study also noted that while the arsenic concentration increases, the fern can "efficiently absorb and store" arsenic and extract it from the soil, making it an "efficient arsenic accumulator and hyperaccumulator."</p><p>The results, according to Claveria and Teresita Perez, also of the Ateneo de Manila University who headed the research program, prove that the plant can be used to rehabilitate mining sites, especially since its "root system provides good soil cover" and "can ideally immobilize metal contaminants." This means that the plant can filter contaminated water and reduce the spread of heavy metals through the soil.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjQ5OTAxNi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzk2MzU5MH0.5-MwFkx1ph0NxJCb84APJFbBtjIw34wj7TNOclmCzrE/img.png?width=980" id="b27f8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="86a64d183e6f270db436ab32cd2419bd" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2020/01/philippine-fern-efficiently-absorbs-arsenic-copper-from-toxic-mining-soil/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mongabay</a>.</em></p>Rene Claveria collecting soil samples in Surigao del Norte. Teresita Perez / Mongabay
<p>"If you use the ferns to clean up arsenic, which is very toxic, there could be colonization or succession of plants," Perez says. "Eventually, a year after or after one and a half years, you can already plant some high value crops in the area."</p><p>With the protocol in the propagation of the fern species in the books, Perez says the possibility of using the fern to rehabilitate mining soil on a large-scale project is possible. But first, she says, decision-makers should be aware of metallophytes — and that there are indigenous plants that can be used as natural remedies to alleviate mineral-heavy soils.</p><p>"We have to recommend to our policymakers the use of indigenous plant materials to actually clean up arsenic-contaminated areas," Perez says. "In the past, rehabilitating mining sites involved planting invasive species — that was really a wrong move. But now, we're propagating the idea of indigenous and endemic species so these areas can develop new ecosystems."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Tribes Halt Major Copper Mine on Ancestral Lands in Arizona ... ›
- This World War I Battlefield Is a Haunting Reminder of the ... ›
- Toxic Metals Found in 95 Percent of Baby Foods - EcoWatch ›
- Swedish Toxic Waste Poisons Chilean Community for 30 Years ... ›
- Russian Mining Giant Admits to Polluting the Arctic With Wastewater - EcoWatch ›
- Tree Ferns Are Among the First to Recover After Wildfires ›
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The plummeting demand for coal-fired power has led to the shutdown of hundreds of plants and saved an estimated 26,610 lives, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, as Yale Environment 360 reported.
<p>Not only has the move towards other sources of power saved lives, but it has also led to a reduction of greenhouse gas <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/emissions" rel="noopener noreferrer">emissions</a>, especially carbon dioxide. It has also reduced air pollution and ozone level and helped increase crop yields and neighboring farms, the study found, according to <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shuttering-of-u-s-coal-plants-saved-more-than-26-000-lives-over-the-past-decade-study-finds" target="_blank">Yale Environment 360</a>. </p>
<p>The researchers from the University of California San Diego looked at the period between 2005 and 2016 when 334 coal plants were taken offline as a cheap wellspring of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" rel="noopener noreferrer">natural gas</a> flooded the market. In the same time period, 612 gas-fired plants came online, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/06/coal-power-pollution-gas-saved-lives-study" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> reported. The researchers found that the wave of shutdowns removed a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/toxics" rel="noopener noreferrer">toxic</a> brew of pollutants from the air, which reduced deaths from associated health problems like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/heart-disease" rel="noopener noreferrer">heart disease</a> and respiratory illness.</p>
<p>"When you turn coal units off you see deaths go down. It's something we can see in a tangible way," said Jennifer Burney, a University of California San Diego academic who authored the study, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/06/coal-power-pollution-gas-saved-lives-study" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> reported. "There is a cost to coal beyond the economics. We have to think carefully about where plants are sited, as well as how to reduce their pollutants."</p>
<p>In addition to saving almost 27,000 lives, the researchers calculated that more than 300 million tons of carbon dioxide was not emitted into the atmosphere. Furthermore, irritants like nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, which are known to affect the respiratory tract, dropped by 60 and 80 percent respectively, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/06/coal-power-pollution-gas-saved-lives-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>The researchers tallied the affect on nearby farms and found that the shutdown of coal-fired plants coupled with cleaner emissions technology saved 570 million bushels of corn, soybeans and wheat over the study period, as <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shuttering-of-u-s-coal-plants-saved-more-than-26-000-lives-over-the-past-decade-study-finds" target="_blank">Yale Environment 360</a> reported. The study also looked at the impact of coal-fired stations still running between 2005 and 2016. They estimated that the remaining coal plants caused 329,417 deaths and the loss of 10.2 billion bushels of staple crops, according to <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shuttering-of-u-s-coal-plants-saved-more-than-26-000-lives-over-the-past-decade-study-finds" target="_blank">Yale Environment 360</a>.</p>
<p>The downward trend for coal has continued since the study period ended. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/americas-coal-consumption-entered-free-fall-2019/604543/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a> reported on a <a href="https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2019/" target="_blank">new study from the Rhodium Group</a> that found that America's coal consumption plunged in 2019, reaching its lowest level since 1975, as electrical utilities switched to natural gas and renewables. That study echoed the findings of the University of California San Diego researchers, noting that over the past decade and a half, coal's collapse has saved tens of thousands of lives and cut national greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 10 percent.</p><p>Despite the evidence, the Trump administration has sought to rollback regulations and prop up the coal industry. </p>
<p>"Particulate pollution from coal still kills thousands of Americans yearly and hundreds of thousands of people worldwide," said Rob Jackson, a climate and environment expert at Stanford University who wasn't involved in the study, to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/06/coal-power-pollution-gas-saved-lives-study" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Guardian</a>. "Rolling back emissions standards won't just harm the climate, it will kill people, especially poorer people more likely to live near coal-fired power plants."</p>
<p>"Clearly the policies of the current EPA leadership, to turn back the clock and support the coal industry, have broad ranging negative impacts on public health and our environment," said Thomas Burke, a former Environmental Protection Agency official responsible for clean air, to the to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/06/coal-power-pollution-gas-saved-lives-study" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a>. </p>
<p>He added that Burney's study "provides a new lens for viewing the broad impacts of coal on our health, agriculture and climate."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Acting EPA Head Wheeler Downplays Climate Crisis at ... ›
- 'It's About Economics': Two Coal Plants to Close Despite Trump's ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Formosa Plastics has plans to bulldoze over a sacred slave burial ground in St. James Parish, Louisiana, pictured above for a new manufacturing complex that will cover the size of 80 football fields. Louisiana Bucket Brigade
A major plastics manufacturing complex planned for construction in a highly-polluted region of Louisiana may disrupt a historic slave burial site, The Intercept reports.
<p>Human remains and evidence of grave shafts were discovered earlier this year on land being developed by Formosa Plastics Group in St. James Parish in Louisiana. The plant could double the amount of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" rel="noopener noreferrer">air pollution</a> in the region and emit 13 million tons of carbon pollution each year. Many of the residents of St. James Parish, located in a stretch of the state known as "Cancer Alley," one of the most polluted stretches in America, say they are descended from slaves who worked on various plantations in the area. "That's sacred ground," activist and St. James Parish resident Sharon Lavigne told The Intercept. "They're saying they don't care about your ancestors. They're slapping us in the face." </p><h4>For a deeper dive:</h4><p><a href="https://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=aef93e97a4&e=0afd421a28" target="_blank">The Intercept</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Historic Agreement on Plastic Pollution Reached by 180+ Countries ... ›
- Plastic Pollution: Could We Have Solved the Problem Nearly 50 ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An EPA sponsored cleanup of the toxic Gowanus Canal dredges a section of the canal of industrial debris on Oct. 28, 2016 in Brooklyn. The Gowanus is a Superfund site from years of industrial waste spilling into the water, and it is listed in GAO's report to be at risk from a climate disaster. Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis / Getty Images
The climate crisis has put at least 945 designated toxic waste sites at severe risk of disaster from escalating wildfires, floods, rising seas and other climate-related disasters, according to a new study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), as the AP reported.
The country's most contaminated spots that pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment are designated Superfund sites. That means cleaning them up is a national priority. The EPA has identified more than 500 contaminants at Superfund sites, including arsenic, lead and mercury.
<p>However, the GAO found that efforts to secure the toxic waste have weakened as the Trump administration plays down their threat, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">AP</a>.<br></p><p>Senate Democrats responded to the <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a> in a letter to the EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanding an explanation for agency leaders' "failure to embrace addressing climate change as a strategic objective," according to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>.</p>
<p>"We believe that EPA's refusal to implement GAO's recommendations could result in real harm to human health and the environment as the effects of climate change become more frequent and intense," the lawmakers wrote to Wheeler, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>The GAO <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a> looked at 1,571 Superfund sites and found that six out of 10 are vulnerable to extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. The GAO produced an <a href="https://www.gao.gov/multimedia/GAO-20-73/interactive/" target="_blank">interactive map</a> that shows each of the 945 vulnerable sites. It is color-coded to show if the site is threatened by wildfires, hurricanes, storm surge, sea-level rise, or coastal and river flooding, as <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/18/20970979/climate-change-epa-superfund-sites-gao-toxic-pollution" target="_blank">the Verge</a> reported.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">study</a> recommended that the EPA start incorporating the climate crisis into its decision making for toxic waste sites and its risk assessments for the Superfund sites.</p><p>The EPA however has continued to deny the climate crisis as a threat to the Superfund sites, according to the GAO <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a>. The EPA does not include the climate crisis in its agency-wide policies, which stops the EPA from tackling the risks at contaminated sites as the planet heats up and extreme weather events increase in frequency, duration and intensity, as <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19112019/superfund-flooded-climate-change-toxic-health-risk-sea-level-rise-wildfires-gao-report-epa" target="_blank">Inside Climate News</a> reported.</p><p>The EPA issued a statement that was largely dismissive of the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">report</a>. The statement also managed to avoid mentioning climate change.</p>
<p>"The EPA strongly believes the Superfund program's existing processes and resources adequately ensure that risks and any effects of severe weather events, that may increase in intensity, duration, or frequency, are woven into risk response decisions at non-federal [National Priorities List] sites," EPA Assistant Administrator Peter Wright said in a statement Monday, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>The GAO decided to look into the safety of Superfund sites after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 brought record rains to Houston and caused one toxic site to spring a leak, as <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/superfund-sites-climate-change-gao-investigation" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News</a> reported. Floodwaters there eroded an "armored cap" that sealed off dioxins and other toxins linked to cancer and nerve damage. In the wake of the storm, officials tested that water sediment. They found that dioxin levels in the sediment were 2,000 times above what the EPA allows, according to the <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/EPA-Dioxin-leaking-from-Waste-Pits-12242409.php" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle.</a></p><p>"We can no longer ignore the fact that the climate crisis is here and it's in our backyard," Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and one of the members of Congress that pushed GAO to investigate the issue, said in a statement emailed to <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/superfund-climate-change-disaster-risk-report" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News</a>. "This report underscores that protecting our communities requires us to demand that the EPA incorporates climate change into its cleanup plans for current and future Superfund sites."</p><p>The EPA's refusal to take the climate crisis into account has not only angered lawmakers, but also baffled experts.</p><p>"The report raises critical issues that are not being addressed," said Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Center at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, who was not involved in the GAO study, to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>. "It's a huge shortcoming not to take climate change into consideration."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less