Silicone wristbands can monitor exposure to 'forever chemicals' over time

Silicone wristbands could help scientists monitor for 
chemicals. (Venier Lab photo via The Conversation CC)

Silicone wristbands are a new noninvasive method to measure Americans’ exposure to "forever chemicals", or PFAS, reports Yaw Edu Essandoh for The Conversation.

These synthetic chemicals, often found in water systems, soils and consumer products, have been a growing public concern and become more prevalent in everyday environments, Essandoh explains.

Traditional monitoring tools for measuring their exposure have only used samples from a single point in time and can be invasive, like drawing someone’s blood or testing soil or water from one location on one day, reports Essandoh. However, Essandoh found from his environmental chemistry research that people or animals living in the same environment “showed very different chemical profiles.”

Since people are exposed continuously throughout the day, new noninvasive tools are becoming more popular to monitor exposure over a period of time, Essandoh reports. One such tool is the silicone wristbands, made of silicone polymer, which “absorb chemicals from the surrounding environment over time, similar to how skin or fur interacts with air, dust and surfaces." Researchers can then extract these compounds from the wristband and examine the pattern of exposure, once the wristband is worn for multiple days or weeks.

Other noninvasive methods scientists have started using to track exposure include “passive air samplers placed in homes or small wearable devices,” explains Essandoh. These types of devices can also be used for animals and wildlife, instead of drawing their blood, to better understand how PFAS affect their ecosystems and to identify emerging risks sooner.

Noninvasive monitoring tools aren’t meant to eliminate traditional monitoring, Essandoh explains, but to provide additional context to how exposure moves through time and space and to entice more volunteers to participate in studies. “They offer ways to better understand cumulative exposure, identify overlooked pathways and inform environmental health and conservation decisions.”

Is organic farming possible for large agricultural operations? In Iowa, it has been successful, and the trend is growing.

Jack Fehr harvesting organically grown soybeans.
(Photo by Keith Schneider, The New Lede)

Midwestern agriculture has its fair share of industrial farms that use chemicals to enrich soils, kill bugs and prevent weeds to increase crop yields. But amid the region's miles of traditionally grown crops, Clear Creek Acres farm is growing 50,000 acres of corn, soybeans, oats and other crops "without the use of synthetic chemicals," reports Keith Schneider of The New Lede. Clear Creek Acres "farmers fertilize the land with chicken litter and hog manure and weed much of the land by hand, or with non-chemical tools, such as new laser weeders."

Located in the rural northern Iowa town of West Bend, the farm's unconventional farming practices began in 1998 when "Barry Fehr experimented with raising chemical-free soybeans on 45 acres," only to produce, "the most expansive and profitable area of organic grain production in Iowa, and possibly the United States," Schneider writes. "Fehr family farms are nearly matching the yields of crops grown conventionally."

Meanwhile, agriculture chemical companies such as Monsanto-owner Bayer and Syngenta maintain that "weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides are essential to robust food production, and that a growing global population requires use of the chemicals in agriculture," Schneider reports. "But 71-year-old Dan Fehr, who has been farming more than 50 years, says 'that is debatable.'”

Organic farming isn't the most common practice in Iowa, but its popularity is growing. "Clear Creek is part of a wave of growth in chemical-free agriculture in and around Iowa," Schneider adds. "The number of organic farms in Iowa increased from 467 to 799 from 2011 to 2021, and ranks sixth in the nation for the number of chemical-free farms. The state is first in organic corn and soybean production."

Despite the sector's growth, many farmers still fear the investment involved in switching. Schneider explains, "Jack Fehr, 28, said his family is setting an example for other farmers who fear converting to organic farming takes too long, costs too much, yields too little, and can’t be done successfully except on small farms." 

The practice is "a high wire act balancing the lower cost for supplies [such as fertilizer and pesticides] against the higher costs for labor," Schneider writes. 

Still, many farmers see the benefit of avoiding farm chemicals. Schneider adds, "Iowa, in particular, suffers from extensive farm-related water pollution, and cancer is prevalent. Indeed, Iowa has the second-highest and fastest-rising cancer incidence among all U.S. states, according to a 2024 report issued by the Iowa Cancer Registry."

As seasons change, mosquitoes will still be busy spreading deadly diseases. Awareness and precautions can help.

Aedes aegypti, aka  'tiger mosquitos' bite
during the daytime. (Wikipedia photo)

During an average day, many people never think about mosquitoes, but perhaps the tiny arthropod deserves more consideration. Weighing in at a mere 2.5 milligrams (about 180,000 mosquitoes equal a pound), a female mosquito is considered the most deadly animal on earth. Lacking venom or any toxin, mosquitos kill by spreading diseases with alarming effectiveness -- around a million people die a year from illnesses caused by mosquito bites.

"Mosquitoes carry malaria, dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya, West Nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis," reports Alice Park of Time magazine. "Different species of mosquitoes are adept at spreading different viruses." This summer, mosquitoes along the East Coast have been making news. "Towns in Massachusetts are shutting down public parks and other outdoor areas after officials learned that mosquitoes in the region are carrying eastern equine encephalitis, a rare but deadly virus."

Mosquito-borne illnesses will keep increasing as climate change continues to warm the planet. Jonathan Oliver, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, told Park, "With climate change, we see the [habitat] ranges for concerning species like Aedes (which transmits most of the world’s malaria, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile and Zika) spreading northward. . . all predictions indicate that they are going to spread throughout the Southeast and up the Eastern Seaboard, and fairly high north in the Midwest." The more mosquitoes there are, the more bites and ranges of diseases they spread.

While working or playing outdoors is more often associated with mosquito encounters, urban populations are more at risk. "Growing urbanization and densely packed cities — with less-than-ideal sewage and sanitation systems — also provide more and fertile environments for mosquitoes to lay eggs and proliferate."

No matter where humans live, respecting mosquitoes and avoiding bites is key to disease prevention. "That means wearing long-sleeved clothing when outdoors and spraying yourself with insect repellent. You can also eliminate mosquito-breeding grounds by getting rid of any standing water around your home, since mosquitoes just need a little bit of water in which to lay their eggs."

Meanwhile, scientists are trying to depopulate mosquitoes with varied approaches. "Another strategy that appears encouraging is infecting mosquitoes with a bacterium that kills the viruses they may carry," Park adds. "This approach has been used in Southeast Asia and Australia to lower the rates of dengue transmission."

A new EPA app helps journalists who are looking for local water quality data that's easy to understand and share

Eighth graders collect samples from the Pigeon River in N.C.
(Photo by G. Peeples, FWS, Flickr Creative Commons via SEJ)

If you're a journalist who wants water quality data that's for "non-geeks. . . The Environmental Protection Agency is offering a 'How's My Waterway?' web app that makes the sophisticated stuff simple," reports Joseph A. Davis of the Society of Environmental Journalists. "If you are, indeed, a geek and want to jump ahead, you can start exploring it here. . . . This app is a portal for people who just want to know whether they can drink from or swim in their local river. It's hyperlocal and practical. It's presented graphically and intuitively."

Where did the data come from? "The good news is that the EPA answers the question. The other good news is that it comes from multiple authoritative datasets," Davis explains. "Much of that data is required by law to be collected by government agencies and is therefore fairly good. Those datasets include ATTAINS, a collection of water quality data posted by the states, and BEACON 2.0, a collection of state data about beach closings. . . . It also includes discharge permit information, as well as permit violations. And drinking water information. And, yes, more. Here's the full list."

Using the app is as easy as downloading it on your smartphone and entering your ZIP code. The app then shows a map. "Like a good pair of binoculars, it allows you to zoom in or out or to ask about water quality at the local, state, or national level. In the process of describing state and national-level water quality, it actually provides some meaningful overview analysis," Davis reports. "The data is not up-to-the-second, but it is pretty current. The time frame differs for each kind of data, which is only the beginning of the story — a launch pad for shoe-leather and phone reporting."

Tips for reporting on 'forever chemical' can make a tricky job easier

PFAS are present in 45% of U.S. tap water.
(Photo by Jacet Dylag, Unsplash)

Given the enduring presence of "forever chemicals," or PFAS, in the nation's soil and water, journalists will be covering and uncovering them for years to come. Because reporting on PFAS can be tricky, Rachel Layne of Editor & Publisher interviewed a panel of experts and condensed tips to make reporting on the topic more doable.

Here are her experts: Kelly Smalling, a research chemist at the U.S. Geological Survey; Linda Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program; E.A. Crunden, a chemicals and waste reporter for Politico's E&E News who covers PFAS and its regulation closely; Barbara Moran, a climate and environment correspondent at WBUR in Boston who has reported extensively on PFAS; Rebecca Fuoco, the director of science communications at Green Science Policy Institute; and Jamie DeWitt, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at East Carolina University who follows PFAS closely.

Start with the basics. Journalists also should know and note why PFAS are nicknamed "forever chemicals." Manmade PFAS compounds don't degrade under typical conditions in the environment or the body. . . In recent decades, certain kinds of PFAS chemicals have been linked to serious health issues, including potentially higher risk for some cancers, autoimmune diseases, thyroid issues, liver disease, fetal complications, vaccine resistance and high cholesterol, among other concerns."

Note PFAS regulation on a national and local level. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency took a major step by proposing limits on six kinds of PFAS in drinking water under the national Safe Water Drinking Act. If enacted, the rule would cover the first new contaminant be the first new national standards under the act since the 1990s.

Study up, learn the terminology and how to use it. "Reporters should not buy into saying 12,000+ chemicals 'cause cancer'; that simply has not been proven yet, and research is limited," Crunden explains. "But good PFAS journalism should see you comfortably empowered to say at least two chemicals are strongly linked to cancer, and that there are concerns about the broader family, which also pose a number of other health issues." Note that toxins are the correct term for naturally occurring poisonous substances, Crunden explained. PFAS are manmade, which makes them toxicants, not toxins. "Toxic chemicals" would also be an accurate way to describe PFAS.

Keep your accuracy radar on high and double-check what sources say. You can find tips on how to characterize research findings accurately in this tip sheet from "The Journalist's Resource." Even scientists can make mistakes, especially those not steeped in PFAS research, says Jamie DeWitt.

Befriend a toxicologist. Find a public health, public works or university toxicologist familiar with PFAS and ask to sit down with them, DeWitt, Crunden and Moran recommend — especially one who specializes in drinking water.

Monitor academic research, keeping in mind that much of it never makes it into the news media. A good practice is to create alerts on services like PubMed and Eureka Alert! Many scientific studies are published behind a firewall. But journalists often can get access to scientific papers for free – if they know how to ask. This piece from The Journalist's Resource outlines how to set up free accounts with several top academic journal publishers.

Go to a public water board or local government meeting where PFAS is being discussed, or attend state hearings. As with any topic, some of the best story ideas come from meeting people you wouldn't normally encounter just working the phones or doing online research, Moran says. The National Conference of State Legislatures has state-by-state information on PFAS and drinking water. The map and key issue page from the advocacy group Environmental Working Group are also good places to start.

Colon cancer is up among young adults; many don't think they're susceptible to it, and thus don't get screened for it

Cancer survivors pose for a photo at a colorectal-cancer awareness
installation. (Photo by Paul Morigi, Getty Images, via NatGeo) 

Colorectal cancer is no longer "an old people's disease;" it's hitting younger people more frequently, reports Tara Haelle of National Geographic. "One in five cases diagnosed today occurs in people younger than age 55, compared to one in 10 cases in 1995, according to a study published by the American Cancer Society. . . . There’s no clear explanation for this trend, but a new paper published in Science suggests a number of possible reasons, including environmental and genetic factors. Low screening rates and misdiagnosis in people who don’t suspect cancer likely also play a role."

The research also found more "diagnoses of advanced disease, which is particularly concerning because colonoscopies are 'a great tool for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer in terms of screening that can actually detect and remove precancerous lesions,' says lead author Rebecca Siegel, senior scientific director of cancer surveillance research at the American Cancer Society," Haelle reports. "Survival rates are 90 percent if detected early enough."

Earlier screenings are part of the solution. Haelle notes that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that screenings begin at age 45 instead of 50, but Siegel said earlier screening is needed for those with risk factors "such as genetic risk scores, dietary lifestyle, obesity and family history," Haelle reports. "The most common symptoms for colorectal cancer in younger patients are abdominal pain; unexplained weight loss; changes in the frequency, size or appearance of stools; and rectal bleeding, which occurs in 46 percent of early-onset cases compared to 26 percent of cases in adults over age 50." 

Railroad employee, working solo, got warnings but says he was too busy to notice before derailment; safety bill stalls

Aerial view of the deliberate burning of hazardous vinyl chloride
(Columbiana County commissioners photo from NTSB via ABC)

One employee watching 19,500 miles of track could have prevented Norfolk Southern Corp.'s February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, but he says he was distracted by other trains and failed to see  warnings that a wheel bearing was heating up and would fail, reports Darrel Rowland of ABC News: "He wasn't even looking at the readings from defect detectors along the tracks on the bearing, suspected by the National Transportation Safety Board of causing the fiery crash in East Palestine."

Gary Rambo, automatic train-control analyst for the Atlanta-based railroad, told NTSB investigators "he was monitoring other Norfolk Southern trains at the same time," Rowland reports. "Thus, he didn't notice a 'trending alert' from the wayside defect detector showing a spike of 103 degrees in the bearing of doomed train 32N in Ohio. . . . He said, 'Honestly, I didn't see it when it first came in. There were three other trains I was working on.'"

"Rambo said he didn't know for sure the train had derailed until he heard from the chief dispatcher's office that 'We got a lot of cars on the ground' and 'They're on fire,'" Rowland reports. "He told investigators that on the day of the crash, he – as usual – was working solo on a 12-hour shift, attempting to monitor from home all the company's trains on 19,500 miles of track in the eastern U.S. . . . He said he did not even have a scheduled lunch break or time to use the bathroom as he tried to keep up with an average of 300 alerts per shift. . . . Rambo said two persons used to work the shift until Norfolk Southern staff cutbacks a few years ago."

Should Rambo had noticed the warning, he may not have acted, Rowland writes: "The temperature fell just short of the railroad's threshold to stop the train – although whether someone like Rambo could have asked for a halt due to the rapid temperature rise remains unclear. . . . Critics say the nothing-to-see-here stance of Norfolk Southern on a crucial element of the derailment provides just one indicator of how hard it's proving to bring real change on rail safety as we approach the six-month anniversary of the crash where 38 cars from the 1.75-mile-long train derailed in East Palestine, including 11 with toxic materials that first responders had difficulty identifying."

Ohio Sens. Sherrod Brown (D) and J.D. Vance are pushing a bill to create more rail safeguards. The Senate Commerce Committee approved it in May, and a handful of other "Trump-aligned conservatives have signed onto the effort, but party leaders on both sides believe the legislation in its current form lacks enough GOP support to clear the 60-vote threshold" in the Senate, Punchbowl News reports. "The problem for most Republicans is that the bill goes too far in imposing new regulations on the industry.”

Joe Perticone of The Bulwark’s “Press Pass” reports, “The bill’s fortunes started shifting around the same time that the Norfolk Southern Corp.” political-action committee “was cutting big checks to PACs and members of Congress whose positions made them critical to the bill’s fate.“

International group of scientists says Earth is in danger zone for 7 of 8 ecological measures, almost there on air pollution

"Earth has pushed past seven out of eight scientifically established safety limits and into “the danger zone,” not just for an overheating planet that’s losing its natural areas, but for the well-being of people living on it, according to a new study," reports Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press.

The study was done by by the Sweden-based international scientist group Earth Commission and published in Wednesday’s peer-reviewed journal Nature. "It looks at climate, air pollution, phosphorus and nitrogen contamination of water from fertilizer overuse, groundwater supplies, fresh surface water, the unbuilt natural environment and the overall natural and human-built environment," AP reports. "Only air pollution wasn’t quite at the danger point globally."

The study concluded that climate was beyond harmful levels for humans in certain groups, "but not quite past the safety guideline for the planet as a system," Borenstein reports. "The planet can recover if it changes, including its use of coal, oil and natural gas and the way it treats the land and water, the scientists said.

If the globe got an annual checkup, similar to a physical examination, “Our doctor would say that the Earth is really quite sick right now and it is sick in terms of many different areas or systems and this sickness is also affecting the people living on Earth,” Earth Commission co-chair Joyeeta Gupta, a University of Amsterdam environment professor, said at a press conference.

Indy Burke, dean of Yale University's School of the Environment, waan't involved in the study, but endorsed it: “This is a compelling and provocative paper – scientifically sound in methodology and important for identifying the dimensions in which the planet is nearing the edge of boundaries that would launch us into irreversible states,” she told AP.

Shampoos, cleaners, and mothballs all have volatile organic compounds; study sees need for 'national action' for safety

Photo by Crystal de Passillé-Chabot, Unsplash 

Shouldn't a cleaner be clean? There may be no simple answer to that question. "Consumer products released more than 5,000 tons of chemicals in 2020 inside California homes and workplaces that are known to cause cancer, adversely affect sexual function and fertility in adults or harm developing fetuses, according to our newly published study," report Robin Dodson, Megan R. Schwarzman and Ruthann Ridel for The Conversation, a platform for journalism by academics. "We found that many household products like shampoos, body lotions, cleaners and mothballs release toxic volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, into indoor air. In addition, we identified toxic VOCs that are prevalent in products heavily used by workers on the job, such as cleaning fluids, adhesives, paint removers and nail polish. However, gaps in laws that govern ingredient disclosure mean that neither consumers nor workers generally know what is in the products they use."

If most humans don't know these details, how did your study get the data? The study writers explain: "We analyzed data from the California Air Resources Board, which tracks VOCs released from consumer products to reduce smog. The agency periodically surveys companies that sell products in California, collecting information on concentrations of VOCs used in everything from hair spray to windshield wiper fluid. . . . We cross-referenced the most recent data with a list of chemicals identified as carcinogens or reproductive/developmental toxicants under California's right-to-know law Proposition 65. . . . We found 33 toxic VOCs present in consumer products. Over 100 consumer products covered by the CARB contain VOCs."

Does this study matter to people who don't live in California? Yes, the products are common across the country. Study authors report, "Our study identifies consumer products containing carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxicants that are widely used at home and in the workplace. . . . For example, janitors might use a combination of general cleaners, degreasers, detergents and other maintenance products. . . .Our findings could help state and federal agencies strengthen chemical regulations. We identified five chemicals – cumene, 1,3-dichloropropene, diethanolamine, ethylene oxide and styrene – as high-priority targets for risk evaluation and management under the Toxic Substances Control Act by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Who is most at risk? Women. They report, "Studies have shown that women generally use more cosmetic, personal care and cleaning products than men, so they are likely to be more highly exposed to harmful chemicals. . . . Further, women working in settings like nail salons may be exposed to products used both personally and professionally. . . . Research by members of our team has also shown that product use varies by race and ethnicity, partly due to racialized beauty standards. Policy interventions could be tailored to prioritize these potentially more highly exposed groups. . . . We believe our new analysis points to the need for national action that ensures consumers and workers alike have safer products."

N.C. reporters and a freelancer for a nonprofit win this year's Thomas Stokes Award for energy and environment reporting

Reporters who investigated rural environmental issues share this year's Thomas L. Stokes Award for Best Energy and Environment Writing from the National Press Foundation.

The winners are Eli Cahan, a freelance writer for California-based nonprofit Capital & Main and the USA Today Network; and Gavin Off and Ames Alexander of The Charlotte Observer and Adam Wagner the Raleigh News & Observer, newspapers owned by The McClatchy Co.

In “We’re Losing Our People,” Cahan drew attention to Native Americans in Arizona, Utah and Colorado who face lung disease from regular exposure to toxic metals from mines and analyzed the disproportionate toll Covid-19 took on indigenous people with pre-existing lung problems. Judges praised the piece for its “poignancy and impact” and called it “beautiful storytelling providing a sense of place, historical context and giving a voice to people who have not been heard.”

The first installment of the three-part series was published Dec. 4.

“Big Poultry” was a three–part deep dive into an industry that in North Carolina anually raises over 1 billion birds and generates 2.5 billion pounds of manure, which can leach into nearby water sources and affect human health. The reporters found that the state does not oversee the industry’s environmental impact and that ammonia from chicken-farm waste spreads to Maryland through the Chesapeake Bay.

Judges said the two newspapers “teamed up on a true public service mission to give a literal scorecard on how the poultry industry is operating in North Carolina … [and] exposing how little neighbors have in terms of recourse.” They said the investigation features “impressive” animation and visualization of the densely built chicken farms in North Carolina for an “exemplary” package.

The Stokes Award was created in 1959 to honor the late Thomas L. Stokes, a national-affairs columnist interested in energy, natural resources and the environment.

Experts: Soap, water again 'sufficient for regular cleaning'

Photo by Jeshoots, Unsplash

An easy-to-imagine conversation:

Q: "Remember grocery store employees spraying and scrubbing the carts all the time?"
A: "Oh, yeah, during the pandemic, for sure. Yeah, I don't think those sprays killed Covid-19. Killed plenty of people's skin, though!"

"The cleaning industry experienced a boom during the first years of the pandemic. Covid-19 cleaning protocols in schools, stores and other public spaces ratcheted up, with a spray and a wipe-down becoming de rigueur on every surface after every use," reports Dana G. Smith of The New York Times. "We now know that the extra cleaning was unlikely to have helped limit the spread of Covid-19, but it did increase people’s exposure to the chemicals used in those products — some of which may be hazardous to health. . . . But since we now know that disinfecting isn’t likely to protect us from Covid, it’s worth taking stock of whether the risks of using certain cleaning products are greater than the rewards."

Some items to consider, as outlined by Smith:

Disinfectants are commonly found in all-purpose surface cleaners marketed for use in kitchens or bathrooms. Think 409, Lysol sprays, Clorox wipes or anything else that says 'kills 99.9 percent of germs,' on the label. . . The most prevalent disinfecting chemicals are quaternary ammonium compounds, also known as 'quats' or QACs. . . . In professional settings, QACs have been linked to skin irritation, asthma and other lung problems. . . A 2021 study found that the presence of QACs in human blood was linked to disrupted immune and metabolic functions. In mice, exposure to QACs decreased fertility.

Bleach is a more familiar disinfectant to many people, but experts have raised concerns about its safety as well. . . . Bleach’s corrosive nature means that it can be damage skin and eyes. It has also been shown in numerous studies to be linked to asthma, among professional cleaners as well as people who use it frequently in the home. . . . A risk unique to bleach is the potential for producing toxic chlorine gas. "So what should I be using to clean?" Smith asks. "Most of the experts we spoke to for this article said that they rarely, if ever, use disinfectants when they clean their homes, instead opting for soap and water.

Finally, Samara Geller, senior director of cleaning science at the Environmental Working Group, told Smith, "We definitely recommend people substitute with some D.I.Y. recipes instead of buying products off the shelf. Even a dash of dish soap with a bit of baking soda can help remove that scum off your sink or out of your bathtub, and that can really help you to avoid some of the heavier, harsher chemicals."

Railroad accidents have been increasing, especially at Norfolk Southern, but have decreased along some big lines

Energy & Environment News graph; click to enlarge

"The country’s major freight railroads were becoming more dangerous even before the train wreck in East Palestine, Ohio, that sparked a chemical fire and weeks of political controversy," Mike Lee and Ellie Borst report for Energy & Environment News.

The reporters found that Norfolk Southern Corp., which had the derailment, had the largest increase in its accident rate from 2013 to 2022, rising 81 percent. Overall, the seven "Class 1" railroads "had 27 percent more accidents," E&E News reports, noting, "The increased accident rate comes as the chemical industry predicts a rise in the amount of chemicals that will be shipped by rail, trucks and other forms of transportation," and that most accidents involve trucks, which handle most of the chemical freight.

The American Association of Railroads told E&E News that the data include minor collisions in train yards and that “main line” accidents are becoming fewer. “If you were going to look at the main line accidents … 2022 was the lowest year in history overall,” said Mike Rush, the lobby’s senior vice president of operations and safety.

"Looking strictly at on-rail accidents, three of the freight railroads — Norfolk Southern, CSX Corp. and Union Pacific Corp. — had higher rates over the last 10 years," Lee and Borst report. "Norfolk Southern had one of the lowest accident rates in 2013 and now has the second highest behind Union Pacific . . .  The accident rates at Union Pacific, CSX and Norfolk Southern are far lower than they were in the 1970s and ‘80s, but they also show a stark contrast to the other four Class 1 railroads — BNSF, Canadian National, Kansas City Southern and Canadian Pacific — where accident rates fell between 5 percent and 65 percent over the last decade."

Derailments and explosions aren't only worries for railroads' neighbors; noise and vibrations can cause health issues

Train tracks in Newberg, Oregon (Photo by David Herron, Unsplash)

The train explosion and controlled burn of hazardous materials in East Palestine, Ohio, reminded us that living near a railroad can be hazardous to your health and safety. But some health threats from rail are more chronic and unseen, "and while fiery crashes with towering smoke clouds make for lots of headlines, studies suggest trains carry health costs even when they don’t derail," reports Jason Bittel of National Geographic. "Noise pollution and vibrations are some of the biggest concerns, particularly for people who live within one-third of a mile of railroads or railyards, says Natalia Caldeira Loss Vincens, an expert in public health at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden."

“These exposures to noise and other things” are stressful, and chronic stress can lead to “a cascade of pathophysiological changes,” including inflammation, and changes in appetite or a person’s insulin sensitivity. "In a 2022 study in the journal Environmental Research, Vincens found a link between railway noise and incidences of diabetes, even when accounting for variables such as sociodemographic and lifestyle factors," Bittel reports.

Luca Fredianelli, an acoustic technician with the Italian National Council of Research, told Bittel, "If the sounds are quite stable, in the end, we do not perceive it at all." Bittel elaborates: "It’s the less intense but more unpredictable noises, such as squeals, whistles, and grinding brakes, that really bother people, since they’re difficult to acclimate to, he said."

'Boot camp' for cities under 150,000 is aimed at helping them win infrastructure grants; second round starts in April

(Photo by Brandon Bell, Getty Images)

Smaller cities may doubt their chances of winning a fair portion of the $1.2 trillion authorized by the new infrastructure law, but there's a new program to help them compete. "The National League of Cities, with support of philanthropic backers, is trying to change that dynamic and give smaller cities a better shot at winning federal dollars," reports Bill Lucia of Route Fifty. "The group is running a series grant application 'boot camps' for 30 different infrastructure law programs. The new initiative, open to cities with fewer than 150,000 residents, kicked off late last year, with a second round about to get underway later this month."

Robert Blaine, director of the league's Institute for Youth, Education and Families, told Lucia, “There are the usual suspects, the larger cities that have these federal grant-writing teams, that have historically been able to pull down these federal dollars. When you look at small to midsize cities, they just haven't been able to compete.”

Lucia explains: "Each boot camp is tied to a specific grant program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. NLC chose the 30 it is focused on by considering factors like: Can cities apply for the money directly, rather than going through states or other entities? How much money is available? And does the program fund the types of projects that would produce significant results or improvements for communities?"

The boot camp training aids towns applying with a good 'fit' in mind. "A key component in the NLC program is a tool that the group has built to provide census tract level data for cities, providing insights into various issues, including disparities among residents and which neighborhoods are most underserved," Lucia writes. "Cities can use this information to help design their grant applications so that they are a good fit with the goals of the federal funding programs."

The census-tract data is combined with reaching out for expert help. "Blaine said that the No. 1 piece of feedback he’s heard from cities participating in the program is that having this data has been especially helpful. Having access to the finance curriculum that is part of the boot camps has also been valuable for participants," Lucia reports. "Blaine noted that cities can schedule 'office hours' with people who are experts in how local budgets need to be aligned with different agencies’ guidelines for grant proposals." 

Localities are urged to sign up. "The boot camps are free to cities, with Bloomberg Philanthropies and a number of other foundations and philanthropic organizations providing financial support for the initiative," Lucia notes. "The next round of boot camps will start in May and NLC expects recruiting for it to get underway around April. Cities interested in participating in the initiative can find more information here."

Repurposing sewage can be environmentally friendly, but it's objectionable to some, and has to be carefully managed

Old-time ad for Milwaukee's processed sewage sludge

Recycle. Reuse. Repurpose. Repeat. Or so goes the ever-living mantra. "The precepts of circular economy—reusing water, using biodegradable plastic, composting food leftovers so they can be returned to the soil rather than become landfill—are among the hottest ideas of our century," reports Lina Zeldovich for JSTOR Daily. "But what about recycling what our food becomes after we eat it? Yes, that means excrement, a critical substance in the thoroughly functioning circular economy, seems to be left out of the equation. . . . Our industrial treatment systems separate the so-called biosolids out of the sewage stream, purify the water, and release it back to nature, but they rarely extract these essential nutrients in the process. Instead of fertilizing the fields then, the nutrients fertilize the waterways—and wreak havoc in them."

A cycle of environmental problems ensues, Zeldovich reports: "The nutrients overfertilize the water, causing what scientists call eutrophication or nitrogen overloading, which fuels toxic algae blooms, destroys coastal marshes, kills mangrove forests, and smothers corals. What happens with the remaining biosolids—a euphemism for the malodorous, pathogen-infested black muck—is equally ugly. Sometimes it’s burned, releasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. "

Zeldovich writes, "We must figure out how to return our sludge back to land. The necessary tools already exist to do so Even better, there are technologies that turn human waste into humanure. Zeldovich provides an surprising old example: "Milorganite: Human-Made in Milwaukee Since 1925. In 1914, the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission began to experiment with a new approach for wastewater treatment." A treatment plant that opened in 1925 was the first in the nation "to tap into nature’s power to clean wastewater. But while these bacteria decomposed excrement, the gooey and gunky end product left behind still needed to be dealt with. Agronomist Oyvind Juul Noer realized that the muck contained high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium . . . the key fertilizers plants need to grow. Compared to manure and chemical fertilizer, this microbe-processed sludge produced superior growth results. Milwaukee sewage authorities figured out how to dry and process the muck into pellets and began churning out this human-made fertilizer."

Milwaukee's process has been copied in many places, and there have been many public objections to farmers' use of it. "The presence of potentially toxic metals is the main factor that limits such use," says a 2016 paper in the journal Circular Economy and Sustainability. "Many techniques have been employed in attempt to remove these toxic metals, including physical, chemical, and biological treatments, but the high cost of the physical and chemical treatments, as well as the risk of causing secondary pollution, makes this type of sewage-sludge treatment an unsatisfactory option. Therefore, removing toxic metals through biological treatments has become an increasingly popular choice, as such treatments have been shown to be the most economically and environmentally beneficial methods."

There are other challenges to using human waste as fertilizer, including "the number of pathogens it contained—an issue modern tech addresses," Zeldovich writes. "A newer concern is the problem of hormones, antibiotics, and PFAS. . . . But the sewage industry is already working on ways to address these. Even the most stable chemical compounds fall apart under high temperatures and pressures; called pyrolysis, one such process may be the path to their destruction." Environmental experts say proper management, including careful application, is essential to use of sewage sludge on farms.

JSTOR Daily says it is "an online publication that contextualizes current events with scholarship." Its parent platform is a "digital library of academic journals, books, images, primary sources, research reports, and other material."

Collected research on health effects of fracking prompts physicians and advocates to call for stricter regulations

A natural gas fracking well pad in Valencia, Pa.
(Photo by Ted Shaffrey, The Associated Press)

A consistent pattern has emerged linking health symptoms to horizontal hydraulic fracturing to produce oil and gas. The evidence has researchers calling for new restrictions on where fracking wells can be drilled. “A paper by the Yale School of Public Health this summer showed that children living near Pennsylvania wells that use fracking to harvest natural gas are two to three times more likely to contract a form of childhood leukemia than their peers who live farther away,” reports Jon Hurdle of Yale Environment360. “That followed a Harvard study in January that found elderly people living near or downwind from gas pads have a higher risk of premature death than seniors who don’t live in that proximity.”

The oil and gas industry has insisted that its processes protects against water contamination and notes that there is no causation study proving that fracking causes any harm to groundwater. "The industry coalition cited earlier studies, including one by Duke University in 2017, which found no evidence of groundwater contamination over three years,” Hurdle reports “and another by Pennsylvania State University in 2018, which reported no deterioration in groundwater chemistry in Bradford County, a heavily fracked area of northeastern Pennsylvania.”

Hurdle continues, “In April, the nonprofit Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York, which consists of health professionals, scientists, and medical organizations, published its most recent compendium of investigations into risks and harms linked with fracking. Since 2014, the compendium has tallied 2,239 peer-reviewed papers that found evidence of harm, with nearly 1,000 of those papers published since 2018.” Concerns about fracking harm "have prompted bans in France, Ireland, and Bulgaria," Hurdle notes.

For U.S. medical providers and advocates, the multiple studies have formed a pattern of connection. "There are enough studies now that show that fracking threatens the health of workers and communities and threatens the mental and physical health of people who work nearby and children who go to school nearby,” Dr. Ned Ketyer, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania told Hurdle. But he cautioned that the studies show correlation, not causation. "There’s enough of those associations now between fracking and bad health outcomes that should be informing regulators, politicians and industry that there needs to be a better way."

'There's no nitrogen police.' When farming regulation fails to protect our water

(Photo by Léon McGregor on Unsplash)

Nebraska has a wide-spread water nitrate problem. So does California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin to name the states with the highest levels of drinking water contamination per 2020 data released by the Environmental Working Group.

Like many states Nebraska continues to have a tug-of-war between environment regulators and some farmers. "There are few staff to monitor Nebraska’s vast swaths of farmland, thousands of cattle feedlots, large hog operations and chicken farms. And the agencies’ own regulations don’t give the staff many tools to combat malpractice," reports Yanqi Xu of Flatwater Free Press.

The most regulators can do is give guidance through mandatory educational training; however, if a farmer doesn't attend a training, there is no penalty. The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy lacks the teeth to stop "a farmer from applying far more nitrogen fertilizer than is needed – fertilizer that can seep as nitrate into the water supply," Xu writes.

"There’s no nitrogen police." Mike Sousek told Xu. Sousek, the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resource District General Manager, described how regulators were slothful with violation action but continue to hand out new feedlot permits “like Halloween candy".

Engelmeyer Farms is a case and point of how Nebraska’s enforcement can be slow and toothless: "The West Point feeder cattle and hog facility has had high nitrate in some of its downstream wells since 2007. . . . In 2011, nitrate readings peaked at an astronomical 413 parts per million. The Environmental Protection Agency’s safe drinking limit for nitrate is 10 parts per million," Xu reports. After more inspection "the state’s only guidance was that Engelmeyer Farms needed better record-keeping."

The cycle of testing, researching and non-action continue. Farmers fight the research finding by asking for more testing. Boards set regulations and then ignore their own guidance. "But the board [Lower Elkhorn NRD] decided not to go along with its own rules . . . Instead, it voted to conduct more testing."

Xu notes, "Being a board member who favors regulation is often a good way to lose your board seat."

3M factory creates Post-It adhesives and harmful PFAS chemicals, tainting drinking water in the area, EPA says

UPDATE, Nov. 24: Wisconsin Watch passes along what to do about PFAS in your water.

EPA map shows selected radii from Cordova, Ill., plant

Early this fall, rural Cordova, Ill., and its surrounding 3-mile radius along the northern Mississippi Rover received news that the area's 3M plant has been polluting the river with PFAS chemicals. "Plant chemicals have found a way into the river and their home wells," report Bennet Goldstein of Wisconsin Watch and Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco of WNIJ Northern Public Radio.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency detected PFAS or "forever chemicals" in the area in 2019. "Now the agency says the drinking water of nearly 300,000 people, including the Quad Cities of Illinois and Iowa, will need additional testing to ensure it is safe," they report.

This fall's announcement and follow-up EPA guidance has confused area residents and public officials seeking to manage the crisis: "City officials in Camanche, Iowa, announced that the municipal water, which serves almost 4,600 people, tested positive for two of the chemicals above EPA limits," Goldstein and Ramirez-Franco write. "The city advised residents to contact their healthcare providers or consider installing home filters. Now officials are informing water customers that the city is seeking 'expert guidance from state and federal authorities' and more guidance will issued once it becomes available. . . . Their announcements have not eased the fears of several Camanche residents, who on social media reacted to the city’s latest press release with dismay." Several commenters simply wanted to know if they could drink the water or not.

The Cordova facility opened in 1970, and the EPA permits the company to discharge its wastewater into the Mississippi River, but 3M must monitor it for PFAS. "This summer, 3M began testing some of the drinking water near Cordova for PFAS and offered to sample about 190 private wells within a 3-mile radius of the plant." they write. "The company later started to contact private well owners with an offer to install in-home water treatment systems, regardless of their sampling results."

So many dairy farmers getting paid for 'forever chemicals', USDA is short of money, and other sectors may need it

Bloomberg Law chart

So many dairy farmers are getting federal compensation for not being able to sell their milk due to contamination from "forever chemicals" that the Department of Agriculture is running out of money to pay them, Maeve Sheehey reports for Bloomberg Law.

"Farmers are struggling to get reimbursed at all for contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS," Sheehey reports. "The federal government lacks programs to deal with the toxic chemicals, which are ubiquitous because of their longtime use in products such as nonstick cookware and firefighting foam. They’ve been linked to cancer, weaker immune systems, and other health problems."

The Agriculture Department's Dairy Indemnity Payment Program was created in 1968 "to reimburse farmers who are directed by federal agencies to stop selling their milk because of contamination from chemicals like pesticides," Sheehey notes. "The payment program wasn’t created with forever chemicals in mind. . . . Of the roughly $1.8 million the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program paid for contaminated milk in 2021, about $1.5 million — or almost 88% — went to PFAS-related claims in Maine and New Mexico."

Other sectors of agriculture are or will be affected. "It’s hard to say which farmers will be hit worst in the absence of further research, but a recent Northeastern University study shows contamination in over 50,000 locations across the country," Sheehey reports. "The report highlights a dreaded realization for scientists: PFAS is far more prevalent than they thought."

Roundup maker is on courtroom winning streak, giving it leverage as it tries to resolve tens of thousands of claims

Roundup on store shelves (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Thanks to a shift in courtroom strategy, Bayer — the manufacturer facing thousands of lawsuits alleging its popular weedkiller Roundup causes cancer — has won five suits in a row, Patrick Thomas reports for The Wall Street Journal. The wins have been a reversal of fortune; in recent years, Bayer (and Monsanto, which developed Roundup and sold out to Bayer) has been on the hook for millions in damages after losing suits to Roundup users who said glyphosate, the active ingredient in the product, caused cancer.

Citing legal analysts and interviews with lawyers representing the plaintiffs, Thomas reports that the company's recent success "is a result of focusing on the scientific question of whether Roundup causes cancer, and providing more robust data to juries. . . . The company has also been more aggressive in attacking plaintiffs’ arguments on their individual use of the product." Majed Nachawati, a Dallas-based lawyer representing nearly 5,000 claimants, told Thomas that after multiple trials, Bayer's legal team has been better able to roll out a line of experts who have seemed "more appealing" to juries than prior experts.

The company has resolved around 108,000 of the 141,000 claims relating to Roundup, and the courtroom wins will give it more leverage when negotiating settlements.

The wins come on the heels of the Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of its interim approval of the herbicide. It can still be used at least through 2026. In 2020, EPA issued an interim decision that found the chemical likely didn't cause cancer, but a federal judge ruled in June that the EPA reached that conclusion without enough facts and ordered the agency to redo its assessment.