Toxic Chemicals

E.P.A. Set to Cancel Grants Aimed at Protecting {Rural} Children From Toxic Chemicals
NYT | 21 April 2025

The cancellations, set to apply to pending and active grants, also affect research into “forever chemicals” contaminating the food supply.

The Trump administration is set to cancel tens of millions of dollars in grants to scientists studying environmental hazards faced by children in rural America, among other health issues, according to internal emails written by senior officials at the EPA.

{Paywall}
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/climate/epa-cuts-forever-chemicals-grants.htm...
----------------------------------------------------

The Government’s Chemical Disaster Tracking Tool Just Went Dark
Katya Schwenk | 21 April 2025

The chemical lobby demanded Trump make the locations of high-risk chemical plants secret. The EPA did just that.

https://www.levernews.com/the-governments-chemical-disaster-tracking-tool-just-w...

These topic burps are annoying; but as Admin, I thought I could remove the second post. I’m not remembering how though. I wish there was a group for group admins…

>2 2wonderY: Did I mess up?

>3 margd: Nope. This has been a site-wide issue for the last couple of weeks.

So, try deleting the contents of the second thread.

I deleted the message, but the duplicate topic is still there. I don't recall this happening before, do you? Not sure I can flag it, now that no message? Maybe you can write a message there to admin, asking them to eliminate topic -- and to see if there's a programming glitch that needs attention? Then we and friends can flag to get their attention?

I’ve asked staff in another thread and admin can’t delete threads. But I just changed the name of the thread. How do you like it now?

I didn’t think about flagging it to death…

The EPA Is Giving Some Forever Chemicals a Pass
Molly Taft | May 14, 2025

Last year, the Biden administration set limits on PFAS in drinking water systems. Donald Trump's EPA is planning to dramatically soften that rule.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-epa-is-giving-some-forever-chemicals-a-pass/

Alt National Park Service | 12 May {Facebook}

The Trump administration is fast-tracking a uranium mine in Utah by slashing the permitting process to just 14 days, bypassing environmental review and cutting the public out entirely. Projects like this are supposed to go through NEPA, the law that requires environmental impact assessments and public comment. But under the false claim of an “energy emergency,” Trump’s Interior Department, currently being run by a former Musk staffer, is abusing emergency procedures meant for real disasters like wildfires to greenlight the Velvet-Wood uranium and vanadium mine. No environmental assessment. No input from nearby communities. Just a rubber stamp. It’s a dangerous precedent that guts oversight, tramples local voices, and will face legal challenges.

John Curry: It's funny we're in an energy emergency when he went on camera with Canada's PM and said we have more energy than ever and could probably sell some off.

Jana L Bergman: His proposed budget axes nuclear research. He claims he supports nuclear for the “energy emergency.” Go figure.

The Raccoon River in Iowa has twice the nitrates allowed for human consumption and the Des Moines water plant can’t keep up, at a cost of $16,000 a day.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DK4YhKQOkRk/?igsh=enpoazZhdm1vemh1

>8 margd: !!!!!

Robert Baluja et al. 2025. PFAS-contaminated drinking water harms infants. PNAS December 8, 2025. 122 (50) e2509801122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2509801122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2509801122

Significance
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), so-called “forever chemicals,” are pollutants of increasing concern. However, there is not yet firm evidence that the types of PFAS exposure occurring in daily life cause human health impacts. We show that New Hampshire mothers whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases had more extremely low-weight births, more extremely preterm births, and higher infant mortality than did mothers whose wells were upstream of PFAS releases. Mothers did not know the locations of their wells and so should be comparable but for their PFAS exposure. Extrapolating to the rest of the United States, PFAS impose billions of dollars of costs on U.S. residents each year by worsening infant health.

Abstract
There is evidence of widespread human exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but limited evidence of the human health impacts of this exposure. Using data on New Hampshire births from 2010–2019, we show that mothers receiving water that had flowed beneath a PFAS-contaminated site, as opposed to comparable mothers receiving water that had flowed toward a PFAS-contaminated site, had 191% ... higher first-year infant mortality (611 ... additional first-year deaths per 100k births); 168% ... more births before 28 wk of gestational age (466 ... additional such births per 100k births); and 180% ... more births with weight below 1,000 g (607 ... additional such births per 100k births). Extrapolating to the contiguous U.S., PFAS contamination imposes annual social costs of approximately $8 billion. These health costs are substantially larger than current outside estimates of the cost of removing PFAS from the public water supply.

A recent Danish study:
https://dors.dk/vismandsrapporter/oekonomi-miljoe-2025/kapitel-ii-forurening-pfa...
finds that people living near training areas for fire fighters (where pfas foam was used to put out fires on a regular basis) have a higher risks of cancer and children born to mothers living near training areas weigh less.

(Surprise: The use of pfas foam for fire fighting is being forbidden in the EU.)

This one is personal. In the mid-1980s, my office as a 30-something was in lab wing of a US government fisheries building, where I began developing headaches that worsened as the day progressed. Returning from two back-to-back conferences, I realized that I had been headache-free while away, only for headaches to resume when back in the office. I ordered up a nematode bioassay so as to have quantitative data to support my symptomatic observations. Lo and behold, the resulting nematode-mortality pattern suggested that the problem was not evaporation of formaldehyde from specimen jars in adjacent storage area (as I thought), but a scientist's failure to use a fume hood when handling a solvent across the hall. (He was directed to use fume hood in future, and I moved to another wing. Ever the scientist, another biologist proposed to study lifetime health problems of people exposed to the solvent!! Oh, and a presidential appointee to whom we reported, chastised my immediate boss for submitting to them details of my case in writing. Now in my 70s no issues (yet) that I can associate with chemical exposure in my 30s, but you can bet I nervously follow emerging research that associates Parkinson's Disease with solvent exposure.... I, at least, was in a position to do something about my exposure, but most people aren't.)

Under Former Chemical Industry Insiders, Trump EPA Nearly Doubles Amount of Formaldehyde Considered Safe to Inhale
Sharon Lerner | December 8, 2025

"Chemical industry lobbyists have long pushed the government to adopt a less stringent approach to gauging the cancer risk from chemicals, one that would help ease regulations on companies that make or use them..."

https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-formaldehyde-risk-assessment

Tennessee town council is allowing community members to speak in favor of a uranium processing facility

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTk8Qy6Tc/

Drinking water, PFAS and a new phase of public scrutiny
Waterdrop (ad)

"... Health agencies generally describe PFAS exposure in cautious, long-term terms. According to ATSDR/CDC, PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of health concerns, including increased cholesterol levels, decreased birth weight, reduced antibody response to vaccines, kidney and testicular cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia and changes in liver enzymes. There is also currently no approved medical treatment to remove PFAS from the body, which is why reducing ongoing exposure remains a practical focus.

... EPA’s 2024 consumer guidance states that if people know PFAS is present in their drinking water, they may consider installing a home filter. At the same time, EPA makes clear that not all filters are the same. Consumers are advised to look for products that are certified and clearly identified as capable of reducing PFAS. Relevant treatment approaches include reverse osmosis (RO), granular activated carbon (GAC), and ion exchange (IX). Maintenance is also critical: if filters are not replaced as directed, performance can decline..."

https://www.theguardian.com/advertiser-content/waterdrop/drinking-water-pfas-and...

Report finds FDA allows 25 chemicals linked to cancer to be used in US food system
Environmental Defense Fund | May 7, 2026
https://vitalsigns.edf.org/story/report-finds-fda-allows-25-chemicals-linked-can...
-------------------------------------------------

Analysis: 25 carcinogens allowed for use in U.S. food, despite legal prohibition (7p)
The FDA’s weak application of the law puts Americans’ health at risk.

Four examples:
"Formaldehyde: The presence of formaldehyde in food is complex. A colorless, flammable gas common in everything from building materials to personal care products, it can be introduced to food through contamination in the processing stage, as it is authorized for use in a variety of food contact surfaces and defoaming agents. However, it can also be present in food as a byproduct of other chemicals. Its health effects range from short-term skin, eye and nose irritation to some types of cancer.

Methylene chloride: Methylene chloride is used for decaffeinating coffee, extracting hops and spices and in adhesives. It also has many industrial and commercial uses, including as a degreaser and a solvent, and in consumer products, such as paint strippers, sealants and adhesives. In addition to being carcinogenic, methylene chloride can cause other health harms, such as liver toxicity, and at higher exposures, neurological effects and even death. {I suspect my sweet mom's use of PAINT STRIPPER, without gloves or sufficient ventilation, as a cause of neurodegenerative disease, which killed her.}

Trichloroethylene (TCE): TCE is permitted for use in decaffeinated coffee, certain extracts of spices used as food and/or color additives, and hops extracts. A volatile, colorless liquid present in solvents, paints and varnishes, TCE is known to cause cancer and Parkinson’s disease, and can adversely impact fetal heart development. In
terms of environmental effects, it is a persistent soil, water and air contaminant.
Carcinogens can be used across the food production chain as processing agents and in packaging, as well as ingredients. (Getty) {DRY CLEANING FLUID}

Asbestos: The FDA permits asbestos for uses such as adhesives, rubber articles and polyester resins in articles across the food preparation pipeline from manufacturing to storage. It is a naturally occurring group of fibrous silicate materials infamous for its use in building insulation decades ago. While the EPA has taken moved in recent years to reduce exposure, the FDA has not. Asbestos is linked to increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. ..."

https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/02128n6uroe23n3t0006q1gal6c5676w.pdf

Why are PFASs so hard to replace?
Katharine Sanderson | 20 May 2026

As the toxic legacy of ‘forever chemicals’ grows, researchers are racing to develop safer alternatives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00429-8