Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

He was born navy blue': Real-life stories behind Toxic Town Netflix series

News Feed
Tuesday, March 4, 2025

'He was born navy blue': Real-life stories behind Toxic Town Netflix seriesJames GrantBBC News, NorthamptonshireGetty ImagesFamilies won a landmark legal battle in 2009 after being exposed to toxic chemicals in CorbyNetflix's new drama Toxic Town revisits one of the UK's biggest environmental scandals: the Corby toxic waste case. The series tells the story of families fighting for justice after children in the Northamptonshire town were born with birth defects, believed to be caused by industrial pollution.Corby's steel and iron industry expanded rapidly in the 1930s with the construction of Stewarts and Lloyds' steelworks. By the 1970s, half the town worked in the mills, but when the steelworks closed in the 1980s, toxic waste from the demolition process was mishandled, leading to widespread contamination.Getty ImagesThe steel industry was a major employer in Corby for decades In 2009, after a long legal battle, the High Court ruled Corby Borough Council was negligent in managing the waste. Families affected won an undisclosed financial settlement in 2010, held in trust until the children turned 18.Alongside the drama, a BBC Radio Northampton podcast series offers a deeper look into the real-life events, using original court transcripts and newly uncovered documents. Hosted by George Taylor, 32, who was born with an upper limb defect linked to the case, the podcast features testimony and interviews with those directly impacted.Here are some of the key voices behind the story.'The first person you are going to blame is yourself'Kate Bradbrook/BBCGeorge Taylor, one of those affected, narrates the BBC podcast In Detail: The Toxic Waste ScandalGeorge Angus Taylor was born on 11 March 1992 to parents Fiona and Brian, in Corby. Brian had worked at the Stewart and Lloyds steel plant, a job that left him covered in dust and debris at the end of each shift. Fiona, a former Boots No7 beauty consultant, vividly remembers George's birth, an event that would change their lives forever.Born "navy blue" as a result of pre-foetal circulation issues, he was immediately ventilated and placed in intensive care.It was then Fiona noticed something unusual."I remember just seeing his little hand; his pinkie ring finger and middle finger," she says."It was like a fist; you know how babies make a fist? Then his index finger; his thumb was sticking out."I just kept thinking, 'He's here because of me,' and you just look for blame. You look, and the first person you are going to blame is yourself."Tim Wheeler/BBCGeorge narrates the BBC podcast In Detail: The Toxic Waste ScandalAt 14, doctors discovered a tumour in George's hand so large that amputation became a real possibility. The surgery, experimental at the time, was gruelling. "When I woke up, I was so full of morphine," he remembers."They said it was like climbing Everest with no practice – my body just shut down." The experience, particularly the smell, left lasting memories. "They burn flesh as they [operate]: very quiet sizzling, like sausages in a pan. And that's the smell that still comes to you from time to time."Despite everything, George was determined to move forward. "The first time I saw my hand, I wasn't shocked; I wasn't sad. It was better than before."But George was not alone. Other children in Corby were born with similar conditions.'Did I do this?'SuppliedSimone Atkinson (left) was born with three fingers because of her mother Lisa's exposure to the dust at the Corby steelworksLisa Atkinson was a security guard at the Corby steel mills, where her duties involved outside patrols, checking parking permits, and often having to move dust that had settled over everything.On 27 June 1989, she gave birth to her daughter, Simone, at Kettering General Hospital. Simone was born with three fingers on each hand.Doctors reassured Lisa, saying the only thing she would not be able to do was play the piano.Just as Fiona Taylor did with George, Lisa initially questioned whether she was responsible for her daughter's condition. "There was probably part of me that sat there and went, 'What did I do? Did I do this?'" she says."Because I've had a couple of miscarriages before Simone... I always thought maybe I was lucky; maybe I was given Simone... but she wasn't quite perfect. But I was lucky to have had that baby and not the two previous ones."SuppliedSimone Atkinson (right) initially hid her disability from her husband Despite her initial self-doubt, Lisa "knew" she had done nothing wrong, as she had neither drunk nor smoked during pregnancy. She recalls the lack of follow-up care or investigation into her daughter's condition."You're let out into the world with a child that's a little bit different," she says."But there was nowhere to go. There was no follow-up or anything; no 'We're going to look into it.' So you just deal with it. And you did, because you had to."Lisa quickly adjusted to life with Simone's condition, saying: "It shocked other people more than it shocked me. I got used to it really, really quickly."Winning the subsequent legal case against the borough council brought with it overwhelming attention."I'm not famous, but I feel like that's how famous people must feel... it was crazy."Lisa Atkinson worked as a security guard in Corby's steel millsGrowing up, Simone, now 35, faced relentless bullying. "I had a great family and friends... but [school] was hard. I wasn't a very confident child, and I was an easy target," she remembers. Simone coped by using humour. She would joke that her mum had chopped off her fingers or that she was part alien, turning her differences into something entertaining. "It was a bit of a front, because if I make a joke about myself, nobody else can. Just accept that's who you are; it's not going to change."At 18, she was offered surgery to reshape her hands, but declined. "They admitted they didn't really know if it would help. By then, I'd adapted. I live with daily pain, but I didn't want to risk making things worse."Meeting her now-husband, she initially hid her hands, subtly positioning herself to avoid detection. Eventually, she told him - through a long message and sending him a link to the 2020 Horizon documentary about the case. His response? "It's really not a big deal."Today, she is grateful for the legal battle her family fought. "It set me up for life," she says."I was able to start my own life, and I went to university. I've got my own house and my daughter had the best start in life."'It felt like we were an inconvenience'University of NorthamptonLewis Waterfield says school was tough for him; writing was difficult and classmates often had questions about his handsLewis Waterfield was born in 1994 with deformities to both hands. His father worked near the contaminated site as a roofer, and his pregnant mother often visited him there."My dad noticed something wasn't right straight away," Lewis recalls.As a child, he endured disruptive hospital stays, including an unsuccessful attempt to graft a toe on to his hand to create a functioning finger. "I've had extensive surgery, but there are limits to what can be done."During the legal battle, Lewis's parents fought to prove a link between industrial pollution and birth defects. "The council, I remember, was dismissive. It felt like we were an inconvenience to them."Now a senior lecturer in public health at the University of Northampton, Lewis acknowledges how his experiences shaped him. "Every now and then, someone asks about my hands, and it takes me right back." he says."But I don't mind. It's part of who I am."University of NorthamptonLewis Waterfield said the settlement from Corby Borough Council "doesn't alleviate" his disabilityCorby Borough Council ceased to exist in 2021 when it merged with other authorities to become North Northamptonshire Council.In 2010, its then chief executive Chris Mallender issued a formal apology over the scandal."The council extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families," it said."Although I accept that money cannot properly compensate these young people for their disabilities and for all that they've suffered to date and their problems in the future, the council sincerely hopes that this apology, coupled with today's agreement, will mean they can now put their legal battle behind them and proceed with their lives with a greater degree of financial certainty."BBC Radio Northampton's eight-part documentary series In Detail: The Toxic Waste Scandal, is for download from BBC Sounds.

The drama tells the story of how families fought for justice over their children's birth defects.

'He was born navy blue': Real-life stories behind Toxic Town Netflix series

James Grant

BBC News, Northamptonshire

Getty Images Families with children suffering from birth defects pose for photographs outside the Law Society.Getty Images

Families won a landmark legal battle in 2009 after being exposed to toxic chemicals in Corby

Netflix's new drama Toxic Town revisits one of the UK's biggest environmental scandals: the Corby toxic waste case.

The series tells the story of families fighting for justice after children in the Northamptonshire town were born with birth defects, believed to be caused by industrial pollution.

Corby's steel and iron industry expanded rapidly in the 1930s with the construction of Stewarts and Lloyds' steelworks.

By the 1970s, half the town worked in the mills, but when the steelworks closed in the 1980s, toxic waste from the demolition process was mishandled, leading to widespread contamination.

Getty Images A black and white photo shows three men walking past metal gates. Behind them are various smoking chimneys of the Corby steelworks. Getty Images

The steel industry was a major employer in Corby for decades

In 2009, after a long legal battle, the High Court ruled Corby Borough Council was negligent in managing the waste.

Families affected won an undisclosed financial settlement in 2010, held in trust until the children turned 18.

Alongside the drama, a BBC Radio Northampton podcast series offers a deeper look into the real-life events, using original court transcripts and newly uncovered documents.

Hosted by George Taylor, 32, who was born with an upper limb defect linked to the case, the podcast features testimony and interviews with those directly impacted.

Here are some of the key voices behind the story.

'The first person you are going to blame is yourself'

Kate Bradbrook/BBC A man in a beige shirt, and navy tartan coat, stands on a strip of grass, looking straight at the camera.Kate Bradbrook/BBC

George Taylor, one of those affected, narrates the BBC podcast In Detail: The Toxic Waste Scandal

George Angus Taylor was born on 11 March 1992 to parents Fiona and Brian, in Corby.

Brian had worked at the Stewart and Lloyds steel plant, a job that left him covered in dust and debris at the end of each shift.

Fiona, a former Boots No7 beauty consultant, vividly remembers George's birth, an event that would change their lives forever.

Born "navy blue" as a result of pre-foetal circulation issues, he was immediately ventilated and placed in intensive care.

It was then Fiona noticed something unusual.

"I remember just seeing his little hand; his pinkie ring finger and middle finger," she says.

"It was like a fist; you know how babies make a fist? Then his index finger; his thumb was sticking out.

"I just kept thinking, 'He's here because of me,' and you just look for blame. You look, and the first person you are going to blame is yourself."

Tim Wheeler/BBC A man in a grey sweatshirt with the sleeves rolled up sits in a recording booth, reading lines into a microphone.  Tim Wheeler/BBC

George narrates the BBC podcast In Detail: The Toxic Waste Scandal

At 14, doctors discovered a tumour in George's hand so large that amputation became a real possibility.

The surgery, experimental at the time, was gruelling. "When I woke up, I was so full of morphine," he remembers.

"They said it was like climbing Everest with no practice – my body just shut down."

The experience, particularly the smell, left lasting memories. "They burn flesh as they [operate]: very quiet sizzling, like sausages in a pan. And that's the smell that still comes to you from time to time."

Despite everything, George was determined to move forward. "The first time I saw my hand, I wasn't shocked; I wasn't sad. It was better than before."

But George was not alone. Other children in Corby were born with similar conditions.

'Did I do this?'

Supplied A black and white photo of a woman smiling whilst holding a crying baby.Supplied

Simone Atkinson (left) was born with three fingers because of her mother Lisa's exposure to the dust at the Corby steelworks

Lisa Atkinson was a security guard at the Corby steel mills, where her duties involved outside patrols, checking parking permits, and often having to move dust that had settled over everything.

On 27 June 1989, she gave birth to her daughter, Simone, at Kettering General Hospital.

Simone was born with three fingers on each hand.

Doctors reassured Lisa, saying the only thing she would not be able to do was play the piano.

Just as Fiona Taylor did with George, Lisa initially questioned whether she was responsible for her daughter's condition.

"There was probably part of me that sat there and went, 'What did I do? Did I do this?'" she says.

"Because I've had a couple of miscarriages before Simone... I always thought maybe I was lucky; maybe I was given Simone... but she wasn't quite perfect. But I was lucky to have had that baby and not the two previous ones."

Supplied A woman in a purple dress stands next to another woman in a white wedding dress holding a bouquet of flowers. Supplied

Simone Atkinson (right) initially hid her disability from her husband

Despite her initial self-doubt, Lisa "knew" she had done nothing wrong, as she had neither drunk nor smoked during pregnancy.

She recalls the lack of follow-up care or investigation into her daughter's condition.

"You're let out into the world with a child that's a little bit different," she says.

"But there was nowhere to go. There was no follow-up or anything; no 'We're going to look into it.' So you just deal with it. And you did, because you had to."

Lisa quickly adjusted to life with Simone's condition, saying: "It shocked other people more than it shocked me. I got used to it really, really quickly."

Winning the subsequent legal case against the borough council brought with it overwhelming attention.

"I'm not famous, but I feel like that's how famous people must feel... it was crazy."

Lisa Atkinson worked as a security guard in Corby's steel mills

Growing up, Simone, now 35, faced relentless bullying.

"I had a great family and friends... but [school] was hard. I wasn't a very confident child, and I was an easy target," she remembers.

Simone coped by using humour. She would joke that her mum had chopped off her fingers or that she was part alien, turning her differences into something entertaining.

"It was a bit of a front, because if I make a joke about myself, nobody else can. Just accept that's who you are; it's not going to change."

At 18, she was offered surgery to reshape her hands, but declined.

"They admitted they didn't really know if it would help. By then, I'd adapted. I live with daily pain, but I didn't want to risk making things worse."

Meeting her now-husband, she initially hid her hands, subtly positioning herself to avoid detection.

Eventually, she told him - through a long message and sending him a link to the 2020 Horizon documentary about the case.

His response? "It's really not a big deal."

Today, she is grateful for the legal battle her family fought. "It set me up for life," she says.

"I was able to start my own life, and I went to university. I've got my own house and my daughter had the best start in life."

'It felt like we were an inconvenience'

University of Northampton A man in a white lab coat smiles at the camera.University of Northampton

Lewis Waterfield says school was tough for him; writing was difficult and classmates often had questions about his hands

Lewis Waterfield was born in 1994 with deformities to both hands.

His father worked near the contaminated site as a roofer, and his pregnant mother often visited him there.

"My dad noticed something wasn't right straight away," Lewis recalls.

As a child, he endured disruptive hospital stays, including an unsuccessful attempt to graft a toe on to his hand to create a functioning finger.

"I've had extensive surgery, but there are limits to what can be done."

During the legal battle, Lewis's parents fought to prove a link between industrial pollution and birth defects.

"The council, I remember, was dismissive. It felt like we were an inconvenience to them."

Now a senior lecturer in public health at the University of Northampton, Lewis acknowledges how his experiences shaped him.

"Every now and then, someone asks about my hands, and it takes me right back." he says.

"But I don't mind. It's part of who I am."

University of Northampton A man in a white lab coat and glasses writes on a table with lots of lab equipment on a large white table in front of him. University of Northampton

Lewis Waterfield said the settlement from Corby Borough Council "doesn't alleviate" his disability

Corby Borough Council ceased to exist in 2021 when it merged with other authorities to become North Northamptonshire Council.

In 2010, its then chief executive Chris Mallender issued a formal apology over the scandal.

"The council extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families," it said.

"Although I accept that money cannot properly compensate these young people for their disabilities and for all that they've suffered to date and their problems in the future, the council sincerely hopes that this apology, coupled with today's agreement, will mean they can now put their legal battle behind them and proceed with their lives with a greater degree of financial certainty."

BBC Radio Northampton's eight-part documentary series In Detail: The Toxic Waste Scandal, is for download from BBC Sounds.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

Alcohol makes male fruit flies more attractive

Alcohol increases the release of chemical sex signals and makes males more attractive to females.

Male fruit flies that drink alcohol become more attractive to females, according to a new study.Adding alcohol to males' food increases their release of chemicals that attract females and leads to higher mating success. Fruit flies, or Drosophila melanogaster, are often found around our food waste bins as they feed on rotting fruit which gradually produces alcohol.Scientists have been trying to study why they are attracted to alcohol and how it affects them.Previous research has studied different theories about this attraction, such as the flies were seeking a euphoric state or a substitute for the high of mating among males rejected by females.Study author Bill Hansson, head of the Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology at the Max Planck Institute, said such research has taken an anthropomorphic view of fly behaviour, whereas this latest study suggests drinking alcohol gives the flies a reproductive advantage."We don't think flies drink alcohol because they are depressed," he said.The fly's attraction both to the carbohydrates and yeast in rotting fruit, as well as to the alcohol, cannot be separated, he added.In the study, alcohol, and particularly methanol, increased the males' production and release of chemical sex signals, called pheromones, which made them more attractive to females.Pheromones are released into the air from one individual to influence the behaviour of another animal of the same species.Males were therefore strongly attracted to alcohol, especially those males which had never mated.The new study also showed that the fly's response to smelling alcohol is controlled by three different neural circuits in its brain.While two are responsible for attracting male flies to small amounts of alcohol, a third ensures that excessive amounts have a deterrent effect. Because alcohol is toxic, the fly's brain must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of drinking it, and it does this by balancing signals of attraction with aversion."This means that the flies have a control mechanism that allows them to get all the benefits of alcohol consumption without risking alcohol intoxication," lead author Ian Keesey, of the University of Nebraska, said. For their investigations, the researchers combined physiological studies - such as imaging techniques to visualise processes in the fly brain, chemical analyses of environmental odours, and behavioural studies. The paper is published in the journal Science Advances.

Oregon moves to regulate harmful ‘forever chemicals’

The state Department of Environmental Quality is adding six PFAS to Oregon's list of more than 800 regulated contaminants.

Oregon’s list of regulated hazardous substances is getting its first update in nearly two decades with the addition of six “forever chemicals” known to harm human health.The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on Tuesday announced it would add six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the state’s list of more than 800 regulated contaminants and begin creating regulations to limit Oregonians’ exposure to them.“We need this rulemaking to hold parties responsible for contamination and to address that contamination,” said Sarah Van Glubt, a manager in DEQ’s environmental cleanup program who is leading the rulemaking. “Otherwise, right now, everything is voluntary. We can’t require parties to test and treat for these chemicals.”The Environmental Quality Commission is expected to vote on adding the chemicals to the state’s list and adopting new regulations on or after May 21.PFAS are human-made chemical chains used in products such as flame retardants, nonstick cookware and waterproof clothing that do not break down or go away naturally but instead have for decades leached into rivers and streams and contaminated soil, water and even air.They are thought to now be in the blood of everyone in the U.S., according to research and testing from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and can lead to increased risks for cancers, heart damage, high cholesterol and birth defects, among other adverse health effects.Suspected sources of past or ongoing PFAS pollution in Oregon include 139 commercial airports that are or were required to maintain PFAS-containing firefighting foam on site, as well as 18 municipal fire training facilities near 20 of the most populous cities in the state, according to rulemaking documents from DEQ.Officials at Portland International Airport began testing for PFAS in 2017 in and around a firefighter training ground there used by the Air National Guard. They identified PFAS contamination adjacent to the nearby Columbia Slough and found PFAS-impaired fish and aquatic species. They’ve since switched to using PFAS-free firefighting foam and have begun initial stages of cleanup.Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill — Senate Bill 91 — that would ban PFAS from firefighting foam used on the ground by firefighters. The Oregon Senate voted to pass the bill nearly unanimously in February, but a vote in the House has not yet been scheduled.Other sites to potentially test for PFAS contamination include 22 bulk fuel facilities and 93 metal plating facilities in Oregon.In 2024, the U.S. Envionmental Protection Agency added several PFAS to the federal list of regulated hazardous substances, and mandated states begin testing for them in drinking water systems.The Oregon Health Authority has identified PFAS in 35 Oregon public drinking water systems, with 24 of those exceeding the EPA’s new drinking water standards for the compounds. The state has until April 2026 to adopt the federal agency’s new PFAS standards and public water systems have until April 2029 to comply with those standards.DEQ’s new regulations would apply to PFAS pollution in rivers, lakes, soil and groundwater but would not address potential contamination released through the air, such as when biosolids and sewage sludge containing PFAS are burned, releasing PFAS into the air, or potential PFAS contamination from those biosolids being spread on farm fields as fertilizer.Biosolids filtered from Portland’s sewer and wastewater get heated and dried out in anaerobic digesters and sent to farms in eastern Oregon as fertilizer. The department doesn’t test those biosolids, which likely contain PFAS.Department spokesman Antony Sparrow said the EPA is developing a risk assessment for sewage sludge that will inform future state regulations.Van Glubt said the department is working on a strategic plan that would combine the work of DEQ’s air, water, biosolids and other teams, as well as work being done at other agencies, to deal with ongoing PFAS issues.“This rule making really is just addressing one piece of the puzzle,” she said. “There are other issues at play with PFAS that will need to be addressed.”Oregon’s hazardous substances list was last updated in 2006, when environmental regulators added methane to the list.Participate in the rulemaking: Email comments to PFAS2025@deq.oregon.gov. Join a public hearing on April 22 at 11 a.m. here or 6 p.m. here-- Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital ChronicleThe Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.

Dow Wants to Power Its Texas Manufacturing Complex With New Nuclear Reactors Instead of Natural Gas

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas.Dow's subsidiary, Long Mott Energy, applied Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit. It said the project with X-energy, an advanced nuclear reactor and fuel company, would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at its plant in Seadrift, Texas, avoiding roughly 500,000 metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions annually.If built and operated as planned, it would be the first U.S. commercial advanced nuclear power plant for an industrial site, according to the NRC.For many, nuclear power is emerging as an answer to meet a soaring demand for electricity nationwide, driven by the expansion of data centers and artificial intelligence, manufacturing and electrification, and to stave off the worst effects of a warming planet. However, there are safety and security concerns, the Union of Concerned Scientists cautions. The question of how to store hazardous nuclear waste in the U.S. is unresolved, too.Dow wants four of X-energy's advanced small modular reactors, the Xe-100. Combined, those could supply up to 320 megawatts of electricity or 800 megawatts of thermal power. X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said the project would demonstrate how new nuclear technology can meet the massive growth in electricity demand.The Seadrift manufacturing complex, at about 4,700 acres, has eight production plants owned by Dow and one owned by Braskem. There, Dow makes plastics for a variety of uses including food and beverage packaging and wire and cable insulation, as well as glycols for antifreeze, polyester fabrics and bottles, and oxide derivatives for health and beauty products.Edward Stones, the business vice president of energy and climate at Dow, said submitting the permit application is an important next step in expanding access to safe, clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy in the United States. The project is supported by the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.The NRC expects the review to take three years or less. If a permit is issued, construction could begin at the end of this decade so the reactors would be ready early in the 2030s, as the natural gas-fired equipment is retired.A total of four applicants have asked the NRC for construction permits for advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC issued a permit to Abilene Christian University for a research reactor and to Kairos Power for one reactor and two reactor test versions of that company's design. It's reviewing an application by Bill Gates and his energy company, TerraPower, to build an advanced reactor in Wyoming. X-energy is also collaborating with Amazon to bring more than 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power projects online across the United States by 2039, beginning in Washington state. Amazon and other tech giants have committed to using renewable energy to meet the surging demand from data centers and artificial intelligence and address climate change.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Oil and gas money shapes research, creates ‘echo chamber’ in higher education

Louisiana’s flagship university is looking to partner more closely with petrochemical industries in the state.

Jackson Voss loves his alma mater, Louisiana State University. He appreciates that his undergraduate education was paid for by a program dreamed up by an oil magnate and that he received additional scholarships from ExxonMobil and Shell. But the socially conscious Louisiana native was also aware of what the support of those companies seemed to buy — silence. Voss, who graduated from LSU in Baton Rouge 11 years ago with a degree in political science, says when he attended school there, he didn’t hear discussions of how climate change made Hurricane Katrina worse; why petrochemical plants along the Mississippi River sickened residents of the mostly Black communities around those facilities; or about the devastating and permanent impact of the BP oil spill that happened during Voss’ time at LSU. Voss, now director of climate policy for the New Orleans-based consumer advocacy group, the Alliance for Affordable Energy, says he didn’t hear climate change or “Cancer Alley” openly discussed until he went to the University of Michigan, 1,100 miles away, for graduate school. “It was not a place that was really discussing these issues in the way that should have been discussed at the time,” he said of LSU, where oil wells dotted the campus at least into the 1970s. Any such discussions weren’t taken seriously, he said, and even fellow students were often defensive of the industry.  “The discussions that did happen had to focus on, kind of finding a way to talk about climate without talking about climate,” Voss said, “and it was especially important not to talk about the role that oil and gas played in worsening climate change.” Louisiana State University graduate Jackson Voss attended the Baton Rouge-based school as an undergraduate about a decade ago. Pam Radtke / Floodlight Whether through funding of research projects, the creation of new academic programs focused on energy or, more subtly, through support of everything from opera to football, the oil and gas industry has been shaping discourse at LSU — and universities around the world — for decades. LSU administrators insist they have safeguards against undue influence by fossil fuel companies, which have given tens of millions of dollars to the university in just the past three years. But a joint investigation by Floodlight, WWNO/WRKF and the Louisiana Illuminator found the funding allows the industry to place a thumb on the scale of what gets studied at the state’s flagship university — and what is left out. Research by Floodlight shows between 2010 and 2020, petrochemical companies gave LSU at least $44 million through their charitable foundations, making it one of the top recipients of fossil fuel funding among U.S. universities, based on research from the nonprofit Data for Progress. LSU received more from petrochemical companies than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Texas A&M — and 20 times more than Voss’s other alma mater, the University of Michigan. The Data for Progress research showed over that decade, the 27 schools they examined received almost $700 million total. Increasingly, researchers are questioning the longstanding ties between fossil fuels and universities at a time when scientists and governments across the globe overwhelmingly agree that sharply reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing reliance on renewable energy are crucial to stalling or reversing climate change. Last year, a joint report from Congress found “the oil and gas industry cultivates partnerships with academic institutions as a way to influence climate research.” And a first-of-its-kind study released by researchers last year found the fossil fuel industry’s approach is similar to how the tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries co-opted academics.  “It’s a situation exactly parallel to public health research being funded by the tobacco industry. It’s a conflict of interest — the size of an oil tanker,” said Geoffrey Supran, associate professor of environmental science and policy who studies fossil fuel disinformation at the University of Miami and is director of its Climate Accountability Lab. He says LSU and other schools like it have become “an echo chamber for pro-fossil-fuel narratives.” LSU and its president, William Tate IV, have doubled down on the university’s ties with the fossil fuel industry in recent years, despite its shrinking importance to the Louisiana economy. Since 2020, Tate has solicited and received more than $30 million from fossil fuel companies, including a record $27.5 million from Shell. During LSU’s Giving Day campaign on Wednesday, Shell plopped down another $1.5 million for LSU libraries and the College of Science. “It’s time for a partnership in significant fashion to link the work at LSU in our energy areas, including alternative energy, and creating ways to keep that industry vibrant here in this state and for our country,” Tate told reporters in 2022, about a year after he was named to head the school.  LSU insists there are firewalls in place to prevent oil and gas companies from unduly influencing research and study. But public records and interviews indicate that fossil fuel funding can have a subtle and even direct impact on research and critical discourse.  “Universities are at risk of being pawns in a climate propaganda scheme devised and implemented by fossil fuel interests for decades,” Supran said.  ‘Tip of the iceberg’ It’s impossible to pin down how much money fossil fuel interests — or any industry — gives to universities such as LSU. Although it is a public institution, much of the money for scholarships, workforce development and buildings goes through LSU’s foundation — a nonprofit separate from the university. The foundation, in accordance with philanthropic standards, does not disclose its donors unless they agree to be identified. In its research, Data for Progress used public announcements from universities and companies, along with tax filings from fossil fuel companies’ foundations, to determine how much the universities received from those companies. “It’s most likely the tip of the iceberg,” said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, which under its previous name, Fossil Free Research, worked with Data for Progress to create its 2023 report.  Louisiana State University President William Tate IV visits Shell’s facility in Convent, La., in 2023 to talk about his plan to focus on five areas at the university, including energy. Louisiana State University For example, the report includes millions of dollars the ExxonMobil Foundation gives for scholarships — but not the money going directly from the company to a school or its foundation. “If the ExxonMobil corporation has a research contract with LSU, you’re not going to see that in the tax documents or annual reports,” Lowe said. Floodlight, with the help of a Data for Progress researcher, used the same method to look at how much petrochemical money went to LSU. The analysis included examining public announcements from the companies and tax filings, called 990s, of the foundations for Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Entergy, Koch Inc., Southwest Electric Power Corp., Schlumberger (now known as SLB), Dow and Taylor Oil. From 2010 to 2020, Taylor Oil’s foundation gave the most to LSU, almost $21 million.   The second highest amount was from ExxonMobil, which gave more than $10 million — the majority of which came from a matching gift program in which the company gave $3 for every dollar donated by an employee or retiree to a college or university. Louisiana State University’s “Quad” is the heart of the campus and was named after ExxonMobil in 1999. Piper Hutchinson / Louisiana Illuminator But then, in 2022, Shell dwarfed the amount given over the previous decade with a single $27.5 million donation to LSU. The majority, $25 million, was for a new Institute for Energy Innovation to focus on “scholarship and solution delivery” on “hydrogen and carbon capture … the coast; and low-carbon fuels.” Donations buy influence  LSU doesn’t hide that the institute’s mission was shaped in partnership with the industry. In the early days, a former Shell executive, Rhoman Hardy, served as the research center’s interim director. The company also has three of the institute’s seven board seats; industry groups hold another two. Last year, the nonprofit New Orleans news outlet The Lens discovered LSU created a system: If a fossil fuel company gives $50,000 or more to the institute, it gets the right to participate in a specific research project, to use the intellectual property from that project and “robust review and discussion of the specific study and project output.” For a $1.25 million donation, a company also receives “voting rights for selected institute activities, including research.” A contribution of $5 million or more earns a donor a seat on the institute’s board. LSU president William Tate IV poses with LSU mascot Mike the Tiger. Louisiana State University When reached for comment about the institute, its donations and its potential influence, Shell responded, “We’re proud to partner with LSU to contribute to the growing compendium of peer-reviewed climate science and advance the effort to identify multiple pathways and build the ecosystems that can lead to more energy with fewer emissions.” In 2023, ExxonMobil gave $2 million to LSU and became a “strategic” partner. With the donation, ExxonMobil will work with the institute to study batteries, solar power, carbon capture and “advanced” plastics recycling. ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment about the donation or about the money it has previously given to LSU. At a Louisiana Board of Regents’ Energy Transition Research Symposium at LSU later that year, ExxonMobil gave a presentation on advanced plastics recycling, a controversial technology that opponents say amounts to greenwashing the problem of plastic waste by burning it rather than reusing it. “It is clear based on the board and research focus areas of the new Institute for Energy Innovation that it is focused squarely on innovations using fossil fuels,” said Logan Atkinson Burke, Voss’ boss at the Alliance for Affordable Energy, an energy consumer advocacy group. Environmentalists say technologies being studied by the institute, including carbon capture, hydrogen and low-carbon fuels, are “false solutions” that will do little to address the climate crisis. ‘Subconscious’ bias?  The institute’s current director, Brad Ives, and LSU’s vice president for research and economic development, Robert Twilley, say they have put safeguards in place to prevent industry influence. And Twilley says this type of research — working hand in hand with industries on the ground — is core to the mission of LSU as a land grant university, a program Abraham Lincoln established in 1862 that used federal land sales to fund universities focused on practical subjects including architecture, engineering and agriculture. “It’s how we as an institution manage it and the safeguards and being very conscious of our ethics, being very conscious of what projects we work on,” Twilley said. He points to federal guidelines, the scientific method and peer review as some of the safeguards that keep the university’s research independent from industry influence. The institute sends its research proposals to an anonymous third-party panel of scientists to be ranked, Twilley says. Those rankings help decide what research it funds. Louisiana State University’s Petroleum Engineering Research & Technology Transfer, or PERTT, Laboratory, is an industrial-scale facility for training and research on borehole technology. According to LSU, it is the only such facility in North America. Louisiana State University Ives says funders aren’t allowed contact with researchers either. “What we’re doing is making sure that the researchers have total academic freedom to let the research take them where it goes,” Ives said. “We know we can sleep at night because we are not doing anything that’s wrong.” But Supran, who once worked on projects funded by oil and gas, says it’s not always as simple as a researcher purposefully skewing results. Scientists are only human, making these relationships inherently fraught. “We’re all subject to biases,” he said. “Things like reciprocation. You know that if I give you a pen, you have some small subconscious desire to reciprocate it in some sense down the line.” For example, one study showed how reviews of the health effects of secondhand smoke funded by the tobacco industry were almost 90 times more likely to conclude that it was not harmful compared to reviews funded by other sources. There’s evidence that the lines between funding and academic independence are sometimes blurred at LSU. Several influential reports and studies from LSU’s Center for Energy Studies have drawn scrutiny over the years for being misleading. In one case, a utility-funded report led to the dismantling of Louisiana’s successful rooftop solar program. In another, a report helped curb efforts to sue oil and gas companies for decades of environmental damage, claiming the lawsuits cost the state more than it would gain. A more recent example was found in public records reviewed by WWNO, including a contract between the Center for Energy Studies and the Bracewell law firm, representing Gulf Coast Sequestration. That company wants to store millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground in southwest Louisiana. It asked the center to use the project as a case study for the economic impact of a carbon capture industry on the Gulf Coast. Climate advocates Corinne Salter and Jill Tupitza, who started a group and podcast called Climate Pelicans, and Cheyenne Autin discuss divestment in fossil fuels in November 2023 at Louisiana State University’s Baton Rouge campus. Tarun Kakarala / The Reveille The contract suggests that some of the report’s conclusions were reached even before the study began. The researchers said they planned to “underscore the transformative nature of CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) on the Louisiana economy.” LSU’s final report ultimately listed all of the financial reasons the Gulf Coast should welcome the projects like this one — while barely mentioning the economic risks, such as the cost and financial viability of  carbon capture facilities. WWNO showed the report to several researchers familiar with sponsored research. All of them shared concerns over the prescriptive nature of the research proposal or the terms of the contract itself. LSU allows research sponsors to give feedback on drafts before they’re published. Sponsors are also allowed to stay anonymous — meaning, the public doesn’t know who funds the research. “It gets a D grade and it’s not quite an F,” Supran said, noting that in this case, the funder was disclosed. “ The fact that this report just touts the economic benefits of this specific company funding the report — it kind of makes you wonder if it’s worth the paper it’s written on.” The report’s authors declined to comment. Twilley defended the contract, saying its terms are standard throughout the university and that researchers are allowed to propose hypotheses.  The contract is not illegal nor does it constitute research misconduct such as using fake data or plagiarizing. But according to one elected official, reports like these, which carry the credibility of a university without the scrutiny of peer review, could influence public policy. “The research plays a significant role in determining whether or not we’re on the right or wrong course,” said Davante Lewis, a public service commissioner in Louisiana. His commission regulates services in Louisiana including the electric utilities. Lewis said he counts on such academic reports to provide a fair and comprehensive picture of an issue. But, as more industry money enters research, he said he was concerned, noting, “Oftentimes we have seen where money drives facts, not facts drive money.” Burnishing their reputations Besides funding LSU’s energy institute, oil and gas interests also pays for things everyone likes, such as health programs, tutoring and even halftime kicking contests with football fans. Supran says he and other researchers have a working theory that while oil and gas companies pour big money into big research institutions such as MIT and Stanford to give them credibility, they spend money at regional universities in states including Louisiana and Texas to build a compliant population. “It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that that money may be used to burnish the reputation locally of those companies and foster a vibrant recruitment pool,” Supran said. Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor at the University of Miami, tells members of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee at a May 1, 2024 hearing that his research has found “widespread infiltration of fossil fuel interests into higher education.” U.S. Senate Budget Committee Voss says the oil and gas industry’s support of benefits for the state are “one of the few things that it actually has right.” On the flip side, he added, “I think it protects the industry from criticism, because it makes people feel like they’re a part of the community.” But the heavy presence of oil and gas on campus can have a chilling effect on people and groups who don’t support those industries. Jill Tupitza, now a marine scientist in California, was a graduate student at LSU when she and fellow graduate student Corinne Salter started Climate Pelicans, an advocacy organization that worked to get LSU to stop investing in fossil fuels. When they started questioning the ties between LSU and fossil fuels, they were met with resistance. “Immediately, doors were shut,” Tupitza said. One administrator told her, “‘I can’t tell you what to do, I can’t punish you for going further. But I would strongly recommend that you stop asking questions about this,’” she recalled. “So that, obviously, that made us double down.” The group led marches and a petition drive urging climate divestment. They started a podcast that explored topics including environmental justice and false climate solutions. Tupitza said the LSU Foundation stonewalled the group’s requests for information about how much money it had invested in fossil fuels and refused requests to attend meetings about the foundation’s $700 million endowment. Later, the foundation told Tupitza that less than 4% of its holdings were invested in fossil fuels And then, while Tupitza and fellow graduate students were writing “Divest from Fossil Fuels,” in pink chalk in front of the foundation building, they were arrested on graffiti charges.  Those charges were eventually dropped. School rules prohibit writing on the sidewalks with chalk, but it is not an arrestable offense. Tupitza described her arrest as “a huge scare tactic.”.  Supran says LSU isn’t unique in its hesitation to cut ties with the oil and gas industry.  “I think it’s fair to say that for the most part, there has not been careful deliberation about the costs and the benefits of these ties, but rather a head down, and aggressive, solicitation of as much funding as they can receive from anyone.” Voss predicts that if conditions worsen in an industry known for its booms and busts, its support for LSU will disappear. And as climate change worsens, it will make it harder for businesses and people to stay in Louisiana, which is already near the top of U.S. states when it comes to population loss.  “In many ways, higher education is sitting upon a house of cards, and relying upon oil and gas is incredibly risky — as it always has been.” Instead, he said, “I think that LSU could and should be a really critical voice in climate change and environmental justice in Louisiana. I do worry that in failing to do so and by being so heavily tied up in oil and gas interests, it actually puts the university in a worse position.” This is Part 2 of a two-part investigative series exploring the relationship between the fossil fuel industry and Louisiana State University. This story was reported by a partnership with WWNO/WRKF, the Louisiana Illuminator and Floodlight. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Oil and gas money shapes research, creates ‘echo chamber’ in higher education on Mar 29, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.