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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Living near oil and gas operations linked to worse mental health in people hoping to become pregnant

News Feed
Thursday, July 25, 2024

Living near oil and gas operations, including fracking wells, is linked to stress and depression in people who are planning pregnancies, according to a new study. Previous research has found that living near oil and gas operations is linked to physical and mental health problems during and after pregnancy including preterm birth, birth defects, low birth weights and increased stress. However, little research exists on the effects of preconception mental health. Some studies suggest that poor mental health during this time period is associated with increased odds of pregnancy complications. The new study, conducted by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health and published in the American Journal of Public Health, is the first to investigate how living near oil and gas operations affects mental health in people who are hoping to become pregnant. “There are around 29 studies to date on associations between residential proximity to oil and gas development and adverse birth outcomes,” Mary D. Willis, lead author of the study and assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told EHN. “That body of work is very focused on the long-term health of infants, which is important, but this work adds to that literature by centering the potentially pregnant person.” Willis and her colleagues looked at mental health survey data for 5,725 people, including residents across 37 U.S. states and Canadian provinces, who were planning to get pregnant. The study only included people with household incomes below $50,000 a year since they may not have the resources to move away from oil and gas operations if they wanted to. They found that people who lived within roughly six miles of active oil and gas development were more likely to report moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms than people living 12 to 31 miles away, and that higher levels of active oil and gas activity were linked to higher reported levels of depression. They also found that the closer people lived to oil and gas operations, the higher the intensity of their stress levels. While the study doesn’t prove that oil and gas operations cause stress and depression, researchers point to factors like changing economic and social dynamics and environmental degradation in communities with oil and gas development as factors that could impact mental health. “Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes,” Willis said. “If we’re concerned about healthy pregnancies, focusing on the period before pregnancy may be even more important, and that time-frame is under-studied,” she added. The study noted that many of the people in the study who reported elevated stress and depression symptoms lived further away from oil and gas operations than the minimum distance required in many states to protect people in homes, schools and healthcare facilities. “Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes.” - Mary D. Willis, Boston UniversityIn Pennsylvania and Texas, for example, the two states with the highest rates of natural gas production, minimum “setback” distances are as small as 200 feet. Pennsylvania’s setback has been increased to 500 feet, but that only applies to newly constructed oil and gas wells. The findings of the study imply that “these setback distances may not be big enough to protect population health and specifically mental health,” Willis said.

Living near oil and gas operations, including fracking wells, is linked to stress and depression in people who are planning pregnancies, according to a new study. Previous research has found that living near oil and gas operations is linked to physical and mental health problems during and after pregnancy including preterm birth, birth defects, low birth weights and increased stress. However, little research exists on the effects of preconception mental health. Some studies suggest that poor mental health during this time period is associated with increased odds of pregnancy complications. The new study, conducted by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health and published in the American Journal of Public Health, is the first to investigate how living near oil and gas operations affects mental health in people who are hoping to become pregnant. “There are around 29 studies to date on associations between residential proximity to oil and gas development and adverse birth outcomes,” Mary D. Willis, lead author of the study and assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told EHN. “That body of work is very focused on the long-term health of infants, which is important, but this work adds to that literature by centering the potentially pregnant person.” Willis and her colleagues looked at mental health survey data for 5,725 people, including residents across 37 U.S. states and Canadian provinces, who were planning to get pregnant. The study only included people with household incomes below $50,000 a year since they may not have the resources to move away from oil and gas operations if they wanted to. They found that people who lived within roughly six miles of active oil and gas development were more likely to report moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms than people living 12 to 31 miles away, and that higher levels of active oil and gas activity were linked to higher reported levels of depression. They also found that the closer people lived to oil and gas operations, the higher the intensity of their stress levels. While the study doesn’t prove that oil and gas operations cause stress and depression, researchers point to factors like changing economic and social dynamics and environmental degradation in communities with oil and gas development as factors that could impact mental health. “Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes,” Willis said. “If we’re concerned about healthy pregnancies, focusing on the period before pregnancy may be even more important, and that time-frame is under-studied,” she added. The study noted that many of the people in the study who reported elevated stress and depression symptoms lived further away from oil and gas operations than the minimum distance required in many states to protect people in homes, schools and healthcare facilities. “Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes.” - Mary D. Willis, Boston UniversityIn Pennsylvania and Texas, for example, the two states with the highest rates of natural gas production, minimum “setback” distances are as small as 200 feet. Pennsylvania’s setback has been increased to 500 feet, but that only applies to newly constructed oil and gas wells. The findings of the study imply that “these setback distances may not be big enough to protect population health and specifically mental health,” Willis said.



Living near oil and gas operations, including fracking wells, is linked to stress and depression in people who are planning pregnancies, according to a new study.

Previous research has found that living near oil and gas operations is linked to physical and mental health problems during and after pregnancy including preterm birth, birth defects, low birth weights and increased stress. However, little research exists on the effects of preconception mental health. Some studies suggest that poor mental health during this time period is associated with increased odds of pregnancy complications.

The new study, conducted by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health and published in the American Journal of Public Health, is the first to investigate how living near oil and gas operations affects mental health in people who are hoping to become pregnant.

“There are around 29 studies to date on associations between residential proximity to oil and gas development and adverse birth outcomes,” Mary D. Willis, lead author of the study and assistant professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told EHN. “That body of work is very focused on the long-term health of infants, which is important, but this work adds to that literature by centering the potentially pregnant person.”

Willis and her colleagues looked at mental health survey data for 5,725 people, including residents across 37 U.S. states and Canadian provinces, who were planning to get pregnant. The study only included people with household incomes below $50,000 a year since they may not have the resources to move away from oil and gas operations if they wanted to.

They found that people who lived within roughly six miles of active oil and gas development were more likely to report moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms than people living 12 to 31 miles away, and that higher levels of active oil and gas activity were linked to higher reported levels of depression. They also found that the closer people lived to oil and gas operations, the higher the intensity of their stress levels.

While the study doesn’t prove that oil and gas operations cause stress and depression, researchers point to factors like changing economic and social dynamics and environmental degradation in communities with oil and gas development as factors that could impact mental health.

“Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes,” Willis said.

“If we’re concerned about healthy pregnancies, focusing on the period before pregnancy may be even more important, and that time-frame is under-studied,” she added.

The study noted that many of the people in the study who reported elevated stress and depression symptoms lived further away from oil and gas operations than the minimum distance required in many states to protect people in homes, schools and healthcare facilities.

“Our findings lend credibility to the hypothesis that this industry, with its boom and bust cycles, brings economic, environmental and social hazards that lead to negative mental health outcomes.” - Mary D. Willis, Boston University

In Pennsylvania and Texas, for example, the two states with the highest rates of natural gas production, minimum “setback” distances are as small as 200 feet. Pennsylvania’s setback has been increased to 500 feet, but that only applies to newly constructed oil and gas wells.

The findings of the study imply that “these setback distances may not be big enough to protect population health and specifically mental health,” Willis said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Forty Years After the Bhopal Disaster, the Danger Still Remains

In many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. We must continue to fight for a future in which we all have the right to live in healthy environments.

Forty years ago this month, a Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, sprung a toxic gas leak, exposing half a million people to toxic fumes. Thousands of people lost their lives in the immediate aftermath, with the death toll climbing to more than 20,000 over the next two decades. Countless others, including children of survivors, continue to endure chronic health issues. In the United States, the events in Bhopal ignited a grassroots movement to expose and address the toxic chemicals in our water, air, and neighborhoods. In 1986, just two years after the disaster, this growing awareness led Congress to pass the first National Right to Know Act, which requires companies to publicly disclose their use of many toxic chemicals. In India, Bhopal victims have had a long struggle for justice. In 1989, survivors flew to a Union Carbide shareholders meeting in Houston to protest the inadequate compensation for the trauma they’d suffered. The settlement awarded each Bhopal victim was a mere $500—which a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, Union Carbide’s parent company, called “plenty good for an Indian.”  Union Carbide had the survivors arrested before they could enter the meeting. Meanwhile, their abandoned chemical factory was still leaking toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhoods and drinking water.  Nevertheless, Bhopal survivors never stopped fighting. They opened a free clinic to treat the intergenerational health effects caused by the disaster. They marched 500 miles between Bhopal and New Delhi. They staged hunger strikes. They created memorials to the disaster and established a museum to ensure that the horrors of their collective past are not forgotten.    The survivors even obtained an extradition order for Union Carbide’s former CEO, Warren Anderson, but the U.S. government never acted on that request. Forty years later, the factory in Bhopal has never been properly cleaned and is still leaking poison.  Unfortunately, the kinds of chemicals that flow through the veins of Bhopal survivors also flow through ours. The petrochemical industry has brought us together in a perverse solidarity, having chemically trespassed into places all over the world. According to one figure, Americans are exposed to dangerous chemical fires, leaks, and explosions about once every two days. In one dramatic example in early 2023, a rail tanker filled with vinyl chloride derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, forcing the evacuation of 2,000 residents.  Nearly all Americans now carry toxic substances known as PFAS in our bodies. These have been linked to cancer, liver and kidney disease, and immune dysfunction. And the continued burning of fossil fuels is killing millions of people each year around the world through air pollution.  Petrochemical and fossil fuel companies know they can only survive if they avoid liability for the damage they are doing to our health and the planet’s ecosystems. That’s why they are heavily invested in lobbying to prevent any such accountability. Polluting industries are certain to have strong allies in the coming Trump Administration, which plans to open even more land to fossil fuel production and, under the blueprint for conservative governance known as Project 2025, to slash environmental and public health regulations. But we can take inspiration from the people of Bhopal, whose fierce commitment to health and justice sparked a global movement. Earlier this month, on the fortieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, congressional allies of this movement including U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, introduced a resolution designating December 3 as National Chemical Disaster Awareness Day. “Chemical disasters are often the result of corporations cutting corners and prioritizing profits over safety,” said Merkley, who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. “These catastrophes cloud communities with toxic fumes, upending lives and threatening the health and property of those living and working close by.” He called for “stronger laws to prevent chemical disasters and keep our communities and workers safe.” This growing global alliance, which has been called the largest movement for environmental health and justice in history, is fighting for a future in which everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment. It’s a movement that unites us all. Because in many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service. Gary Cohen is the president of Health Care Without Harm and a long time member of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. Read more by Gary Cohen December 18, 2024 3:25 PM

Health
Chemicals
Pollution

Study Miscalculation Has Everyone Talking about Black Plastic Spatulas Again. Experts Are Still Concerned

The scientists behind a popular study on the health effects of flame retardants in black plastic cooking utensils and toys made a calculation error but still say their revised findings are alarming

Should you throw out your black plastic spatula? A recent study that reported alarming levels of several flame retardants in common black-colored plastic items (including cooking utensils, toys and hair products) had many people suddenly taking stock of their inky array of plastic kitchenware and considering wood or metal alternatives. And the reasons for the concern were understandable: the study’s findings, published in Chemosphere, highlighted potential health effects from exposure to the flame retardants, particularly decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE)—a chemical the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned in 2021 for its apparent links to cancer and reproductive, developmental and immunologic toxicity effects.But this week the study’s authors issued a correction that suggests exposure to decaBDE from the tested products isn’t as close to the EPA’s safety reference level as they initially thought. The decaBDE exposure they estimated from the screened products is still correct, but it’s one tenth of the reference dose. The study had miscalculated the comparison by an order of magnitude.The amount of flame retardants in such products is “not as harmful, with respect to the EPA guidance, as [the researchers] originally stated, although, with these chemicals, they may be harmful when you’re exposed to small amounts over a long period of time,” says Andrew Turner, a biogeochemist at the University of Plymouth in England, who wasn’t involved in the research and studies the disposal and recycling of plastic consumer goods. “It’s difficult to put numbers on these chemicals.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The study authors issued an apology for the mistake in which they maintained that the “calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper.”“Our results still show that when toxic additives are used in plastic, they can significantly contaminate products made with recycled content that do not require flame retardancy,” says Megan Liu, a co-author of the recent study and science and policy manager at Toxic-Free Future, an environmental health research and advocacy group. “The products found in this study to contain hazardous flame retardants included items with high exposure potential, such as things that touch our food, as well as toys, which come in contact with kids.”Why might some black plastics contain flame retardants? Flame retardants are required in certain products (often including computers, TVs and other common electronic items) to meet fire safety regulations. To reduce the amount of e-waste and fossil fuels needed to make new plastics, some of these items are recycled into black plastics. But the problem is that “you could also recycle the flame retardants and other chemicals that are associated with that plastic,” says Stuart Harrad, an environmental chemist at the University of Birmingham in England, who wasn’t involved in the paper. “Now that’s fine to some degree, I suppose, if you’re only recycling the plastic into uses like TV sets, where you need to meet fire safety regulations. But the point is here is that that isn’t happening.”The new study’s main goal was to identify any flame retardant chemicals in various common products. The researchers screened 203 items, ranging from plastic sushi take-out trays to toy necklaces—and found 17 of them were contaminated with high levels of flame retardants. Fourteen of those products contained high levels of decaBDE.The U.S. has largely banned decaBDE and other polybrominated-diphenyl-ether-based flame retardants. New electronic goods use safer flame retardants, but older electronics that contain decaBDE could still be in many households or might have been only recently tossed out for recycling, Turner says. “When you talk about some electronic devices, they last quite a long time,” he adds. These older devices might only be reaching recycling plants now.The new study’s findings generally line up with past evidence that recycled plastics—and flame retardants—can end up in toys and cooking utensils, Harrad says. But it’s been unclear whether the mere presence of flame retardants in a cooking utensil pose any health threat to humans; there are many contributing factors, including the source, the dose, the duration of exposure and any other chemicals that may be present. In a 2018 study Harrad and his colleagues tested potential exposure from black plastic cooking utensils and found that uptake through the skin from simply holding them was negligible. But when they tested them in prolonged cooking experiments with hot oil, about 20 percent of the flame retardants in a utensil transferred into the oil on average. “That’s really because the oil, particularly hot oil, is going to be a pretty good way of extracting these chemicals,” Harrad says.How did the miscalculation occur?The authors of the new study estimated humans’ potential exposure to decaBDE from the plastic products by using the calculation in Harrad’s 2018 study. They applied this calculation to the median levels of decaBDE detected in the products they tested. This wound up being an estimated 34,700 nanograms per day of decaBDE. They then compared that figure with the EPA’s reference dose of 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day. (Some researchers note that this measurement was derived from lab tests and animal models, not direct human testing). To better assess human risk, the scientists calculated a reference dose based on a 60-kg (132-pound) person and initially found 42,000 ng per day, a value alarmingly close to the 34,700 ng per day of exposure they estimated from the new data. But 7,000 multiplied by 60 is actually 420,000. This may have been a simple math error, but the correction massively reduces how close the amount of exposure is to the maximum acceptable limit.The figure with the miscalculation was “contextualizing the levels that we saw in our study, thinking that it could be helpful for people,” Liu says. “This was really just one part of our study that isn’t even part of our key findings.”She and her co-authors have emphasized that the error shouldn’t detract from one of the study’s main conclusions: that none of these flame-retardant chemicals, especially those that have been banned, should be found, in any amount, in these products in the first place.“They're probably banging their head in frustration when they found out they made that calculation error,” Harrad says, adding that the rest of their findings “were perfectly plausible.”“The study does highlight the fact that we’ve not sorted this out yet—that we’re still finding these chemicals coming through into new goods that contain recycled plastics,” Harrad says. “We do need to step up our efforts to isolate these chemicals from waste and make sure that they don't get recycled.”So should you really ditch your black plastic spatula? Harrad says you should avoid leaving it in a hot pan or pot for long periods of time. Some experts don’t recommend reheating food in black plastic containers, although studies haven’t confirmed if this causes chemicals to leach into food. Importantly, “if you see that your black utensil is damaged in any way, just [get rid of it] and go for something else,” Turner says—pieces of the plastic could potentially break off into food.When looking for new cooking ware, Turner says that it’d be more sustainable, and potentially safer, to reduce the use of black plastic items and opt for a material or color that’s more easily recyclable. Liu says wood, stainless steel or silicone products are some safer alternatives. She adds, however, that people can’t “shop” their way out of a larger societal issue. “We can’t expect that everyone can immediately switch over to safer alternatives,” Liu says. “That’s ultimately why we’ve been calling on greater regulatory action at both the corporate and government level to regulate and restrict these harmful chemicals.”

Health
Animals
Food

Computer Modeling Shows Carcinogen From Goodyear Plant Is Invading Niagara Falls Neighborhoods

This story was originally published by Public Health Watch and WBFO. Recent computer modeling shows that the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s chemical plant in Niagara Falls, New York, is releasing a bladder carcinogen into nearby neighborhoods at levels up to seven times the state’s safety guideline. The modeling, done by the New York State Department […]

The modeling, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, shows that levels of ortho-toluidine in some areas are seven times the state’s safety guideline.By Jim Morris and Emyle WatkinsThis story was originally published by Public Health Watch and WBFO.

Health
Conservation

Microplastics may be leading to lung and colon cancer, study shows

New research published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology offers evidence that microplastics are harming human health.

When a car rolls down a freeway, a fine spray of microplastics spews out from its tires. When you wash your clothes, millions of tiny synthetic microfibers spill into waterways.And those tiny pieces of plastic may be harming our health, a new study shows.In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco evaluated dozens of studies in mice and humans to learn how microplastics may be harming digestive, respiratory and reproductive health. They found that these shards — which are now virtually everywhere in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat — are suspected of links to colon cancer and lung cancer.

Health
Science
Technology

Are Microplastics In the Air Putting Your Fertility At Risk?

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Microscopic plastic particles in the air could be contributing to...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Microscopic plastic particles in the air could be contributing to a wide variety of health problems, including lung and colon cancers.Tires and degrading garbage shed tiny pieces of plastic which become airborne, creating a form of air pollution that’s not very well understood, a new review says.“These microplastics are basically particulate matter air pollution, and we know this type of air pollution is harmful,” said researcher Tracey Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.Microplastics are less than 5 millimeters in size, smaller than a grain of rice, researchers said in background notes.Companies around the world produce nearly 460 million tons of plastic each year, and that’s projected to increase to 1.1 billion tons by 2050, researchers said.A major source of airborne plastic is driving, researchers noted. Tires wear down as they rub against the road surface, sending microplastics into the air.For the review, published Dec. 18 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, researchers analyzed data gathered on about 3,000 prior studies.The results showed that airborne microplastics can contribute to cancer, lung problems and infertility.Most of the studies in the review used animals, but researchers said the conclusions likely also apply to humans.“We urge regulatory agencies and policy leaders to consider the growing evidence of health harms from microplastics, including colon and lung cancer,” lead researcher Nicholas Chartres, a senior research fellow with the University of Sydney, said in a UCSF news release. “We hope state leaders will take immediate action to prevent further exposures.”SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco, news release, Dec. 18, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health
Animals
Science

Suggested Viewing

Again, Together - The Cumulative Impact of Environmental Racism in Houston

"Again, Together" is a film created in partnership with Ronald L. Jones, bringing stories from communities across Houston that have been impacted by environmental racism — namely redlining, segregation, underinvestment, exposure to pollution, gentrification, inequitable disaster recovery resources and freeway development.

Social Justice
Pollution
Health

Ground Operations: Battlefields to Farmfields

Combat veterans from the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan find a new mission and personal healing with new careers as organic farmers and ranchers.

Health
Agriculture
Government

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals
Science
Health

Sprayed

An exploration of what happens when whole communities get exposed to toxins: Naled sprayed on Miami residents to fight Zika virus, Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietcong, and release of GMO mosquitoes in Brazil with pyriproxyfen added to drinking water to fight dengue. What are the results for nature and humanity? We meet Agent Orange survivors at Vietnamese detoxification and rehabilitation centers, parents of babies born with microcephaly from Zika virus, and Florida residents dealing with efforts to kill mosquitoes carrying Zika virus. Perspectives of doctors, scientists, and politicians are balanced with voices of ordinary citizens and victims to explore concerns about the potential impact on current and future generations.

Chemicals
Health
Science

Vanishing Springs

The Florida you know is a lie. In contrast to what Americans have been told, Florida’s magic is not found in the giant mouse, the rolling green golf courses, or in the beachside palaces. The beauty and uniqueness of Florida is under our feet - the aquifer. This pure, crystal clear water is the life blood of our state and without it, life as we know it in the sunshine state would not exist. This life sustaining force is only seen where it bubbles up to the surface through Florida’s collection of 1,000 springs. These springs were originally what drew society to this land. Wealthy tourists in the 1900’s flooded the Florida springs seeking medicinal cures from its pristine waters. As springs became a popular tourist destination, spring houses were built around these pools of water. When this development began, the springs began flowing less and some eventually stopped altogether. People assumed this was the natural order of this wonder and moved on. Theme parks, golf courses and resorts were erected to entice tourists to visit Florida, the natural beauty of the state soon faded out of our memory. The springs of Florida now silently suffer from the effects of continued development in Florida. The current strain we are placing on the fragile ecosystem is choking the life out of our state. Overdevelopment is one of the leading forces that is damaging the springs. The once pure sources of water no longer boil up like a fountain the way they have for centuries. The water that the springs do produce is polluted by nitrates. This pollution fuels the growth of toxic algae blooms, which are taking over springs and the rivers they feed, thus putting our health at risk. Over 90% of our drinking water gushes out of these sapphire pools. These glorious reservoirs have begun to shrink. If something is not done soon, the springs will simply become part of Florida history. In southern Florida they already have. Springs once bubbled up all across the state. They were wiped out in South Florida decades ago by the ditching and draining of the landscape as well as over-pumping of the aquifer. This water was then sprayed on suburban lawns and farmers' fields, run through showers and flushed down toilets, turned into steam to crank turbines for electricity, or siphoned into plastic bottles for sale around the country. Because of poor use and neglect of our greatest resource, we will soon be without this supply of fresh water. Floridians regard their water supply as abundant and cheap, when the fact is it's neither. Until this attitude changes, the springs will not be rescued.

Water
Conservation
Health

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.