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.

What Bird Flu in Wastewater Means for California and Beyond

News Feed
Friday, November 15, 2024

Since the first avian influenza outbreaks hit the U.S. early this year, health and agriculture experts have struggled to track the virus’s spotty path as it spreads in dairy cow herds and an unknown number of humans. Infection risk still seems low for most people, but dairy workers and others directly exposed to cows have been getting sick. Canada’s first human case was just reported, in a teenager who is in critical condition. To get a better handle on the unsettling situation, scientists are picking up a pathogen-hunting tool that’s been powerful in the past: wastewater surveillance.In the past couple of weeks, wastewater samples in several locations mostly scattered around California—including the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose—tested positive for genetic material from the bird flu virus, H5N1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Wastewater Surveillance System reported detections at 14 sites in California during a collection period that ended on November 2. As of November 13, across the U.S., 15 sites monitored by WastewaterSCAN, a project run by Stanford University and Emory University researchers, reported positive samples this month. But finding H5N1 material in wastewater doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a risk to human health, says WastewaterSCAN’s co-director Alexandria Boehm, a civil and environmental engineer at Stanford University.Analyzing trace amounts of viral genetic material, often shed by fecal matter in sewers, can alert scientists and public health experts to a possible increase in community infections. Wastewater sampling became instrumental in forecasting COVID cases across the U.S., for instance. But the way H5N1 affects both animal and human populations complicates identifying sources and understanding disease risk. H5N1 can be deadly in poultry. Cattle usually recover from symptoms—such as fever, dehydration and reduced milk production—but veterinarians and farmers are reporting that cows have been dying at higher rates in California than in other affected states. Cats that drink raw milk from infected cows can develop deadly neurological symptoms. The current cases in humans haven’t caused any known deaths (most people have flulike symptoms, although some develop eye infections), but past major outbreaks outside of the U.S. have resulted in fatalities.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.Scientific American spoke with Boehm about the latest bird flu detections in wastewater and the ways that scientists are using these data to better track and understand disease prevalence and exposure—among animals and humans both.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]When did WastewaterSCAN start tracking H5N1?We noticed something very unusual in Amarillo, Tex. [In the spring of 2024,] after flu season, we saw really high levels of influenza A [one of the four flu virus types that infect humans] RNA nucleic acids in their wastewater. This was surprising because we know influenza A in wastewater tracks with cases in the community—but there were not very many cases in the community, and it was after flu season. We also then heard on the news that they had discovered cattle infected with avian influenza in the same area in Texas. So we worked in collaboration with the local wastewater treatment plants and public health officers to test the wastewater. And we found that, indeed, it was H5 [a subtype of avian influenza A virus] in their waste stream. We determined that most of that H5 was coming from legal discharges into the sanitary sewer from milk processing plants.Then when we scaled the H5 assay across the country, we were finding it in locations where, shortly thereafter, cattle were being identified as being infected [with the virus]. In June the CDC actually sent memos to the states asking them to try to measure H5 in wastewater, recognizing that the measurements can help to understand the extent and duration of the outbreak in the U.S.Has wastewater analysis been able to trace cases to any sources?We can’t always rule out that it’s wild birds or poultry or humans, but overall the preponderance of evidence suggests most of the inputs are likely from cow milk. That cow milk is getting into consumer homes, where people are disposing of it down the drain. I’m sure you have poured out milk down your sink—I know I have. It’s also coming from permitted operations where people are making cheese or yogurt or ice cream, and they might be starting with a milk product that has the avian influenza nucleic acids in it.I want to stress that the milk in people’s homes that might have the avian influenza RNA is not infectious or a threat to human health. It’s just a marker that some milk got into the food chain that originally had the virus in it. It’s killed because milk products are pasteurized—and that’s, by the way, why drinking raw milk or eating raw cheeses right now is not really recommended. The RNA that makes up the genome of these viruses is extremely stable in wastewater. It’s even stable after pasteurization. So you pasteurize the raw milk, and the RNA is still present at about the same concentrations.Detecting it in the wastewater does not mean there’s a risk to human health. What it does mean is that there are still infected cattle that are around the vicinity, and work still needs to be done to identify those cattle and remove their products from the food chain, which is the goal of the officials that are in charge of that aspect of the outbreak.How might we be able to better determine where the viral genetic material is coming from and assess human infection rates?It is very difficult because genetically the virus is not different [between sources]. It’s not like we can say, “Oh, the one in humans is going to be like this, and so let’s look for that.” We’re working really closely with public health departments that are really proactive in sequencing positive influenza cases. If we do start seeing it in [more] people, we will likely know it because we’ll see differences in the wastewater.I don’t want to be alarmist because right now the risk of getting H5N1 is very minimal, and the symptoms are really mild. But I think one of the concerns is that the virus could mutate during this influenza season coming up. Somebody who’s infected with [seasonal influenza] could also get infected with H5N1, and then it could maybe create a new strain that could be more severe. We’re hoping that the wastewater data, along with all the other data that people and agencies are collecting, will together help figure out what’s going on and protect public health better.What are trends are you seeing in your surveillance right now?Most recently, California is just lighting up. A lot of the wastewater samples in California are coming back as positive, even in locations that are very urban—such as the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. The question is: Why? In some of these locations, there actually are small operations where people are making dairy products with milk. But another explanation, like I mentioned earlier, is just the wasting of milk products.How do H5N1 levels in wastewater correlate to infections in animals?We’re sort of seeing it as an early indicator, or concurrent indicator, of cattle in the vicinity being infected with avian influenza. The first detections were in Texas, and we saw a lot of detections in Michigan for a while, and now the hot spot is California. As scientists, we’re going to analyze all this in the future. But anecdotally, the H5 detections in wastewater are following along with when herds are identified, and then once it’s sort of under control, we stop seeing it.Public health officials are using the data to say, “Okay, we got a positive in this location. What are the different sources that could account for it? Have we tested all the cattle that are contributing milk products to industries in this sewer shed? Have we gotten rid of all the infected herds in our state, because now we’re not getting any positives in the wastewater?”How else are scientists and officials staying on top of cases and spread?The [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and different entities around the country are pursuing it from an animal health perspective and a food safety perspective. So there is testing of cattle herds and milk products. There’s also testing of poultry, and then there’s testing of workers that are in contact with infected herds and infected poultry. On the clinical side, there is a push to get influenza-positive samples sequenced to understand what kind of influenza it is, as sort of a safety net to see if there might be some avian influenza circulating in people. So far, cases have been in people who are actually exposed to infected animals, who are working on farms, and perhaps in some of their family members.How has tracking H5N1 been different from or similar to COVID or other pathogens?All the other pathogens that we track have been conceptually similar to COVID, where humans are the source [of pathogenic material in wastewater]. We know that the occurrence of the viral or fungal material in wastewater match the cases. Bird flu is the first example where we’re using wastewater to track something that is primarily not, at least right now, from a human source but has potential human health implications for different reasons. It’s been a really great case study of how wastewater can be used not only for tracking human illness but also zoonotic pathogens—pathogens that affect animals. So now we’re thinking about what else wastewater could be used for. What other kinds of animal byproducts end up in the waste stream that might contain biomarkers of infectious disease? H5 is our first example, and I’m sure there will be more.

Wastewater in several Californian cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, recently tested positive for bird flu. But understanding disease risk and exposure to humans isn’t so straightforward

Since the first avian influenza outbreaks hit the U.S. early this year, health and agriculture experts have struggled to track the virus’s spotty path as it spreads in dairy cow herds and an unknown number of humans. Infection risk still seems low for most people, but dairy workers and others directly exposed to cows have been getting sick. Canada’s first human case was just reported, in a teenager who is in critical condition. To get a better handle on the unsettling situation, scientists are picking up a pathogen-hunting tool that’s been powerful in the past: wastewater surveillance.

In the past couple of weeks, wastewater samples in several locations mostly scattered around California—including the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose—tested positive for genetic material from the bird flu virus, H5N1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Wastewater Surveillance System reported detections at 14 sites in California during a collection period that ended on November 2. As of November 13, across the U.S., 15 sites monitored by WastewaterSCAN, a project run by Stanford University and Emory University researchers, reported positive samples this month. But finding H5N1 material in wastewater doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a risk to human health, says WastewaterSCAN’s co-director Alexandria Boehm, a civil and environmental engineer at Stanford University.

Analyzing trace amounts of viral genetic material, often shed by fecal matter in sewers, can alert scientists and public health experts to a possible increase in community infections. Wastewater sampling became instrumental in forecasting COVID cases across the U.S., for instance. But the way H5N1 affects both animal and human populations complicates identifying sources and understanding disease risk. H5N1 can be deadly in poultry. Cattle usually recover from symptoms—such as fever, dehydration and reduced milk production—but veterinarians and farmers are reporting that cows have been dying at higher rates in California than in other affected states. Cats that drink raw milk from infected cows can develop deadly neurological symptoms. The current cases in humans haven’t caused any known deaths (most people have flulike symptoms, although some develop eye infections), but past major outbreaks outside of the U.S. have resulted in fatalities.


On supporting science journalism

If 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.


Scientific American spoke with Boehm about the latest bird flu detections in wastewater and the ways that scientists are using these data to better track and understand disease prevalence and exposure—among animals and humans both.

Cropped section of a U.S. map highlights about a dozen cities in California with labels and dots colored in various shades of red.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

When did WastewaterSCAN start tracking H5N1?

We noticed something very unusual in Amarillo, Tex. [In the spring of 2024,] after flu season, we saw really high levels of influenza A [one of the four flu virus types that infect humans] RNA nucleic acids in their wastewater. This was surprising because we know influenza A in wastewater tracks with cases in the community—but there were not very many cases in the community, and it was after flu season. We also then heard on the news that they had discovered cattle infected with avian influenza in the same area in Texas. So we worked in collaboration with the local wastewater treatment plants and public health officers to test the wastewater. And we found that, indeed, it was H5 [a subtype of avian influenza A virus] in their waste stream. We determined that most of that H5 was coming from legal discharges into the sanitary sewer from milk processing plants.

Then when we scaled the H5 assay across the country, we were finding it in locations where, shortly thereafter, cattle were being identified as being infected [with the virus]. In June the CDC actually sent memos to the states asking them to try to measure H5 in wastewater, recognizing that the measurements can help to understand the extent and duration of the outbreak in the U.S.

Has wastewater analysis been able to trace cases to any sources?

We can’t always rule out that it’s wild birds or poultry or humans, but overall the preponderance of evidence suggests most of the inputs are likely from cow milk. That cow milk is getting into consumer homes, where people are disposing of it down the drain. I’m sure you have poured out milk down your sink—I know I have. It’s also coming from permitted operations where people are making cheese or yogurt or ice cream, and they might be starting with a milk product that has the avian influenza nucleic acids in it.

I want to stress that the milk in people’s homes that might have the avian influenza RNA is not infectious or a threat to human health. It’s just a marker that some milk got into the food chain that originally had the virus in it. It’s killed because milk products are pasteurized—and that’s, by the way, why drinking raw milk or eating raw cheeses right now is not really recommended. The RNA that makes up the genome of these viruses is extremely stable in wastewater. It’s even stable after pasteurization. So you pasteurize the raw milk, and the RNA is still present at about the same concentrations.

Detecting it in the wastewater does not mean there’s a risk to human health. What it does mean is that there are still infected cattle that are around the vicinity, and work still needs to be done to identify those cattle and remove their products from the food chain, which is the goal of the officials that are in charge of that aspect of the outbreak.

How might we be able to better determine where the viral genetic material is coming from and assess human infection rates?

It is very difficult because genetically the virus is not different [between sources]. It’s not like we can say, “Oh, the one in humans is going to be like this, and so let’s look for that.” We’re working really closely with public health departments that are really proactive in sequencing positive influenza cases. If we do start seeing it in [more] people, we will likely know it because we’ll see differences in the wastewater.

I don’t want to be alarmist because right now the risk of getting H5N1 is very minimal, and the symptoms are really mild. But I think one of the concerns is that the virus could mutate during this influenza season coming up. Somebody who’s infected with [seasonal influenza] could also get infected with H5N1, and then it could maybe create a new strain that could be more severe. We’re hoping that the wastewater data, along with all the other data that people and agencies are collecting, will together help figure out what’s going on and protect public health better.

What are trends are you seeing in your surveillance right now?

Most recently, California is just lighting up. A lot of the wastewater samples in California are coming back as positive, even in locations that are very urban—such as the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. The question is: Why? In some of these locations, there actually are small operations where people are making dairy products with milk. But another explanation, like I mentioned earlier, is just the wasting of milk products.

How do H5N1 levels in wastewater correlate to infections in animals?

We’re sort of seeing it as an early indicator, or concurrent indicator, of cattle in the vicinity being infected with avian influenza. The first detections were in Texas, and we saw a lot of detections in Michigan for a while, and now the hot spot is California. As scientists, we’re going to analyze all this in the future. But anecdotally, the H5 detections in wastewater are following along with when herds are identified, and then once it’s sort of under control, we stop seeing it.

Public health officials are using the data to say, “Okay, we got a positive in this location. What are the different sources that could account for it? Have we tested all the cattle that are contributing milk products to industries in this sewer shed? Have we gotten rid of all the infected herds in our state, because now we’re not getting any positives in the wastewater?”

How else are scientists and officials staying on top of cases and spread?

The [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and different entities around the country are pursuing it from an animal health perspective and a food safety perspective. So there is testing of cattle herds and milk products. There’s also testing of poultry, and then there’s testing of workers that are in contact with infected herds and infected poultry. On the clinical side, there is a push to get influenza-positive samples sequenced to understand what kind of influenza it is, as sort of a safety net to see if there might be some avian influenza circulating in people. So far, cases have been in people who are actually exposed to infected animals, who are working on farms, and perhaps in some of their family members.

How has tracking H5N1 been different from or similar to COVID or other pathogens?

All the other pathogens that we track have been conceptually similar to COVID, where humans are the source [of pathogenic material in wastewater]. We know that the occurrence of the viral or fungal material in wastewater match the cases. Bird flu is the first example where we’re using wastewater to track something that is primarily not, at least right now, from a human source but has potential human health implications for different reasons. It’s been a really great case study of how wastewater can be used not only for tracking human illness but also zoonotic pathogens—pathogens that affect animals. So now we’re thinking about what else wastewater could be used for. What other kinds of animal byproducts end up in the waste stream that might contain biomarkers of infectious disease? H5 is our first example, and I’m sure there will be more.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA to require municipal waste incinerators monitor for toxic emissions

New rule hailed as major step toward reining in source of local toxic air pollution that hits low-income neighborhoodsThe EPA plans to require the nation’s municipal waste incinerators to monitor for dangerous air emissions, a move environmental groups have hailed as a major step toward reining in a staggering source of localized toxic air pollution that most frequently hits low-income neighborhoods.Municipal incinerators’ stacks often spew hazardous pollutants like dioxins, particulate matter, PFAS, carbon monoxide, acid gases, or nitrogen oxides. The substances are linked to cancer, developmental disorders and other serious diseases, but still are burned with limited or patchwork oversight. Continue reading...

The EPA plans to require the nation’s municipal waste incinerators to monitor for dangerous air emissions, a move environmental groups have hailed as a major step toward reining in a staggering source of localized toxic air pollution that most frequently hits low-income neighborhoods.Municipal incinerators’ stacks often spew hazardous pollutants like dioxins, particulate matter, PFAS, carbon monoxide, acid gases, or nitrogen oxides. The substances are linked to cancer, developmental disorders and other serious diseases, but still are burned with limited or patchwork oversight.The new rule would require about 60 such facilities across the country to consider about 800 chemicals that are part of the federal toxic releases inventory. The data could be used to inform local residents about what’s being emitted, litigate, alert first responders, increase monitoring, or inform state and federal regulators on how to set new pollution limits.The EPA is “doing the right thing”, said Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network public health advocacy group. It co-led a citizens’ rulemaking petition signed by 300 environmental groups requesting the EPA take the step.“This industry is worse than landfilling, dirtier than coal burning, and disproportionately impacts people of color,” Ewall added.Municipal incinerators burn residential and commercial garbage as an alternative to landfilling. They are often prolific polluters and, public health groups say, under-regulated. The waste streams are filled with consumer goods and materials that contain PFAS that are not destroyed in the incineration process, or PVC that forms dioxins when burned.The controversial facilities have been at the center of numerous public health battles. In Detroit, a citizen lawsuit under the US Clean Air Act shut down the then-largest municipal incinerator, which for decades spewed high levels of carbon monoxide in a low income neighborhood near the city’s downtown.Despite the toxic emissions, incinerators often position themselves as “green” businesses to receive subsidies for producing energy. The new reporting requirements “will help disprove the claims”, said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of the public health advocacy group Peer, and a former EPA enforcement attorney.“A lot of people behind the scenes are applauding this because they know incinerators are greenwashing themselves as a clean energy source,” he added.The EPA did reject a portion of the petition that asked the EPA to monitor medical waste incineration and sewage sludge incineration at wastewater treatment facilities. Incineration of sewage sludge, a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process, is especially a problem because it is virtually always laden with PFAS. The agency said it does not have the staffing to monitor those, but left the door open to do it later.The EPA made the decision after receiving the rule-making petition led by Peer and the Environmental Justice Network. The agency rarely acts on such citizen petitions, but Whitehouse said the decision follows a previous EPA proposal to require monitoring.The proposal was never implemented, but the Biden EPA has reinvigorated the TRI, Whitehouse said. Environmental groups are “expecting fierce industry pushback” he added, and the measure’s proposal is uncertain with Trump taking over the EPA. But the EPA would be open to litigation if it does not implement the rules, Whitehouse said.“I’m not holding high hopes the Trump administration will rush to do this but we will hold its feet to the fire,” he added.

Wastewater treatment plants funnel PFAS into drinking water

Wastewater treatment plants in the US may discharge enough “forever chemicals” to raise concentrations in drinking water above the safe limit for millions of people

A wastewater treatment plant in CaliforniaJustin Sullivan/Getty Images Wastewater treatment facilities are a major source of PFAS contamination in drinking water in the US – they discharge enough of the “forever chemicals” to raise concentrations above safe levels for an estimated 15 million people or more. They can also release long-lasting prescription drugs into the water supply. Even though these plants clean wastewater, they do not destroy all the contaminants added upstream – and the chemicals that remain behind are released back into the same waterways that supply drinking water. “It’s a funnel into the environment,” says Bridger Ruyle at New York University. “You capture a bunch of things from a bunch of different places, and it’s all released in one place.” Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are of particular concern because they contain carbon-fluorine bonds, which make them extremely persistent in the environment. Regular exposure to several types of PFAS has been associated with increased risk for many health problems, from liver damage to various forms of cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently set strict limits in drinking water for six of the best-studied PFAS. Wastewater treatment facilities are a known source of PFAS contamination in the sewage sludge they produce as a by-product, which is sometimes used for fertiliser. To find out whether similar contamination remains in the treated water, Ruyle and his colleagues measured the concentration of PFAS and other molecules that contain carbon-fluorine bonds in wastewater at eight large treatment facilities around the US. Their findings suggest wastewater treatment plants across the US discharge tens of thousands of kilograms of fluorine-containing compounds into the environment each year, including a substantial amount of PFAS. Once treated wastewater is discharged from a facility, it mixes with natural waters in rivers and lakes. “That’s going to create a downstream drinking water problem,” says Ruyle. Applying these figures within a model of the US drinking water system, the researchers estimated wastewater could raise concentrations of PFAS above EPA limits in the drinking water of around 15 million people. During droughts, when there is less natural water to dilute the wastewater, the model suggests concentrations would rise above the limit for as many as 23 million people. And Ruyle says these may be conservative estimates – their model assumes the natural waters do not already contain PFAS. “It demonstrates that wastewater treatment plants are really important sources for these compounds,” says Carsten Prasse at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, who was not involved with the study. There are ways to remove or destroy PFAS in water, and more drinking water facilities are installing such systems, but currently, “our wastewater treatment plants are not set up to deal with this”, he says. Forever chemicals alone would be a problem, but the researchers also found PFAS made up only a small fraction of the total volume of fluorinated chemicals discharged from the facilities. Most were not PFAS at all, but other compounds used in common pharmaceuticals, such as statins and SSRIs. These pharmaceuticals are also of concern for ecosystems and people. “Another person could be drinking a cocktail of fluorinated prescription medication,” says Ruyle. However, he says the consequences of long-term exposure to low doses of such compounds aren’t well understood. “We need to start conversations about whether or not we should be using a lot of fluorine in pharmaceuticals,” says Ruyle. Fluorination is widely used in drugs to enhance their effect in the body, but “preventing widespread chemical contamination should also be important”, he says.

New York City now mandates composting. Next comes the hard part.

Municipal composting has made its official debut in the country’s largest city. In October, New York City rolled out a curbside organic waste collection program for all five boroughs, expanding the service that already existed in Brooklyn and Queens. Residents and property managers have until spring to order and…

Municipal composting has made its official debut in the country’s largest city. In October, New York City rolled out a curbside organic waste collection program for all five boroughs, expanding the service that already existed in Brooklyn and Queens. Residents and property managers have until spring to order and begin using dedicated composting bins, or building owners will be fined $25 to $300 for each offense. The Big Apple joins a growing number of cities, counties, and states that are implementing organic waste collection policies as part of the fight against climate change. Garbage is a potent but overlooked source of climate pollution. When organic waste — everything from food scraps to grass clippings — decays in landfills, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that can warm the planet as much as 80 times more than carbon dioxide within a 20-year period. Landfills are the third-largest source of methane emissions both in the U.S. and globally. But like other municipalities around the country, New York is now confronting the reality that translating composting policy into actual emissions reductions from landfills is a long and difficult process. The city first has to get composting bins to all its residents, an especially difficult task in crowded neighborhoods with large apartment buildings. And, although the city recently expanded a major composting facility on Staten Island, it doesn’t have enough infrastructure to process the new organic waste. Already, most of the waste from curbside compost bins is being sent to a wastewater treatment plant in Brooklyn where it’s turned into biogas, which critics have argued is neither cost-effective nor the best solution for the climate. Once green collection bins are in place, the city’s sanitation staff will still have to get 8 million people speaking hundreds of different languages on board with actually using them. “It’s a huge lift to change the behavior of millions of people,” said Justin Green, executive director of Big Reuse, a community-based environmental organization that has been composting in New York City since 2011. “There is still a lot of education that we need to do to get everyone aware and on board,” said Hillary Bosch, the outreach coordinator for the NYC Department of Sanitation, in a webinar recorded last year. ​“We are trying to get [information] in front of as many eyes as possible, but we know that it is a really, really tough task. We can’t be everywhere at once.” California’s struggles and successes New York has only to look to California for a primer on just how much effort it takes to get effective municipal compost programs up and running. In 2016, California passed a comprehensive compost law calling for a 75 percent reduction in 2014 levels of organic waste at landfills by 2025. Now, as that deadline arrives, the latest available data suggests that California is falling far short of that goal. A study released in June by CalRecycle, the state agency overseeing implementation of SB 1383, found that from 2014 to 2021, the annual amount of organic waste sent to landfills fell by only two million tons, from 21 million to 19 million. An updated study with data through 2024 will be released later in 2025. In San Francisco, where curbside organic waste has been collected since 1996, residents throw away about half as much trash per capita as the rest of the state. But about a third of what’s being thrown in the garbage is still food waste, according to data provided by city officials. SB 1383 required nearly all city and county governments to add organic waste collections to their existing trash and recycling services by 2022, with narrow exemptions for jurisdictions with low populations and those at high elevation where the food waste attracts bears. But outside California’s large cities and suburbs, many communities are still struggling to comply with this initial step. “We have rural areas that don’t even have trash service,” said Jared Carter, deputy public works director for Madera County, which stretches from north of the city of Fresno into the Sierra Nevada, encompassing a section of Yosemite National Park.

Removal of waste from site of 1984 Bhopal disaster dismissed as ‘farce’

Indian government accused of PR stunt after moving 337 tonnes of toxic waste that had been held in containersForty years after one of world’s deadliest industrial disasters struck the Indian city of Bhopal, a cleanup operation has finally begun to remove hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste from the site.However, local campaigners have accused the Indian government of greenwashing, arguing that the 337 tonnes of waste removed this week represents less than 1% of the more than 1m tonnes of hazardous materials left after the disaster and that the cleanup has done nothing to tackle chemical contamination of the area. Continue reading...

Forty years after one of world’s deadliest industrial disasters struck the Indian city of Bhopal, a cleanup operation has finally begun to remove hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste from the site.However, local campaigners have accused the Indian government of greenwashing, arguing that the 337 tonnes of waste removed this week represents less than 1% of the more than 1m tonnes of hazardous materials left after the disaster and that the cleanup has done nothing to tackle chemical contamination of the area.There have also been protests over fears that the incineration of the waste will only lead to further contamination and toxic exposure in other areas.At about midnight on 2 December 1984, the Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal exploded, releasing 40 tonnes of toxic methyl isocyanate and other lethal gases into the air.More than 3,000 people were killed in the immediate aftermath and at least 25,000 are estimated to have died overall.Local groups have claimed the true number is probably even higher due to the long-term effects of the poisonous gas, which include high rates of cancers, kidney and lung diseases. High numbers of babies have been stillborn or born with severe disabilities to gas-affected mothers in recent years.Despite the scale of the industrial disaster, a proper operation to remove all the toxic waste from Bhopal has never been carried out, either by the US company Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemicals, which was the majority owner of the factory at the time, or by the Indian government, which took back control of the land where the factory stood.Rights groups have accused the US corporations and the Indian government of attempting to play down the lasting impact of Bhopal’s untouched chemical debris.Official surveys submitted to the courts have shown that the contamination, which includes highly poisonous heavy metals and UN-banned organic pollutants, has spread to at least 42 areas in Bhopal. Testing near the site revealed levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the groundwater were 50 times higher than what is accepted as safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency.Lethal levels of toxic waste have also been found in factory pits and festering open ponds where the waste was being dumped by the Union Carbide factory prior to the explosion.For years, campaigners have been fighting for Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals to be held liable for the cost of the cleanup and safe removal of the waste, a process which is expected to cost upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars, but the US corporation has always denied liability, citing a 1989 settlement with the Indian government.In what was initially taken as progress, last month the Madhya Pradesh high court ordered authorities to finally take responsibility for the chemical waste, criticising the inertia of the past four decades and asking whether the government was “waiting for another tragedy”.However, the government has now removed 337 tonnes of overground waste that had already been put into containers and moved to a warehouse in 2005, which campaigners claim no longer posed any significant threat and was not contributing to the groundwater contamination.Rachna Dhingra, a coordinator of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, called the move a “farce and greenwashing publicity stunt to remove a tiny fraction of the least harmful waste” and questioned why Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals were not being held accountable.She said: “There’s still 1.1m tonnes of poisonous waste leaching into the ground every day that they refuse to deal with. We can see for ourselves the birth defects and chronic health conditions. All this does is take the heat off the government and lets the US corporations off the hook. It does nothing to help the people in Bhopal who for decades have been seen as expendable.”Dhingra was also highly critical of the government’s decision to take the removed waste to be incinerated at a plant 150 miles away in Pithampur that has previously failed tests on conducting such operations safely and exposed local people to high levels of toxins.The incineration, which is likely to take about six months, will create 900 tonnes of toxic residue, which will then be buried in landfills. The move has provoked large protests by people in Pithampur who are fearful of further toxic exposure and leakages into their groundwater from the waste.Swatantra Kumar Singh, the director of the state government’s Bhopal gas tragedy relief and rehabilitation department, denied there was any contamination risk to the local ecosystem and said the waste would be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.Many local people and human right groups consider the Bhopal disaster to be a continuing miscarriage of justice. The 1989 settlement led to most victims being given 25,000 rupees (about $500 at the time), while most of those who developed related conditions or died years later got nothing at all.None of the nine Indian officials who were convicted in 2010 over their roles in the disaster served any time in prison, and Dow Chemicals has maintained in the courts that it is not criminally liable for the actions of Union Carbide’s Indian subsidiary before it bought the parent company.Campaigners have accused the US government of blocking attempts to extradite Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals officials to face justice in India over failures that led to the explosion.

Troubled Chiquita Canyon Landfill will cease accepting trash in 2025

Texas-based Waste Connections Inc. has notified Los Angeles County that New Year's Eve would be Chiquita Canyon's final day for accepting solid waste.

Unable to extinguish a smoldering chemical reaction that sent noxious odors into area neighborhoods and triggered legal action by Los Angeles County, the owners of Chiquita Canyon Landfill announced Tuesday that they would shutter the 52-year-old municipal waste site on New Year’s Day.In a letter to California environmental regulators and public officials, a representative from Texas-based Waste Connections Inc. said that Dec. 31 was the final day it would accept solid waste at the 639-acre facility in the Santa Clarita Valley.“Chiquita had wished to maintain its crucial role in the community’s solid waste management system, but has made the difficult decision to close its active waste disposal operations,” wrote Steve Cassulo, the landfill’s manager. “Although Chiquita has available (capacity), due to the regulatory environment, maintaining ongoing operations at Chiquita is no longer economically viable.”For nearly two years, Chiquita Canyon had been struggling to handle the fallout from a rare chemical reaction that caused broiling temperatures to break out deep underground in a closed portion of the landfill. The extreme heat roasted decades-old garbage and damaged the landfill’s gas control systems, causing foul-smelling gases to drift into the nearby Val Verde and Castaic.The smoldering conditions also caused pressure to build, resulting in geysers of hazardous liquid waste bursting onto the surface and white smoke seeping out of long fissures. In recent months, Chiquita Canyon has faced increasing pressure from regulators, who placed restrictions on where waste could be placed within the landfill. Chiquita Canyon, Los Angeles County’s second-largest active landfill, typically accepted roughly 2 million tons of solid waste annually. That accounted for about one-third of all garbage disposed of in L.A. County. In a region that has long struggled with waste reduction efforts and waning disposal capacity, public officials are now examining how the closure will affect the flow of waste in Southern California. L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said public officials had anticipated Chiquita Canyon’s closure. The landfill had been accepting significantly less waste recently. L.A. County officials oversaw a diversion of this waste to Simi Valley and Antelope Valley landfills, Barger said. So far, there has not been an increase in tonnage sent to Sylmar’s Sunshine Canyon, which accepts the most waste annually. Barger said she would introduce a motion at the next Board of Supervisors meeting on Jan. 7, directing Public Works to conduct an assessment of Chiquita Canyon’s closure, including the environmental and financial implications associated with plans to send waste elsewhere. “I’m committed to ensuring that this transition doesn’t lead to any form of price gouging or unfair practices in waste management services,” Barger said. “Protections must be in place to prevent increased financial burdens on our residents and businesses. I want to emphasize that my top priority, though, continues to be bringing relief to the community that continues being afflicted by the landfill’s noxious odors.”L.A. County Public Works had previously expressed concerns about closing Chiquita Canyon. A decision to close Chiquita Canyon was not expected to resolve the chemical reaction, which was occurring in the long-dormant section of the landfill and could persist for years. The agency noted also that the closure could result in more pollution and higher fees due to transporting garbage farther.“As the agency responsible for regional waste planning in Los Angeles County, we will ensure there are no disruptions to trash collection services in our unincorporated communities and will work closely with the City of Santa Clarita to help prevent any disruptions to their services as well,” said Mark Pestrella, director of L.A. County Public Works. “The health and safety of our residents remains our top priority.”

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.