GoGreenNation news

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

News Feed

Monday, March 31, 2025

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.Follow Climate & environment“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

A new study found elevated and previously overlooked health risks for communities living near industrial polluters.

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.

Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.

Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.

Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.

Follow Climate & environment

“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.

“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”

Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.

The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.

Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.

By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.

For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.

The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.

“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.

The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.

Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.

“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Health impacts are likely being underestimated by traditional risk models used by regulators, according to a new study that has found a different way to measure the cumulative risk air pollution poses to health. The new method, which accounts for the ways numerous chemical exposures impact the entire body, found increased risks to people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from air pollution in a community near Philadelphia. Traditional methods found no increased health risks based on the same level of pollution exposure in that community.“I think this [is a] holistic approach,” Pete DeCarlo, study co-author and a Johns Hopkins University associate professor who studies atmospheric air pollution, told EHN. “The cumulative burdens across multiple health systems for every chemical that we measure is really, really important, because we breathe everything all at once.” Multiple chemical exposures impact multiple body partsThe study, conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Aerodyne Research Inc., a company that creates software and sensors for environmental research, differs from traditional risk models by accounting for simultaneous exposures to multiple chemicals and their potential impacts on multiple parts of the body. Traditional regulatory approaches to analyzing health impacts from air pollution consider each chemical individually, rather than cumulatively. Limits are set based on the level of daily exposure to a chemical over a lifetime that is unlikely to cause harm. A chemical may harm different parts of the body at different concentrations, so this method uses the lowest harm-inducing concentration to begin regulation and then assumes other parts of the body won’t be affected, according to Keeve Nachman, study co-author and professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University. “If we were exposed to one chemical at a time, that would be totally logical, right?” Nachman told EHN. “But the reality is that we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.” The research team created an expanded method that would be able to better account for exposures to multiple chemicals by adding together their impacts to all parts of the body, not just the most sensitive. The research team collected air samples from a mobile air monitor over a three-week period from communities along the Delaware River near Philadelphia that experience pollution from petrochemical refineries, municipal waste incinerators, and other industrial facilities. Using this data, they conducted a non-cancer risk analysis for 32 volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (while some of these chemicals can cause cancer, analyzing cancer risk requires a different process).“If we use the traditional approach to risk assessment, we don't find an elevated risk of any health endpoint in this community, nothing,” Nachman said. “So the result of using that risk assessment for making decisions would mean no change needed. We wouldn't need to intervene at all.” But using their revised method, the researchers found increased risk of damage to the people’s brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and hormonal systems from the same level of air pollution exposure, which they say should prompt regulators to think differently about how industrial sites are permitted and regulated in communities across the country. Empowering polluted communitiesHeather McTeer Toney, former EPA Region 4 administrator and executive director of the environmental group Beyond Petrochemicals said this study confirms the experience of those who have been impacted by the petrochemical industry in Texas, Louisiana, and Appalachia for decades.“We are validating what they have been saying, and that in and of itself is hope because it allows us to identify the problem,” Toney said. “And for so long people have been in and living in these spaces where people didn’t believe them.The cumulative impact of these chemicals is “not only devastating, but generationally crushing,” Toney said. “[This discovery] should be a part of the decision-making process when we are thinking about what plant [to permit], where it’s going to go, and why we even need it in the first place.”In an effort to make their research accessible and replicable, the researchers created a public database of the risk assessments for the chemicals they analyzed and plan to develop a tool to share in the future. DeCarlo and Nachman noted that the study has a few limitations, including the fact that they may not have a full picture of chemicals existing in the atmosphere and cannot accurately account for additional health stressors like poverty, social issues, or preexisting health conditions.“While we think this paints a much more complete picture than the current way of looking at things, we still know that there's more things to add,” DeCarlo said. “There's more things to measure, and that would likely mean more health burden, but we're doing what we can with the data that we have right now.”With the data they have right now, the research team believes they can make a positive impact.“It’s a challenging time for cumulative risk research, people experiencing cumulative risk, [and] environmental injustices, but don’t lose hope,” Nachman said, reflecting on the Trump administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections, industry regulations, and public health research. “Because I am confident that what we are helping contribute to…is a better set of methodologies that will account for these things, and that when that window opens back up for making smart policy that actually protects fenceline communities, we’re going to be ready with ways to do it.”Editor’s note: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Beyond Petrochemicals, and Environmental Health News receive funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Health

Pollution

Waste

Wildfire Survivors Still Struggle With Basic Needs and Support

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, April 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Three months after wildfires tore through Los Angeles, a new study...

SATURDAY, April 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Three months after wildfires tore through Los Angeles, a new study offers insight into the lasting needs of fire survivors. Researchers from UC Davis School of Medicine said their findings from earlier wildfires may help with support efforts in this and future disasters. They surveyed 2,208 households in the aftermath of a series of Northern California wildfires in 2017 and found that months later, 1,461 had major needs. The study identified four key areas in which survivors needed help: Physical needs: food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, internet access, gas, money and cell phone service Clean air: including access to air filters and masks Health: access to care, including mental health care) Information access: wildfire status, where to obtain shelter or supplies, the location and well-being of loved ones and navigating insurance paperwork “Understanding the community needs and impacts that arise during and after wildfires is crucial to identifying the timing, extent and types of assistance that are most needed during response and recovery efforts,” Kathryn Conlon, an associate professor in the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and senior author of the study, said in a news release.Physical needs were the most common, both right after the fires and months later. 1 in 2 households had these needs. Housing and financial help were among the most enduring problems. One in six households reported a health-related need months after the fires. More than 25% of respondents needed clean air or supplies like masks and filters immediately after the fires. People wanted updates during the fire but later had questions about environmental health. Mental health issues were especially common. Of the 177 households that mentioned health issues, most said they needed mental health support."Unaddressed mental health concerns can have a significant impact on a person’s health and well-being,” Conlon said in a news release. “Integrating support for mental health and health information should be part of any needs assessments during wildfires.”Conlon recommends tools like "psychological first aid" to help survivors process trauma in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. It emerged as an intervention in the early 2000s.“Respondents want to know the health impacts of urban wildfires and whether it is safe to return to the burn areas,” Conlon added. “When these fires burn, they are not just burning biomass. They are also burning everything in the home. And we don’t know all the health impacts. We still have so much to learn.”Study co-author Mira Miles noted how many survivors wanted to support their neighbors, showing a strong sense of community. “While this is a remarkable social phenomenon, it is important that we strive to meet community needs as best we can following a disaster,” she said.SOURCE: UC Davis Health, news release, April 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Food

Water

G' and his 'lovely girl': Gene Hackman penned poignant notes to wife amid Alzheimer's battle

The correspondence of Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa was humorous, sad, moving and mundane, offering a glimpse into the couple's private life.

Authorities recently released a new cache of records in the death investigation of Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa — including a series of heartfelt notes the couple left for each other, revealing the close-knit nature of their relationship even as Hackman’s health declined amid a battle with Alzheimer’s. The letters are at times humorous, sad, moving and mundane, offering a glimpse into the private and loving life the couple led before they were both found dead in their Santa Fe compound in February.The Oscar-winning actor affectionately signed most of the letters “Love G” and referred to Arakawa, his wife of 33 years, as “Lovely girl.” Included in the Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa death investigation are photos of letters the couple exchanged. (Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office) In some of the letters, he appeared to poke fun at his deteriorating memory.“I’m going down to that building out past the hot water place where you sit and do whatever it is that people are supposed to do in such a building — maybe I’ll remember once I get down there,” he wrote, signing the letter “love whats his name.” In another letter, he wrote a joking poem that may have referred to a medical visit, saying, “I’m off to see the wizard, the wizard of achie pokie. She stabs me here, she stabs me there, she stabs me almost everywhere.”“But I’ll survive, because after I am still alive,” the note continues. “(But sometimes just barely) Love G.”Hackman, 95, relied on Arakawa, 65, as his sole caregiver during his later years in life. Other evidence photographed around the home showed her detailed notes on the doses and timing of Hackman’s medications as well as the records she kept of his medical appointments in her calendar.In one letter, Hackman wished Arakawa “happy several days after your birthday” and wrote “sorry still about the dinner and having to ask for your help although it was appreciated.” Letters revealed in the investigation are humorous sad and often mundane. (Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office) Arakawa, too, left written notes for Hackman around the home, reminding him of where she was going and what she was doing.In one letter, she wrote that she was taking their dog Zin to obedience class and that she had left him a jigsaw puzzle on the table. Another letter taped to the wall simply read, “yoga 12:30 p.m.”Arakawa died around Feb. 11 of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare and often fatal respiratory illness spread by rodents, according to the New Mexico medical investigator’s office. In an environmental assessment, investigators found rodent feces, dead rodents and nests in structures on their property; however, there was no evidence of rodents found in their main home.Hackman died several days later of complications of advanced Alzheimer’s disease, kidney disease and heart disease, according to the medical investigator. Authorities believe he may have wandered the house for several days unaware of Arakawa’s death and unable to get help due to the advanced state of his disease. One of the couple’s three dogs, an Australian kelpie mix named Zinna, was found dead in a crate in their home when the couple were discovered on Feb. 26. A necropsy revealed that Zinna died of dehydration and starvation due to being confined. The other two dogs, who were able to roam the property, were found alive and taken into care. Recently released photos from the investigation showed that the couple displayed in their home dozens of agility ribbons won by their dogs.In addition to the new photos of the home and the letters, the Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office released body camera video, an environmental assessment and a full investigation report this week.A New Mexico state judge had temporarily blocked the release of any records from the death investigation at the request of the Hackman estate. On March 31, however, a judge ruled that records from the investigation could be unsealed as long as they did not clearly show the couple’s bodies.

Health

Nature

Water

RFK Jr. Says There Are No Autistic Poets. We Asked an Autistic Poet.

To Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—and contrary to medical consensus and decades of study—autism is an appalling, family-destroying “disease.” To pediatric psychiatrists and autism experts like Vanderbilt University’s Zachary Warren, speaking Wednesday to National Public Radio, autism “isn’t a single thing; it is a word we use in an attempt to capture a spectrum of behavioral strengths, differences, and vulnerabilities.” During a startling recent press conference in which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to establish the “cause” of autism by September, the HHS secretary sparked further outrage—by, as my colleague Anna Merlan reported yesterday, saying the following: “These are kids who will never pay taxes,” Kennedy declared. “They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children.” Kennedy’s years of anti-vaccine activism have centered in large part on autism, framing it as a “preventable disease” and epidemic driven by environmental contaminants. A lawyer by training, with no medical background beyond freelance taxidermy, Kennedy has consistently peddled misinformation about autism and autistic people, presenting the condition as a vaccine-driven scourge. Increasingly, Kennedy has papered over some of the most problematic elements of his crusade—and licensed himself to ignore opposition and criticism from autistic people—by insisting that he’s referring to “profound” autism, or autism with high support needs. It’s a distinction that he’s happy to deploy when it serves his case and to gloss over when promising to end autism once and for all; and, by definition, it excludes his autistic critics from the conversation. A crucial slogan of the disability rights movement is “Nothing about us without us”—so it seemed appropriate to get the reaction of an autistic poet. I spoke with Elizabeth McClellan, an award-winning poet, attorney, and legal educator based in Memphis, Tennessee. Could you tell me about yourself and your work as a poet? I have been publishing poetry professionally since 2009, on and off. I primarily do genre poetry, which is poetry that falls sort of in the speculative fiction, science fiction, fantasy, [and] horror spaces. I have a book of horror poetry that will be coming soon from Kith Books that’s found poetry from Stephen Graham Jones’ My Heart Is a Chainsaw. Poetry doesn’t generally pay for itself, most poets are not just poets. That’s why I supplement it with my work as an attorney. So you’re living evidence that someone can be both autistic and a poet. I am not only living evidence that someone can be autistic and a poet, I will challenge RFK Jr. to write a poem as good as me any day of the week, because I don’t think he can do it. “He’s trying to eradicate support, especially with education, that could help people live the kind of lives where they do get to write poetry.” What was your reaction to Kennedy saying that an increase in autism diagnoses is bad in part because autistic people can’t “write a poem”—not that there’s anything wrong in more people getting diagnosed. It’s completely dehumanizing. He didn’t lead with poet. He led with they’ll never pay taxes, they’ll never have a job. It’s just “useless eaters” rhetoric. And then he fluffs it up with, they’re they’ll never have a poem. They’ll never play baseball. Some people won’t, some people have higher support needs. They are still people. They have a right to live and a right to dignity. And that’s not what he wants for us. He is using the straight-up eugenicist playbook. People who can’t go to the toilet by themselves are still people. People who can’t write a poem are still people. I doubt [RFK Jr.] can write a poem, but he’s still a person. You can’t eradicate autism without eradicating autistic people. It’s genocidal rhetoric against us that’s justified by “autism destroys families. It destroys children.” No, it doesn’t. It’s bias against autistic people. He is taking an axe to the Department of Health and Human Services, [which] means that a lot of autistic people are not going to have the support that they need to thrive and survive. Now, I’ve had support to thrive and survive. I don’t need a whole lot of support to do what I do, but I need it, and I probably would have had a less miserable childhood if the diagnosis were more available. [RFK Jr.] falls into using language like Asperger’s, which, of course, was the distinction that was used to decide who would die and who would work under the Nazis. “What does he do? He chainsaws the heads off dead whales and leaves bear cubs in Central Park.” There are many autistic poets. There’s already a call for a special issue of poetry by autistic poets that will pay the poets just to do an autistic resistance. There are poets writing short poems just to help all of us recover from this person with a great deal of power saying our lives are worth nothing. He’s trying to eradicate support, especially with education, that could help people live the kind of lives where they do get to write poetry. With poetry, you have to be creative. RFK Jr’s hatred towards autistic people seems to be the opposite of that. He’s the antithesis of creativity. I’ve never seen his book of collected poems. Who are you to tell us that we can’t write poetry? When you don’t write poetry, that’s not a thing that you do. You’re not a poet. You don’t get to tell us who gets to be poets. I know so many autistic poets. I know so many poets with various kinds of neurodivergence and that adds to the way that we see the world in our unique way, and that adds to our unique voice as poets. Allistic people can write poetry too, but we have a different way of seeing the world, and that inspired some of us to take up this particular art form. Others of us paint. What does he do? He chainsaws the heads off dead whales and leaves bear cubs in Central Park. And I don’t think it’s performance art. I think it’s just that he’s creepy. What has he ever really done, other than have a last name? What this is all really about is capitalism. “Oh, they’ll never go to the toilet by themselves. That’s a miserable existence.” Plenty of people need assistance going to the bathroom—whose lives are rich and full, who will write poems, who will paint pictures, who will do things, and he doesn’t actually care whether we’re creative or not. He doesn’t actually care whether we’re writing poetry or not. It’s just the same old rhetoric over and over again that we get from eugenicists This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Health

Activism

Science

New Endangered Species Rule Would No Longer Count Habitat Loss as 'Harm'

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, April 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is proposing a major change to the Endangered...

THURSDAY, April 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The Trump administration is proposing a major change to the Endangered Species Act that would no longer deem habitat destruction a harm to at-risk animals and plants.Federal officials say this change would reduce an unnecessary regulatory burden, while scientists and conservation groups warn it could threaten endangered species across the U.S., The Washington Post reported.The new rule would change how "harm" is defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harm now includes damaging the places where species live. Under the new rule, only actions that directly hurt or kill an animal — such as hunting or trapping — would count.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the proposed rule Wednesday.Officials said this reflects “the single, best meaning” of the Endangered Species Act and “makes sense in light of the well established, centuries-old understanding," The Post said.Environmental groups say the move could allow more logging, drilling and construction in areas that species need to survive.“It upends how we've been protecting endangered species for the last 40 years,” Noah Greenwald of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said.In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the broader definition of harm when it blocked logging in forests that were home to the northern spotted owl and red-cockaded woodpeckers. Experts fear that changing this definition now could remove protections for species like prairie chickens, owls, lynx, panthers and turtles.Kristen Boyles, an attorney with the environmental law organization Earthjustice, said the idea that destroying habitat doesn’t count as harm is "nonsensical both legally and biologically."“What they're saying is, it would be okay for a developer to drain a pond where an endangered species of turtle or fish lived, and that wouldn't be harm,” Boyles said.Meanwhile, a representative of the oil and gas industry's key lobbying organization, welcomed the change.We look “forward to working with the administration on commonsense ESA policies that both protect wildlife and support American energy dominance," Scott Lauermann, spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The Post.Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said innovation, not regulation, is the key to saving wildlife. He pointed to new biotech that helped create three wolf pups that resemble the long-extinct dire wolf.“It’s time to fundamentally change how we think about species conservation,” Burgum wrote on X.SOURCE: The Washington Post, April 16, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Animals

Energy

Suggested Viewing

The Rulindo Challenge

In May 2010, Rulindo, Rwanda launched an ambitious plan to bring access to water and sanitation services to the entire district population. This film explores the story, challenges and ultimate success for reaching over 330,000 people with safe water in the rural and mountainous Rulindo District, and how this project is inspiring sustainable water (infrastructure and sanitation) models around the world.

Sustainable

Business

Health

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals

Social Justice

Health

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

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals

Science

Health

Riding Bikes with the Dutch

Michael Bauch, a Long Beach resident and independent filmmaker, noticed that many of his local errands involved short rides which were less than three miles. In the summer of 2007 he and his family went to Amsterdam, to document the biking and walking culture that is so natural to the Dutch people. The film suggests that we in the U.S. re-examine our view of bicycles.

Transportation

Culture

Health

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

Related News

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Wildfire Survivors Still Struggle With Basic Needs and Support

G' and his 'lovely girl': Gene Hackman penned poignant notes to wife amid Alzheimer's battle

RFK Jr. Says There Are No Autistic Poets. We Asked an Autistic Poet.

New Endangered Species Rule Would No Longer Count Habitat Loss as 'Harm'

Suggested Viewing

The Rulindo Challenge

Lead in the Land

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

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Riding Bikes with the Dutch

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

Related News

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Wildfire Survivors Still Struggle With Basic Needs and Support

G' and his 'lovely girl': Gene Hackman penned poignant notes to wife amid Alzheimer's battle

RFK Jr. Says There Are No Autistic Poets. We Asked an Autistic Poet.

New Endangered Species Rule Would No Longer Count Habitat Loss as 'Harm'

Suggested Viewing

The Rulindo Challenge

Lead in the Land

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

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Riding Bikes with the Dutch

Join us to forgea sustainable future

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

Join us to forge
a sustainable future