Newsweek

Fighting Fire With Cancer

Fluorinate­d chemicals used by firefighte­rs are showing up in our blood, which is setting off alarms

- BY DOUGLAS MAIN @Douglas_main

LIKE THOSE of many locals, the lives of the Amico family of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, were inextricab­ly linked with Pease Internatio­nal Tradeport, a large office park built in the early 1990s on the site of what used to be a military installati­on. Pease Air Force Base, active from the 1950s until 1991, used large quantities of chemicals called highly fluorinate­d compounds to fight fires and in practice drills. These chemicals are very similar to nonstick materials like Teflon, and an emerging body of research shows that they present serious health risks. They harm the immune system and brain, are linked to cancer and obesity, and disrupt the normal activity of bodily hormones.

These chemicals basically never break down, and once they get into the environmen­t, they accumulate. And that’s what happened at Pease. The chemicals seeped into the groundwate­r and remained there.

Andrea Amico’s husband starting working at an office on the site in 2007. Four years later, the couple’s first child, a girl, started day care at a newly built, well-regarded facility within the office park at the age of 12 weeks. They had a son, and he too went to day care, beginning in 2013.

In May 2014, a test revealed significan­t levels of perfluoroo­ctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in the site’s main well. The concentrat­ions exceeded those allowed by a “provisiona­l health advisory set by the U.S. Environmen­tal Protection Agency [EPA],” so “the well was immediatel­y shut down by the city of Portsmouth,” according to a release from the city at the time. The contaminan­t was also found in the other two wells on the property but at levels below those specified in the advisory.

Since then, the U.S. Air Force, working with the EPA and New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, has begun to clean up the contaminat­ion, and the well is still off-line. The agency is working to install carbon filtration to remove the contaminan­ts, Amico says.

The Air Force enlisted the services of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal agency that deals with minimizing health risks from hazardous chemicals. This group has tested blood levels of various fluorinate­d chemicals among people who worked or spent time at Pease Internatio­nal prior to May 2014.

Tests revealed that Amico’s daughter had blood levels of PFOS and perfluoroo­ctanoic acid (PFOA) at three times higher than the national average, her mother says. For perfluoroh­exane sulfonic acid, the level was 11 times the national average. The Pease community in general had higher average levels of all three of these chemicals in their blood.

Although Amico’s children seem fine now, she can’t help but worry. “There’s limited research on health effects, [especially in] children,” she says. Her daughter was exposed starting at the

age of 12 weeks, and the half-life—i.e., the time it takes for 50 percent of the substance to be eliminated—of some of these chemicals is more than seven years. “She’s going to be a teenager before half of the chemicals are out. That’s alarming to me. As a parent, I’m concerned about what this means for the long-term health of my children.”

Federal and state agencies and the Air Force have been working with the community, but Amico says residents still have many questions. A large part of that is due to the lack of research on the possible effects on health.

The Air Force has identified 200 current and former bases where fluorinate­d compounds may have been released, and it tests for their presence in groundwate­r and drinking water. “Where we are a contributo­r, we will take appropriat­e action to address drinking water contaminat­ion,” says Laura Mcandrews, a spokeswoma­n for the Air Force.

A new group of studies published this summer fills in a few gaps in scientists’ knowledge.

In one study, published in June in Environmen­tal Science and Technology Letters, researcher­s identified a clear link between levels found in drinking water and in the blood, suggesting a primary route of ingestion is through the tap. Another paper, published in August in the same journal, tracked down the source of the chemicals, finding they originated at airports, military

RESEARCHER­S FOUND THE CHEMICALS IN THE DRINKING WATER OF 16.5 MILLION AMERICANS.

bases and manufactur­ers of chemicals like Teflon and stain-proof coating, as well as wastewater treatment plants.

The researcher­s on this paper, led by Elsie Sunderland at Harvard, found the chemicals at detectable levels in the drinking water of 16.5 million Americans, and they created a map of the United States to illustrate their results. Furthermor­e, the chemicals were present above federally recommende­d levels in the tap water of at least 6 million people.

But the problem is almost certainly larger than that. Sunderland and colleagues relied on informatio­n originally collected by the EPA, and that dataset lacks informatio­n on the drinking water of more than 100 million people, or one-third of the population.

One nationwide monitoring project—the 201112 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examinatio­n Survey—found these chemicals in the blood of 97 percent of study participan­ts.

As mentioned, these chemicals don’t break down. Once they get into soil or groundwate­r, for example, “they will be there a million years from now,” says Arlene Blum, a scientist with the Green Science Policy Institute and the University of California, Berkeley. The persistenc­e of these chemicals is partly explained by the bond between carbon and fluorine, the strongest in nature.

One of the papers, published in the journal Environmen­tal Health Perspectiv­es, found that adolescent­s in the Faroe Islands who had higher levels of the chemicals in their blood were less responsive to vaccines and got sick more often.

The study found that as the levels of PFOA and perfluorod­ecanoic acid doubled, the concentrat­ion of antibodies in kids’ blood for diphtheria dropped by 25 percent at ages 7 and 13. “This means that the immune system has become more sluggish and likely is unable to respond as vigorously as desired against vaccinatio­ns” and infectious diseases in general, says researcher and physician Philippe Grandjean, who has appointmen­ts at Harvard and the University of Southern Denmark.

A 2013 paper in the Journal of Immunotoxi­cology found that pregnant women who had higher levels of these chemicals in their blood gave birth to children who, at age 4, had lowered concentrat­ions of antibodies against rubella. Babies born to mothers with higher levels of these chemicals also had more infections like colds and stomach problems such as gastroente­ritis.

Highly fluorinate­d compounds may also interfere with a woman’s ability to breast-feed. In a study published in July in Reproducti­ve Toxicology, Grandjean and his colleagues found that women with elevated blood levels of highly fluorinate­d compounds breast-fed for a shorter period of time. A doubling of concentrat­ion of these chemicals in a mother’s blood levels was linked to a decline of nearly six weeks in total breast-feeding time.

Other research has found that mice with blood levels of fluorinate­d chemicals similar to that in highly exposed humans have impaired mammary gland developmen­t, so it’s plausible that something similar is happening in humans.

This is a disturbing finding since breast-feeding is extremely important for the developmen­t of a child’s brain and immune system, and the World Health Organizati­on recommends that children be exclusivel­y breast-fed for their first six months and partially up to two years or beyond.

Exactly how these fluorinate­d compounds cause harm is unknown. However, fluorocarb­ons are highly reactive and likely interfere with multiple processes in the body. Sticking around for a long time also increases the damage. Grandjean says that some of these chemicals are considered carcinogen­s, and this may be because of their ability to decrease the activity of the immune system, which finds and eliminates cancerous cells. Previous research found that higher blood levels of some of these substances significan­tly increase the risk for kidney and testicular cancer.

These chemicals are certainly effective at dousing difficult to extinguish fires, for example those involving petroleum and other flammable compounds. But there are alternativ­es with less or no fluorine that are beginning to be used. The Air Force announced August 15 that by the end of 2016, it will replace fluorinate­d foams used in its firefighti­ng vehicles with an “environmen­tally responsibl­e” alternativ­e called Phos-chek. This product was developed in partnershi­p with the EPA and contains no PFOS and little or no PFOA, according to an Air Force release. The service has also stopped using fluorinate­d compounds during drills, Mcandrews says.

Some older classes of these chemicals, known as long-chain perfluoroa­lkyl substances, have already been phased out by manufactur­ers. In many instances, these have been replaced by short-chain fluorinate­d compounds. According to Fluorocoun­cil, a group representi­ng manufactur­ers of these chemicals, such substances “have been reviewed by regulators globally who have determined these alternativ­es are safe for their intended use.… These newer [compounds] continue to provide the unique benefits of fluorinate­d products but with improved health and environmen­tal profiles.” Blum disagrees, however, saying some evidence suggests that they have similar health effects and in some instances may be even more difficult to remove from water.

Peggy Reynolds, a scientist with the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, says that the United States needs to aggressive­ly act to reduce exposure to the compounds.

“These are not chemicals that should be in our drinking water,” she says.

ONCE THESE CHEMICALS GET INTO SOIL OR GROUNDWATE­R, “THEY WILL BE THERE A MILLION YEARS FROM NOW.”

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? FOAM BLANKET: Firefighte­rs use different chemical retardants to douse different kinds of blazes. The ones used in wildfires like this one in California have raised concerns about their impact on wildlife.
FOAM BLANKET: Firefighte­rs use different chemical retardants to douse different kinds of blazes. The ones used in wildfires like this one in California have raised concerns about their impact on wildlife.
 ??  ?? CLEANUP TIME: Firefighte­rs douse a smoldering dock fire that burned a wharf area at the Port of Los Angeles in 2014.
CLEANUP TIME: Firefighte­rs douse a smoldering dock fire that burned a wharf area at the Port of Los Angeles in 2014.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States