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.

Texans grapple with rising toxic pollution as oil, gas production booms

News Feed
Monday, March 17, 2025

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here. ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after. When Cooper and his wife bought their home in West Odessa in the heart of the Permian Basin, the U.S.'s most productive oil field, they knew they were surrounded by tank batteries holding spent fuel or fracking fluid and injection wells injecting that waste fluid back into the earth.  But as lifelong Odessans, they weren’t worried — until their water started tasting funny and the stench crept in. Until, six years ago, two people died in a pumphouse down the street. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later confirmed what many already suspected: The very infrastructure that had fueled the region’s economic boom was exposing the people who lived there to dangerous toxins. Without access to city water, West Odessa residents — like rural Texans across oil country — largely depend on water from wells drilled into the aquifer below. Frequently those wells are as little as a few hundred yards from oil and gas wells or other infrastructure linked with toxic pollution — which are just one explosion or spill away from ruining them. Now, Cooper laughs when he thinks about their decision to move to the neighborhood. “I assumed they would be regulated,” Cooper told The Hill, pointing to a tank battery venting invisible, noxious gas. “I assumed somebody would be making sure we were safe.” The oil and gas industry has long been a cornerstone of the Texas economy, and has brought a flood of new jobs and money to the Permian Basin in recent years as production has climbed to new highs. In 2024 alone, the industry paid a record $27 billion in state taxes and royalties and employed nearly half a million people, many earning more than $124,000 a year. The industry and Texas lawmakers argue that beyond the economy, the state's fossil fuel production is important for American energy independence — and the environment. The Permian is the regional wellhead of a vast outpouring of oil and — particularly — gas that both the U.S. government and Western oil industry tout as a means of redirecting global markets away from more-polluting energy sources like coal and foreign producers they say produce dirtier products. Every country is concerned about three things in descending order: national security, energy security and the health of its land and water, ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said in March at CERAWeek by S&P Global. “Natural gas,” he said, “delivers on all fronts.” But for many Texans on the doorstep of the state’s staggering fossil fuel expansion of the past decade, the boom has come at a cost. Millions of Texans now live within striking distance of oil infrastructure — exposed to airborne chemicals, groundwater contamination and, in extreme cases, sudden, violent failures of aging wells, all of which creates public concern. “You don’t want to live close to any of this development — particularly if you’re surrounded by wells,” Gunnar Schade, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, told The Hill.  Fracking, the increasing use of which has driven the past decade's oil and gas boom, has been central to much of the mounting pollution concern. Environmentalists and researchers have warned that the technique, in which cocktails of chemicals are pumped underground to shatter rock and release oil and gas, can contaminate groundwater — accusations the industry has fought for years.  A 2016 EPA study has been cited by both environmentalists and the industry as support for their positions on the issue. The report found that while direct fracking-related water contamination — penetrating from subterranean oil wells to water wells — was possible, it was rare.  Industry groups like the Texas Oil and Gas Association point to the steps operators take to wall off wells from surrounding groundwater behind “layers of steel casing and cement, as well as thousands of feet of rock.” And the Independent Petroleum Association of America points to “no fewer than two dozen scientific reviews,” including the EPA study, that “have concluded that fracking does not pose a major threat to groundwater.” But much of that discourse has centered on the direct impact of the fracking process, which leaves out a great deal of oil and gas operations. The EPA study also identified multiple other ways that the fuels' extraction threatens water supplies — like spills or deliberate dumping. In the Permian, for example, The Hill observed numerous pumpjacks and storage tanks dripping "produced water," or wastewater resulting from the fracking process, on the soil, sometimes in close proximity to farms. This water can resurface tainted with salt, heavy metals, benzene, toxic "forever chemicals" and even radioactive isotopes. The EPA has also pointed to risks that come from the disposal of such wastewater in underground injection wells.  And in Texas, all of these risks have escalated as the amount of water being used to frack ever-deeper wells has risen — leading to new challenges in disposing of the resulting wastewater. Each year, Texas oil and gas wells generate more than 12 billion barrels of wastewater — 4 billion of them in the Permian alone, more than all other U.S. oil fields combined. Texas is one of the only states moving forward with plans to allow this produced water to be disposed of in aboveground creeks and rivers. For example, in south Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale, researchers found 700 million gallons per year of produced water was being dumped legally into rivers and creeks that cattle drank.  Much of the rest goes back into the Earth. Permian drilling companies inject about 6 billion barrels per year into disposal wells, a process meant to keep it away from drinking water. But the subsurface that those wells cut into is riven with underground cracks and fissures and pocked with as many as hundreds of thousands of "zombie wells," oil and gas wells that were improperly sealed or left open to deteriorate. Many have rusted-out casings, making them potential pathways between underground water sources and the wastewater being forced into disposal wells. For decades, geologists have warned that underground injection wells could interact with these abandoned legacy wells and contaminate the underground water sources they are connected to. Deep injection wells also lubricate faults in the earth, sometimes causing earthquakes bad enough to crack home walls and foundations. One quake last July was strong enough to break municipal water pipes.  After a decade of local outcry about fracking earthquakes, companies began injecting more shallowly. But this gave rise to another issue: Fracking fluid began bursting from the state’s old, failing or forgotten wells.  The tendency of fracking fluid to come back to the surface has turned cleanup into a game of "whack-a-mole,” as Kirk Edwards, a local oil and gas executive and former chair of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, put it. Zombie wells are “a black eye for the industry,” Edwards told The Hill. He warned that oil producers had perhaps a year to solve the issue before they would face local revolt. The area needed, he said, “a Manhattan Project for water” to treat and reuse fracking fluid.  Economics are a large contributor to the problem, Edwards argued. “It’s cheap for an oil company to pay a trucker to dispose of it,” he said, referring to fracking fluid. He defended producers for the instances when fracking fluid they’ve injected underground reappears in unexpected places: Those injections, he noted, are legal. “Nobody knows the Earth can’t hold that water until you have a breakthrough. You can’t blame [an operator for a] business plan that has been working for 25 years.” Some efforts have been made to clean up this pollution. The 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $4.7 billion in funding to cap the 100,000-plus “zombie wells” across America, of which Texas has received more than $100 million so far. In 2023, Texas lawmakers approved another $10 million. State Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R), who represents part of the Permian, is seeking $100 million this session to seal area wells. But the future of all this funding is uncertain. The second Trump administration has repeatedly sought to block Biden-era federal grants related to the environment. None of the monies approved by Texas in 2023 have been distributed yet. And in that same session, a previous version of Landgraf’s bill passed the state House but died in the Senate. Meanwhile, the backlog of orphaned wells — abandoned sites with no financially solvent owner to take responsibility — has grown.  And another — potentially greater — danger arising from the expanding oil and gas infrastructure also looms. For sparsely populated regions like the Permian, said Schade, the Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, the risk of water pollution pales in comparison to the risk of air pollution — something he told The Hill that state regulators have “diligently” refused to measure.  Some industry leaders acknowledge their role in air pollution — particularly in regard to the issue of methane that is vented or burned off (“flared”) from wells to relieve pressure. In 2022, the chief executive of Diamondback Energy voiced his support for Biden-era emission-reduction rules that split the oil and gas industry: The rules, he argued, would gain the industry “credit from the general public that we are doing ... right [by the] environment in producing the barrels.” But others argued that the federal oversight was unnecessary, saying the industry is successfully policing itself. The Texas oil and natural gas industry already has been “actively implementing measures to identify and lower emissions,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, told The Center Square. The oil and gas produced in Texas, he added, is “the cleanest in the world.” Independent studies indicate that airborne chemicals from oil and gas extraction threaten the communities that live around wells and infrastructure. Studies by Schade’s lab have found that the fracking boom has “dramatically increased” the human-caused release of dangerous hydrocarbons — in particular benzene, which is higher in the Permian even than other shale regions like the Eagle Ford. In high enough doses, benzene can break the body’s ability to create red blood cells, raising the risk of developing conditions akin to leukemia. Schade noted that increased fracking has also led to higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), which harms the throat and nose and can worsen asthma. When combined with toxic hydrocarbons, NOx can create the chemical ozone, which can spread far from individual wells and increases the risk of death for those exposed over the long term. People living in the oil patch, Schade said, faced “simultaneous exposure to air, water, noise and light pollution” that was hard for outsiders to fathom.  Only those “actually living in the areas of production, or spending at least a significant time there,” he added, “should be consulted to get an idea what it's like.” Sometimes, those conditions are lethal for residents. In October 2019, a woman named Natalee Dean loaded her two children into the car and went out looking for her husband, Jacob — a contractor with a small local oil company called Aghorn Energy. Jacob had been called out to the site hours before to investigate a malfunctioning pump and stopped answering his cellphone, according to criminal charges later filed against the company by the federal government. Frightened, Natalee loaded the kids into the car and drove to the Aghorn pumphouse. Jacob’s truck was parked outside, empty. Federal investigators later concluded that she found Jacob inside the pumphouse, dead or dying of hydrogen sulfide poisoning — before she died as well. Her last words, according to state records citing family members who were on the phone with her, were “oh, my god,” E&E News reported. Passers-by found her children, safe, in the car the next morning. Cooper, the retired pastor, lived nearby. He and his wife had spent years complaining about the facility to the EPA after reeking water spread out of the facility and onto the road long before the deaths. Around the same time, he and his wife began to notice a growing change in the water from the well they, like most in West Odessa, depended on. It was “discolored,” smelled bad, and left behind stains and residue on their drinking glasses, Cooper said. Then there was the smell, which filled their home at all hours. He described it as “mainly like sewage, rotten eggs, a real pungent smell of ammonia. It burns your eyes and takes your breath away.” Years after the Deans’ deaths, under the Biden administration, the EPA and Justice Department charged Aghorn and its vice president with violating the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act by lying about the quality of its pumps — allegedly leading to the deaths of Jacob and Natalee Dean. The Justice Department and the company agreed to settle the case earlier this month. The Hill has reached out to Aghorn for comment. That federal case, for which Cooper was an official witness, also offered an explanation for the changes he and his wife had observed in the water from the family wells. When the EPA told him that Aghorn had been dumping spent fracking fluid “into the soil — there was absolutely no way we were going to be doing anything" with that water, he said. Now he and his wife drink, cook and wash their dishes with bottled or filtered water they buy. Over the last year, Cooper told The Hill, the prices of that water have nearly doubled, from $0.20 per gallon to $0.35, so they make do with about 100 gallons per month — significantly below the United Nations threshold for water poverty, or insufficient access to clean water. Rancher Schuyler Wight is frustrated with the companies. “The industry keeps making excuses instead of stepping up and fixing the problem,” he said. The rights to drill on the land, which Wight’s family sold generations before, are now leased by an oil company, which pumps liquified carbon dioxide underground to force oil and gas back to the surface.  But the wells are old, he said, and if they are not quickly capped when no longer producing, they can develop cracks in the casing that keeps chemicals out of water.  “Mix [carbon dioxide] and water, you get carbonic acid,” Wight said. Carbonic acid corrodes metal and raises the threat of leaks. He pointed to liquid dripping from a valve. Instead of feeding life, as leaks of fresh water would, past spills had salted the soil so nothing would grow, he said. With 240 old wells on his property, Wight has many such leaks. One of his parcels borders Lake Boehmer, a 60-acre spill bubbling from an abandoned oil-turned-water well: powder blue, dead tree stumps poking from its center. The air on the parcel reeked of hydrogen sulfide. Wight's biggest fear, he said, is a world shifting away from oil that leaves no money for cleanup. “If they don’t fix it now, while they’ve got money, then what happens when they don’t?” Lake Boehmer aside, one of the main problems with oil and gas pollution is that, like germs and viruses, “it’s largely invisible," said Sharon Wilson, director of Oilfield Witness, a watchdog group aiming to change that. In a field east of Midland-Odessa, Wilson stopped her car where an unlit flare — meant to burn off excess oil and gas — poked up from the ground. To the naked eye, it was a quiet scene: farmer’s fields, windmills spinning in the distance. But through her camera’s viewfinder, which can see the infrared radiation thrown off by the gases, a black, oily plume of unburned methane vented into the atmosphere, heating the planet and likely carrying a long list of toxins. At a nearby tank battery, where workers deposit oil or fracking fluid, invisible smoke streamed into the air. Those fumes worry many Texas residents, who have fought to keep them away from homes. Anne Epstein, a Lubbock physician, was part of a successful effort to ban oil wells less than 600 feet from peoples’ homes — before the state passed legislation stripping cities of the authority to regulate fracking.  “To see the effects of oil toxins, look at places in the body that are rapidly growing and developing — or small bodies that are rapidly growing and developing,” Epstein said. When it comes to such pollution, she said, “fetuses, babies, children” are especially vulnerable because they breathe faster, exposing themselves to more airborne toxins. Millions may be at risk. A 2022 study found that 17 million people in the U.S. live within half a mile of an oil or gas well — 4 million of them children. At that range, a 2019 Colorado study found a slight uptick in cancer risk and other dangers, significant enough for that state to require new wells be at least that far from homes.  But in Texas, the required distance is just a fraction of that. In February, the city of Arlington, with a population of nearly 400,000, permitted the drilling of 10 new wells less than a quarter mile, or half the Colorado limit, from a day care.  Even the higher limit may not be enough to ensure safety: Schade said that if the winds blow wrong and wells are dense enough, toxins can travel far further than any current setback requirement.&nbsp For Wilson, Oilfield Witness's campaign is personal. In the early 2000s, she was living in Wise County on the outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth, when the water from her well — which she and her son relied on — turned dark and foul-smelling. After a lifetime believing that if something went wrong, someone would come help, “what I learned when my water turned black is that if it's oil and gas, nobody is coming, and that was a huge paradigm shift for me,” Wilson said. “Because then I realized that, yeah, that America is not like that thing that I believed when I grew up.” She later learned that she had been an unwilling participant in the dawn of a boom. Her home was just miles from where wildcatter George Mitchell was carrying out early fracking experiments. Concerns about the process’s impact on groundwater had surfaced even before fracking’s popularization: In 1996, a local jury found Mitchell guilty of hundreds of millions in punitive damages for wrecking local water supplies.&nbsp At the time, Mitchell denied the allegations. “I have never believed, nor do I believe now, that Mitchell Energy Corp. is the cause of the problems that the plaintiffs are complaining about,” he told the Wise County Messenger in a statement.&nbsp The following year, a local jury overturned&nbspthe verdict on appeal — saving the company from bankruptcy&nbspand clearing the way for the shale revolution. In 1998, two years after the judgment, Mitchell combined horizontal drilling and fracking into what is generally regarded&nbspas the first-ever fracked well. In 2005, Congress further enabled fracking to take off by exempting the technique from the Clean Water Act. But in his last interview before his death in 2013, Mitchell had changed his tune. He&nbsptold Forbes&nbspthat the industry needed more regulation. “They should have very strict controls. The Department of Energy should do it." Why? Because, he said, fracking and horizontal drilling could be done safely — but independent drillers “are wild” and “tough to control.” If allowed to operate freely, he said, they risked ruining the industry.&nbsp In the street in front of his house, Cooper — the homeowner with the tainted water — met Wilson studying a flare through her camera. She invited him to look. “Oh, wow,” he said, watching as a corona of thick black smoke, invisible to the naked eye, surrounded the thin flame. What, she asked him, would he want his elected officials to know if they stood here too? He didn’t hesitate. “I’d want someone to assure that I have clean water, clean air, to know that our investment in our homes is going to be protected,” he said. He wanted, he said, “somewhere safe to live — where they would be willing to live themselves.” Gabriela Meza of KMID contributed reporting.

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here. ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after. When...

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. It is part three in a four-part series. Read part one here and part two here.

ODESSA, Texas — For retired pastor Columbus Cooper, life can be divided into two periods: the time when he could still drink water out of his tap, and the time after.

When Cooper and his wife bought their home in West Odessa in the heart of the Permian Basin, the U.S.'s most productive oil field, they knew they were surrounded by tank batteries holding spent fuel or fracking fluid and injection wells injecting that waste fluid back into the earth. 

But as lifelong Odessans, they weren’t worried — until their water started tasting funny and the stench crept in. Until, six years ago, two people died in a pumphouse down the street. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later confirmed what many already suspected: The very infrastructure that had fueled the region’s economic boom was exposing the people who lived there to dangerous toxins.

Without access to city water, West Odessa residents — like rural Texans across oil country — largely depend on water from wells drilled into the aquifer below. Frequently those wells are as little as a few hundred yards from oil and gas wells or other infrastructure linked with toxic pollution — which are just one explosion or spill away from ruining them.

Now, Cooper laughs when he thinks about their decision to move to the neighborhood. “I assumed they would be regulated,” Cooper told The Hill, pointing to a tank battery venting invisible, noxious gas. “I assumed somebody would be making sure we were safe.”

The oil and gas industry has long been a cornerstone of the Texas economy, and has brought a flood of new jobs and money to the Permian Basin in recent years as production has climbed to new highs. In 2024 alone, the industry paid a record $27 billion in state taxes and royalties and employed nearly half a million people, many earning more than $124,000 a year.

The industry and Texas lawmakers argue that beyond the economy, the state's fossil fuel production is important for American energy independence — and the environment. The Permian is the regional wellhead of a vast outpouring of oil and — particularly — gas that both the U.S. government and Western oil industry tout as a means of redirecting global markets away from more-polluting energy sources like coal and foreign producers they say produce dirtier products.

Every country is concerned about three things in descending order: national security, energy security and the health of its land and water, ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said in March at CERAWeek by S&P Global. “Natural gas,” he said, “delivers on all fronts.”

But for many Texans on the doorstep of the state’s staggering fossil fuel expansion of the past decade, the boom has come at a cost. Millions of Texans now live within striking distance of oil infrastructure — exposed to airborne chemicals, groundwater contamination and, in extreme cases, sudden, violent failures of aging wells, all of which creates public concern. “You don’t want to live close to any of this development — particularly if you’re surrounded by wells,” Gunnar Schade, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, told The Hill. 

Fracking, the increasing use of which has driven the past decade's oil and gas boom, has been central to much of the mounting pollution concern. Environmentalists and researchers have warned that the technique, in which cocktails of chemicals are pumped underground to shatter rock and release oil and gas, can contaminate groundwater — accusations the industry has fought for years. 

A 2016 EPA study has been cited by both environmentalists and the industry as support for their positions on the issue. The report found that while direct fracking-related water contamination — penetrating from subterranean oil wells to water wells — was possible, it was rare. 

Industry groups like the Texas Oil and Gas Association point to the steps operators take to wall off wells from surrounding groundwater behind “layers of steel casing and cement, as well as thousands of feet of rock.” And the Independent Petroleum Association of America points to “no fewer than two dozen scientific reviews,” including the EPA study, that “have concluded that fracking does not pose a major threat to groundwater.”

But much of that discourse has centered on the direct impact of the fracking process, which leaves out a great deal of oil and gas operations. The EPA study also identified multiple other ways that the fuels' extraction threatens water supplies — like spills or deliberate dumping. In the Permian, for example, The Hill observed numerous pumpjacks and storage tanks dripping "produced water," or wastewater resulting from the fracking process, on the soil, sometimes in close proximity to farms. This water can resurface tainted with salt, heavy metals, benzene, toxic "forever chemicals" and even radioactive isotopes.

The EPA has also pointed to risks that come from the disposal of such wastewater in underground injection wells. 

And in Texas, all of these risks have escalated as the amount of water being used to frack ever-deeper wells has risen — leading to new challenges in disposing of the resulting wastewater.

Each year, Texas oil and gas wells generate more than 12 billion barrels of wastewater — 4 billion of them in the Permian alone, more than all other U.S. oil fields combined. Texas is one of the only states moving forward with plans to allow this produced water to be disposed of in aboveground creeks and rivers. For example, in south Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale, researchers found 700 million gallons per year of produced water was being dumped legally into rivers and creeks that cattle drank. 

Much of the rest goes back into the Earth. Permian drilling companies inject about 6 billion barrels per year into disposal wells, a process meant to keep it away from drinking water.

But the subsurface that those wells cut into is riven with underground cracks and fissures and pocked with as many as hundreds of thousands of "zombie wells," oil and gas wells that were improperly sealed or left open to deteriorate. Many have rusted-out casings, making them potential pathways between underground water sources and the wastewater being forced into disposal wells. For decades, geologists have warned that underground injection wells could interact with these abandoned legacy wells and contaminate the underground water sources they are connected to.

Deep injection wells also lubricate faults in the earth, sometimes causing earthquakes bad enough to crack home walls and foundations. One quake last July was strong enough to break municipal water pipes. 

After a decade of local outcry about fracking earthquakes, companies began injecting more shallowly. But this gave rise to another issue: Fracking fluid began bursting from the state’s old, failing or forgotten wells. 

The tendency of fracking fluid to come back to the surface has turned cleanup into a game of "whack-a-mole,” as Kirk Edwards, a local oil and gas executive and former chair of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, put it.

Zombie wells are “a black eye for the industry,” Edwards told The Hill. He warned that oil producers had perhaps a year to solve the issue before they would face local revolt. The area needed, he said, “a Manhattan Project for water” to treat and reuse fracking fluid. 

Economics are a large contributor to the problem, Edwards argued. “It’s cheap for an oil company to pay a trucker to dispose of it,” he said, referring to fracking fluid. He defended producers for the instances when fracking fluid they’ve injected underground reappears in unexpected places: Those injections, he noted, are legal. “Nobody knows the Earth can’t hold that water until you have a breakthrough. You can’t blame [an operator for a] business plan that has been working for 25 years.”

Some efforts have been made to clean up this pollution. The 2022 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $4.7 billion in funding to cap the 100,000-plus “zombie wells” across America, of which Texas has received more than $100 million so far. In 2023, Texas lawmakers approved another $10 million. State Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R), who represents part of the Permian, is seeking $100 million this session to seal area wells.

But the future of all this funding is uncertain. The second Trump administration has repeatedly sought to block Biden-era federal grants related to the environment. None of the monies approved by Texas in 2023 have been distributed yet. And in that same session, a previous version of Landgraf’s bill passed the state House but died in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the backlog of orphaned wells — abandoned sites with no financially solvent owner to take responsibility — has grown. 

And another — potentially greater — danger arising from the expanding oil and gas infrastructure also looms. For sparsely populated regions like the Permian, said Schade, the Texas A&M atmospheric chemist, the risk of water pollution pales in comparison to the risk of air pollution — something he told The Hill that state regulators have “diligently” refused to measure. 

Some industry leaders acknowledge their role in air pollution — particularly in regard to the issue of methane that is vented or burned off (“flared”) from wells to relieve pressure. In 2022, the chief executive of Diamondback Energy voiced his support for Biden-era emission-reduction rules that split the oil and gas industry: The rules, he argued, would gain the industry “credit from the general public that we are doing ... right [by the] environment in producing the barrels.”

But others argued that the federal oversight was unnecessary, saying the industry is successfully policing itself. The Texas oil and natural gas industry already has been “actively implementing measures to identify and lower emissions,” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, told The Center Square. The oil and gas produced in Texas, he added, is “the cleanest in the world.”

Independent studies indicate that airborne chemicals from oil and gas extraction threaten the communities that live around wells and infrastructure. Studies by Schade’s lab have found that the fracking boom has “dramatically increased” the human-caused release of dangerous hydrocarbons — in particular benzene, which is higher in the Permian even than other shale regions like the Eagle Ford. In high enough doses, benzene can break the body’s ability to create red blood cells, raising the risk of developing conditions akin to leukemia.

Schade noted that increased fracking has also led to higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx), which harms the throat and nose and can worsen asthma. When combined with toxic hydrocarbons, NOx can create the chemical ozone, which can spread far from individual wells and increases the risk of death for those exposed over the long term.

People living in the oil patch, Schade said, faced “simultaneous exposure to air, water, noise and light pollution” that was hard for outsiders to fathom. 

Only those “actually living in the areas of production, or spending at least a significant time there,” he added, “should be consulted to get an idea what it's like.”

Sometimes, those conditions are lethal for residents. In October 2019, a woman named Natalee Dean loaded her two children into the car and went out looking for her husband, Jacob — a contractor with a small local oil company called Aghorn Energy.

Jacob had been called out to the site hours before to investigate a malfunctioning pump and stopped answering his cellphone, according to criminal charges later filed against the company by the federal government. Frightened, Natalee loaded the kids into the car and drove to the Aghorn pumphouse.

Jacob’s truck was parked outside, empty. Federal investigators later concluded that she found Jacob inside the pumphouse, dead or dying of hydrogen sulfide poisoning — before she died as well. Her last words, according to state records citing family members who were on the phone with her, were “oh, my god,” E&E News reported. Passers-by found her children, safe, in the car the next morning.

Cooper, the retired pastor, lived nearby. He and his wife had spent years complaining about the facility to the EPA after reeking water spread out of the facility and onto the road long before the deaths. Around the same time, he and his wife began to notice a growing change in the water from the well they, like most in West Odessa, depended on. It was “discolored,” smelled bad, and left behind stains and residue on their drinking glasses, Cooper said.

Then there was the smell, which filled their home at all hours. He described it as “mainly like sewage, rotten eggs, a real pungent smell of ammonia. It burns your eyes and takes your breath away.”

Years after the Deans’ deaths, under the Biden administration, the EPA and Justice Department charged Aghorn and its vice president with violating the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act by lying about the quality of its pumps — allegedly leading to the deaths of Jacob and Natalee Dean. The Justice Department and the company agreed to settle the case earlier this month.

The Hill has reached out to Aghorn for comment.

That federal case, for which Cooper was an official witness, also offered an explanation for the changes he and his wife had observed in the water from the family wells. When the EPA told him that Aghorn had been dumping spent fracking fluid “into the soil — there was absolutely no way we were going to be doing anything" with that water, he said.

Now he and his wife drink, cook and wash their dishes with bottled or filtered water they buy. Over the last year, Cooper told The Hill, the prices of that water have nearly doubled, from $0.20 per gallon to $0.35, so they make do with about 100 gallons per month — significantly below the United Nations threshold for water poverty, or insufficient access to clean water.

Rancher Schuyler Wight is frustrated with the companies. “The industry keeps making excuses instead of stepping up and fixing the problem,” he said.

The rights to drill on the land, which Wight’s family sold generations before, are now leased by an oil company, which pumps liquified carbon dioxide underground to force oil and gas back to the surface. 

But the wells are old, he said, and if they are not quickly capped when no longer producing, they can develop cracks in the casing that keeps chemicals out of water. 

“Mix [carbon dioxide] and water, you get carbonic acid,” Wight said. Carbonic acid corrodes metal and raises the threat of leaks. He pointed to liquid dripping from a valve. Instead of feeding life, as leaks of fresh water would, past spills had salted the soil so nothing would grow, he said.

With 240 old wells on his property, Wight has many such leaks. One of his parcels borders Lake Boehmer, a 60-acre spill bubbling from an abandoned oil-turned-water well: powder blue, dead tree stumps poking from its center. The air on the parcel reeked of hydrogen sulfide.

Wight's biggest fear, he said, is a world shifting away from oil that leaves no money for cleanup. “If they don’t fix it now, while they’ve got money, then what happens when they don’t?”

Lake Boehmer aside, one of the main problems with oil and gas pollution is that, like germs and viruses, “it’s largely invisible," said Sharon Wilson, director of Oilfield Witness, a watchdog group aiming to change that.

In a field east of Midland-Odessa, Wilson stopped her car where an unlit flare — meant to burn off excess oil and gas — poked up from the ground. To the naked eye, it was a quiet scene: farmer’s fields, windmills spinning in the distance. But through her camera’s viewfinder, which can see the infrared radiation thrown off by the gases, a black, oily plume of unburned methane vented into the atmosphere, heating the planet and likely carrying a long list of toxins. At a nearby tank battery, where workers deposit oil or fracking fluid, invisible smoke streamed into the air.

Those fumes worry many Texas residents, who have fought to keep them away from homes. Anne Epstein, a Lubbock physician, was part of a successful effort to ban oil wells less than 600 feet from peoples’ homes — before the state passed legislation stripping cities of the authority to regulate fracking. 

“To see the effects of oil toxins, look at places in the body that are rapidly growing and developing — or small bodies that are rapidly growing and developing,” Epstein said. When it comes to such pollution, she said, “fetuses, babies, children” are especially vulnerable because they breathe faster, exposing themselves to more airborne toxins.

Millions may be at risk. A 2022 study found that 17 million people in the U.S. live within half a mile of an oil or gas well — 4 million of them children. At that range, a 2019 Colorado study found a slight uptick in cancer risk and other dangers, significant enough for that state to require new wells be at least that far from homes. 

But in Texas, the required distance is just a fraction of that. In February, the city of Arlington, with a population of nearly 400,000, permitted the drilling of 10 new wells less than a quarter mile, or half the Colorado limit, from a day care. 

Even the higher limit may not be enough to ensure safety: Schade said that if the winds blow wrong and wells are dense enough, toxins can travel far further than any current setback requirement.&nbsp

For Wilson, Oilfield Witness's campaign is personal. In the early 2000s, she was living in Wise County on the outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth, when the water from her well — which she and her son relied on — turned dark and foul-smelling.

After a lifetime believing that if something went wrong, someone would come help, “what I learned when my water turned black is that if it's oil and gas, nobody is coming, and that was a huge paradigm shift for me,” Wilson said. “Because then I realized that, yeah, that America is not like that thing that I believed when I grew up.”

She later learned that she had been an unwilling participant in the dawn of a boom. Her home was just miles from where wildcatter George Mitchell was carrying out early fracking experiments. Concerns about the process’s impact on groundwater had surfaced even before fracking’s popularization: In 1996, a local jury found Mitchell guilty of hundreds of millions in punitive damages for wrecking local water supplies.&nbsp

At the time, Mitchell denied the allegations. “I have never believed, nor do I believe now, that Mitchell Energy Corp. is the cause of the problems that the plaintiffs are complaining about,” he told the Wise County Messenger in a statement.&nbsp

The following year, a local jury overturned&nbspthe verdict on appeal — saving the company from bankruptcy&nbspand clearing the way for the shale revolution. In 1998, two years after the judgment, Mitchell combined horizontal drilling and fracking into what is generally regarded&nbspas the first-ever fracked well. In 2005, Congress further enabled fracking to take off by exempting the technique from the Clean Water Act.

But in his last interview before his death in 2013, Mitchell had changed his tune. He&nbsptold Forbes&nbspthat the industry needed more regulation. “They should have very strict controls. The Department of Energy should do it."

Why? Because, he said, fracking and horizontal drilling could be done safely — but independent drillers “are wild” and “tough to control.” If allowed to operate freely, he said, they risked ruining the industry.&nbsp

In the street in front of his house, Cooper — the homeowner with the tainted water — met Wilson studying a flare through her camera. She invited him to look. “Oh, wow,” he said, watching as a corona of thick black smoke, invisible to the naked eye, surrounded the thin flame.

What, she asked him, would he want his elected officials to know if they stood here too? He didn’t hesitate. “I’d want someone to assure that I have clean water, clean air, to know that our investment in our homes is going to be protected,” he said.

He wanted, he said, “somewhere safe to live — where they would be willing to live themselves.”

Gabriela Meza of KMID contributed reporting.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative

Local officials see millions of dollars in tax revenue, but more than 950 residents who signed ballot petitions fear endless noise, pollution and higher electric rates.

Early this year, Augusta Charter Township resident Travis Matts had seen a few headlines about the problems data centers caused in towns across the country. He thought the impacts on water, air and utility bills sounded awful, but it also seemed like a far-away issue. Until it suddenly hit home in May.  That is when Matts learned, through his group of volunteers that cleans up area litter, that a data center was proposed for an 822-acre property largely in Augusta Township, a small farming community southeast of Ann Arbor. Township leadership fully supported it.  Matts and others responded by quickly forming a new residents group in opposition, and began collecting ballot initiative signatures to put a rezoning for the data center in front of voters. The debate consumed local politics and bitterly divided some residents in this town of about 8,000 people, leading to accusations of harassment and threats.  “It’s sad that we residents have to fight as hard as we do to keep these facilities out of our backyards, but if we don’t then who will?” he asked. “We’re taking it into our own hands.”  By August, the group, Protect Augusta Charter Township (PACT), had collected enough signatures for a referendum, and PACT is confident residents will vote the project down, Matts added. An aerial view of Google’s New Albany data center campus in Central Ohio. Courtesy of Google The grassroots effort is part of a growing number of municipal fights that are playing out in towns throughout Michigan—and across the U.S.—that could derail data center plans. The centers are opposed by people from across the political spectrum, and the controversy here is unfolding as neighboring Saline Township rejected a similar data center plan in September.  In Augusta Township, the proposal has pitted nearly 1,000 residents who signed the ballot initiative against the township Board of Trustees, which in July unanimously approved the rezoning, and the developer behind the proposal, New York City-based real estate firm Thor Equities. Thor builds data centers but has not announced a client, though a planning report noted tech companies like Google and Microsoft use the type of facility that is proposed here. The centers typically house infrastructure for artificial intelligence and other computing uses.  Few details on how the center would look are yet available, but it would include at least five large buildings on what is currently farmland and wetlands, according to plans. The center may consume 1 million gallons of water daily, local news outlet MLive reported, and would include large generators. The Board of Trustees and supporters point to potential benefits, including increased tax revenue for the financially struggling township, and water and sewer infrastructure improvements.  “It would just be so huge for us,” said Augusta Township Clerk Kim Gonczy. The level of tax revenue is still unclear, she said, but added it is likely “millions of dollars.”  “It could make such a big difference for the township,” she added. The project’s opponents questioned the economic impact. They fear an increase in noise and light pollution, and that the massive facility would destroy Augusta’s rural character while pushing up utility bills and causing brownouts. PACT’s effort is about preserving the “sense of place,” said Matts, whose family has lived in Augusta for 100 years.  “With this data center plan they’re basically saying, ‘We know that, but business is more important,’” Matts said. “Landscape and preserving the identity of a place does not register on their needs list.” Residents needed to collect 561 signatures to get the issue on the ballot, and they turned in 957 gathered during an approximately two-week period in August. Township officials must certify the signatures, then develop language for the ballot that will be voted on during a special election in May 2026 at the earliest. Matts estimated PACT spoke with 1,200 to 1,400 residents, and a strong majority signed the petition. As data centers’ financial and environmental tolls have become clearer, the public is broadly growing more concerned. In many communities, their massive electricity and water consumption has increased residential utility bills. In Michigan and elsewhere, they have already required more fossil fuel plants to be built or stay open, and threaten to derail the transition to clean energy. Meanwhile, they can be a source of light, noise, water and air pollution.  The local battles playing out across the state are residents’ best line of defense, said Tim Minotas, legislative coordinator for the Sierra Club of Michigan. “This is where people live and raise their family so in the absence of state or federal protections, it’s really the responsibility of our local communities to take a stand to protect themselves,” Minotas said.  “That’s harassment” An incident detailed in a previous news report and confirmed by four residents to Inside Climate News described how a township official in August allegedly called police on PACT members. PACT had set up a canopy and table on the side of the road to collect signatures for the ballot initiative near the township hall. The responding officer allegedly found the campaigners had done nothing wrong, but asked them to move the table back from the road. PACT questioned the township’s intent.  “Calling the cops, that’s harassment,” resident Deborah Fuqua-Frey, who is opposed to the project, said during a public comment session after the incident.  Gonczy did not respond to Inside Climate News questions about the incident. In a late-August statement to the news outlet Planet Detroit, Gonczy said the campaigners were set up too close to a dangerous intersection.  Read Next Data centers gobble Earth’s resources. What if we took them to space instead? Sophie Hurwitz Meanwhile, residents said they have received anonymous handwritten notes in their mailboxes that they perceived as threats. Video shows the township supervisor, Todd Waller, would not allow residents to talk about the data center during public comment at board meetings. Some residents questioned the ethics of Waller’s rule, and said it was part of a larger pattern of officials trying to silence the project’s critics. Waller did not respond to requests for comment.  The local issues came after a battle in the state legislature in which progressive legislators sought to add consumer and environmental protections to incentives for data centers. Those were not included in the bills that passed, and may have helped alleviate some of the problems now being dealt with at the local level, said Denise Keele, director of the nonprofit Michigan Climate Action Network.  “It’s one thing if there is NIMBY-ism, and people saying ‘I don’t want this in my community,’ but with data centers the fears are real,” Keele said. “The centers suck up energy and more importantly they will raise our energy rates.”  Merits and drawbacks Township officials have downplayed PACT’s litany of issues with the project. Responding to concerns about light pollution, Gonczy said the property’s lights will be pointed toward the ground, so they won’t flood the surrounding region. She also told Inside Climate News that officials traveled to Toledo to visit a data center, used a noise meter to measure the decibels, and found the level would not violate Augusta Township ordinances.  Moreover, the project would be built in the township’s southwest corner, far away from most residents, Gonczy said. She added that she has not seen any evidence that it would decrease grid reliability or increase bills.  “I don’t understand all of that, and I don’t know where it’s coming from,” Gonczy told Inside Climate News.  The project’s opponents see it differently. They argue that the financial benefit is not worth the cost, and still suspect the lights will be a problem.  Read Next A coal-fired plant in Michigan was supposed to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1M a day. Oliver Milman, The Guardian “It won’t be dark at night because there are going to be acres and acres of lights,” said one township resident who declined to use her name for fear of retribution. “It’s no longer your dark cornfield because there’s a glow that never goes away.” The project’s opponents also questioned the accuracy of the sound meter readings, and said those do not take into account the effects of a steady din. Data centers include generators that frequently run on diesel fuel, and those are used monthly as routine maintenance to ensure they work, which could contribute to air and noise pollution.  More important, Matts said, is the loss of the rural character. State leaders didn’t consider these issues, nor has Augusta Township’s Board of Trustees, Matts said, which he called “frustrating.”  “People have lived here for a long time and we understand that things come and go and there’s change and development, but something of this scale and magnitude—1,000 industrial acres—is asinine in a community like this,” Matts said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A Michigan town hopes to stop a data center with a 2026 ballot initiative on Oct 14, 2025.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollution

Livestock and water companies are accused of “extensive” pollution in the Wye, Lugg and Usk rivers.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollutionSteffan MessengerEnvironment correspondent, BBC WalesBBCThe Wye Valley is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyThe biggest legal claim ever brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country has been filed at the High Court.Almost 4,000 people have signed up to the lawsuit against major poultry producers and a water company over allegations of "extensive and widespread pollution" in three rivers - the Wye, Lugg and Usk.They argue the state of the rivers in recent years has severely affected local businesses, property values and people's enjoyment of the area, and are seeking "substantial damages".The firms being sued - Avara Foods Limited, Freemans of Newent Limited and Welsh Water - all deny the claims.Celine O'Donovan, from the law firm Leigh Day, said the case was the largest brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country on three counts – the number of claimants, the geographical scale of the damage and the total damages claimed.Those who have joined the group legal claim all either live or work alongside the rivers or use them regularly for leisure activities like swimming and canoeing.They want the court to order a clean-up of the rivers as well as compensation.A combination of chicken manure and sewage spills are blamed for harming water quality and suffocating fish and other wildlife.The Wye in particular has become symbolic of widespread concerns over the worsening state of the UK's waterways in recent years.As many as 23 million chickens, a quarter of the UK's poultry production, are raised in the river's catchment area.Justine EvansJustine Evans used to love swimming and canoeing on the River Wye but is now worried polluted water might make her illIt flows for 155 miles from its source in the Cambrian Mountains of mid Wales along the border with England to the Severn Estuary.The River Lugg is a major tributary of the Wye, flowing predominately through Herefordshire.The River Usk runs through the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park, also known as the Brecon Beacons, as well as the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site before reaching the Bristol Channel at Newport.All three rivers are protected for their importance to rare wildlife, including otters, freshwater pearl mussels and the Atlantic salmon.Wildlife filmmaker Justine Evans is acting as the lead claimant and said she had noticed a "stark decline" in the Wye's condition in recent years.The once clear river had turned murky and slimy, completely changing how she felt about living alongside it, she said."It's horrible to think what has happened to the wildlife it is home to," she added.Friends of the lower WyeCampaigners have been raising concerns over the state of the river Wye for several yearsFormer Olympic swimmer Roland Lee moved to live near the Wye in order to have access to open water for swimming."But now I'd actually go as far as to warn people against going in," he said.Another claimant, Gino Parisi from Raglan, Monmouthshire, was worried about the state of the River Usk."Having grown up around the River Usk in the 1980s, I know just how beautiful the river and surrounding area can be," he said.Now the water had become "mucky and cloudy" and "you can see build-ups of foam in a number of spots"."Not only would I feel uncomfortable going in, but I'd also have concerns for my health."Why is the River Wye polluted?The claimants allege pollution has been caused by run-off from farmland containing high concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from the spreading of poultry manure and sewage bio solids used as fertiliser.They also blame discharge of sewage directly into rivers.The companies being sued are accused of negligence, causing private and public nuisance and even trespass where the riverbed has been affected on a claimant's property.One part of the claim is brought on behalf of people affected by what is known as the Lugg Moratorium - restrictions on building brought in by Herefordshire County Council to protect the River Lugg from further pollution.Oliver Holland from Leigh Day said the claim was "the culmination of an extraordinary effort by local community members and campaign groups to research, monitor and advocate for their rivers"."This is the largest legal action concerning environmental pollution ever brought in the UK. In a context where government and regulators have failed to prevent the degradation of our rivers the court has become the last avenue for justice," he added.Gino ParisiGino Parisi has "many happy memories" of swimming and paddling in the River UskAvara Foods Limited is one of the largest poultry processors in the UK. Its subsidiary, Freemans of Newent, based in Hereford is also named as a defendant in the case. A spokesperson for Avara Foods told the BBC it shared concerns over the condition of the River Wye."But we believe that this legal claim is based on a misunderstanding, as no manure is stored or spread on poultry-only farms that supply Avara Foods."Where poultry manure is used as fertiliser, it is for other produce in other agricultural sectors," the company said, adding individual farmers were responsible for how nutrients were used in their arable operations. The company said it employed about 1,500 people in the Wye catchment area and all its poultry was produced "to standards that are amongst the highest in the world"."The focus instead needs to be on solutions that will improve the health of the river, addressing all forms of pollution and the effects of climate change, and for action to be taken accordingly," it said.Welsh Water said the company had made "significant investments over recent years", achieving "real improvements in water quality".These included spending £70m over the last five years to improve sites along the River Wye, work that was delivered "ahead of the target set by our regulators", and £33m for the River Usk."Unfortunately, the water pollution caused by other sectors during this period has increased significantly, reducing the overall impact of the water quality improvements we have achieved," a spokesperson said.The company intended to "defend this case robustly", they added."The fact that we are a not-for-profit company means that any payments to these claimants would necessarily reduce the amount that we can re-invest in delivering further improvements for the benefit of all of our customers and the environment."Environmental campaigners lost a high-profile legal challenge against the UK government over pollution in the river Wye in 2024.Ministers in Westminster and Cardiff Bay have since set up a joint £1m fund to investigate the sources of pollution in the river.

Air Pollution Particles Hitch A Ride On Red Blood Cells, Into Major Organs, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The tiny particles inhaled from air pollution stick to our red blood cells, hitching a ride to do damage throughout our bodies, a new small-scale study says.These particles — produced by motor vehicles and industrial emissions — recently have been found in the brain and the heart, where they are linked to increased risk of disease, researchers said.The new study provides the first glimpse into how those particles work their way into people’s major organs, according to findings published recently in the journal ERJ Open Research.“In our bodies, red blood cells work by collecting oxygen from our lungs and delivering it throughout the body,” said lead researcher Dr. Jonathan Grigg,  a professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine with Queen Mary University of London in the U.K.“With this set of experiments, we have shown that tiny air pollution particles are hijacking our red blood cells, meaning they can also travel almost anywhere in the body,” Grigg said in a news release. “We’re finding more and more evidence that air pollution particles are making their way into many different organs of the body and now we have clear evidence of how that could be happening.”Air pollution particles typically are 2.5 microns or less in width, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 microns wide.For the new study, researchers recruited 12 adults who were asked to spend an hour standing next to a busy London street. The participants all carried a small device that measured the particle pollution in the air around them.Blood samples showed an increase in the amount of pollution particles stuck to participants’ red blood cells after they spent their hour out by the busy road, researchers said.On average, there were two to three times as much particle matter stuck to their red blood cells after an hour next to traffic, results showed.In some, levels decreased after an hour but remained high for others, suggesting that people’s bodies might differ in how they filter out the pollution breathed in, researchers said.All told, researchers calculated that around 80 million red blood cells could be assumed to be transporting pollution particles after a person spends an hour by traffic.Eight of the volunteers later returned to repeat the experiment on a different day, while wearing a face mask designed to screen out particle pollution.When people wore face masks, the amount of pollution particles found on their red blood cell did not increase after standing by a busy road. That shows wearing a filter mask reduces the amount of particle pollution a person inhales, researchers said.“We were surprised to find how well an FFP2 face mask prevents these very tiny particles from reaching and attaching to blood cells,” Grigg said. FFP is a European standard for face masks, and an FFP2 provides about the same level of protection as N95 and KN95 respirators.To confirm these findings, researchers exposed human red blood cells and mice to diesel exhaust in the lab.The particles stuck easily to red blood cells from both humans and mice, and the more particles that researchers added, the more they found stuck to the cells.Analysis of the particles found on blood cells showed that they contained iron, copper, silicon, chromium and zinc, which are produced by car exhaust, as well as silver and molybdenum produced by brake or tire wear, researchers said.“This technique means we now have a relatively simple way to measure the amount of pollution entering the body, so now we can test out which factors might increase or reduce the problem,” Grigg said.Ane Johannessen, chair of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on epidemiology and environment, reviewed the findings.The new study “sheds light on how these dangerous particles might be infiltrating every part of the body via the bloodstream,” she said in a news release.“It also suggests we could lower the risk with the right protective face mask,” continued Johannessen, who was not involved in the study. This could be beneficial for people who are vulnerable because they have a lung disease, or who cannot avoid spending time next to a busy road, she said.“However, most of us cannot avoid being exposed to dangerously high levels of air pollution in our daily lives, so we need laws to dramatically lower air pollution and reduce the risk for everyone,” Johannessen concluded.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Oct. 2, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Advocates raise alarm over Pfas pollution from data centers amid AI boom

Tech companies’ use of Pfas gas at facilities may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thoughtData centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities. Continue reading...

Data centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities.Advocates are particularly concerned over the facilities’ use of Pfas gas, or f-gas, which can be potent greenhouse gases, and may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thought. Other f-gases turn into a type of dangerous compound that is rapidly accumulating across the globe.No testing for Pfas air or water pollution has yet been done, and companies are not required to report the volume of chemicals they use or discharge. But some environmental groups are starting to push for state legislation that would require more reporting.Advocates’ concern increased in mid-September when the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would fast-track review of new Pfas and other chemicals used by data centers. The data center industry has said the Pfas it uses causes minimal pollution, but advocates disagree.“We know there are Pfas in these centers and all of that has to go somewhere,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the Earthjustice non-profit, which is monitoring Pfas use in data centers. “This issue has been dangerously understudied as we have been building out data centers, and there’s not adequate information on what the long term impacts will be.”Pfas are a class of about 16,000 chemicals most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. The compounds have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Environmental advocates say the data centers increase Pfas pollution directly and indirectly. The chemicals are needed in the centers’ operations – such as its cooling equipment – which almost certainly leads to some on-site pollution. Meanwhile, Pfas used in the equipment housed in the centers must be disposed of, which is difficult because the chemicals cannot be fully destroyed. Meanwhile, a large quantity of Pfas are used to produce the semiconductors housed in data centers, which will increase pollution around supporting manufacturing plants.The revelations come as the US seeks an edge over China as the industry leader in AI, and there has been little political interest in reining in the centers’ pollution.“The US and China are racing to see who can destroy the environment most quickly,” said Lenny Siegel, a member of Chips Communities United, a group working with industry and administration officials to try to implement environmental safeguards. “If we had a sensible approach to these things then someone would have to present some answers before they develop and use these systems.”Two kinds of cooling systems are used to prevent the semiconductors and other electronic equipment stored in data centers from overheating. Water cooling systems require huge volumes of water, and chemicals like nitrates, disinfectants, azoles and other compounds are potentially added and discharged in the environment.Many centers are now switching to a “two phase” system that uses f-gas as a refrigerant coolant that is run through copper tubing. In this scenario, f-gas is not intentionally released during use, though there may be leaks, and it must be disposed of at the end of its life.The data center industry has claimed that f-gas that escapes is not a threat because, once in the air, it turns into a compound called Tfa. Tfa is considered a Pfas in most of the world, but not the US. Recent research has found it is more toxic than previously thought, and may impact reproductive systems similar to other Pfas.Researchers in recent years have been alarmed by the ever-growing level of Tfa in the air, water, human blood and elsewhere in the environment. Meanwhile, some f-gases are potent greenhouse gases that can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. But f-gasses are lucrative for industry: about 60% of all Pfas manufactured from 2019 to 2022 were f-gas.Different Pfas are also applied to data centers’ cables, piping and electronic equipment. The chemicals are volatile, meaning they can simply move into the air from the equipment.Meanwhile, any of that equipment or Pfas waste that is intentionally removed from data centers either ends up in landfills, where it can pollute local waters, or is incinerated, according to industry documents. But incineration does not fully destroy Pfas compounds – it breaks them into smaller pieces that are still Pfas, or other byproducts with unknown health risks.Data centers are a “huge generator of electronic waste, with frequent upgrades to new equipment”, said Mike Belliveau, the founder of the Bend the Curve non-profit who has lobbied on toxic chemical legislation.“The processing and disposal of electronic waste is a major source of global harm,” he added.F-gas producer Chemours is using the boom in AI and data centers as justification for increasing production at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, plants.Both plants have been accused of polluting their regions’ water, soil and air, and poisoning drinking water. Residents in both regions say they’ve been sickened by Chemours’s pollution. Chemours’s expansion plans have been met with opposition over fears that its pollution will also increase.A new coalition of Minnesota environmental groups is working with state lawmakers to develop legislation that would require companies to report on their use of Pfas and other chemicals in the cooling process.Legislators in state hearings have asked tech companies which chemicals are used in data centers and how they are disposed of, but “the answers are not satisfactory”, said Avonna Starck, Minnesota state director for Clean Water Action, which is spearheading the effort.“There’s so much you just don’t know and we’re at the whim of these big corporations and what they’re willing to tell us,” Starck said. “We think the community has a right to know these things.”

Air Pollution Worsens Sleep Apnea

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep apnea, according to a new study.Sleep apnea patients have more episodes of reduced or stopped breathing during their slumber in areas with heavier air pollution, researchers reported Tuesday at an European Respiratory Society meeting in Amsterdam.Further, these sleep apnea episodes increased as air became more polluted, researchers found.“We confirmed a statistically significant positive association between average long-term exposure to air pollution, specifically fine particles known as PM10, and the severity of obstructive sleep apnea,” researcher Martino Pengo, an associate professor from the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, said in a news release.PM10 particles are less than 10 micrometers in diameter, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 micrometers wide.People with sleep apnea snore loudly and their breathing starts and stops during the night, disturbing their sleep. The condition is known to increase risk of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, according to the Mayo Clinic.For the study, researchers tracked more than 19,000 patients with sleep apnea from 25 cities in 14 countries. The team compared the patients’ apnea data from sleep studies with records of particle pollution in the air where they live.Results showed that the number of respiratory events — breathing slowing or stopping — per hour of sleep increased by 0.41 for every one-unit increase in PM10 particle pollution.“This effect may seem small for an individual, but across entire populations it can shift many people into higher-severity categories, making it meaningful from a public health perspective,” Pengo said.Researchers also found the link between particle pollution and sleep apnea varied in strength between cities. People in Lisbon, Paris and Athens were more affected by air pollution.“In some cities, the impact was stronger; in others, it was weaker or even absent,” Pengo said. “These regional differences might be due to things like local climate, the type of pollution or even how health care systems detect obstructive sleep apnea.”Sophia Schiza, head of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on sleep disordered breathing, said that “for people with obstructive sleep apnea, especially those living in cities with high levels of air pollution, this study is important as it suggests pollution could be making their condition worse.”The study strengthens the connection between environmental health and sleep medicine, added Schiza, a professor of pulmonology at the University of Crete in Greece who was not involved in the research. “It reminds us that tackling air pollution isn't just good for the planet, it's also vital for our lungs and our sleep quality too,” she said in a news release.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Sept. 30, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.