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.

The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

The matches came in rapid-fire succession on four pitches squeezed next to each other beneath a cavernous roof. Five boys per team, four matches at once, each 18 minutes, with only 90 seconds between them. Twelve hours later, the boys were gone, but the games went on. Eight teams, four fields, a sea of bouncing ponytails. It was peak soccer simultaneity. A vicious shot hit the crossbar on one pitch; on the next, a midfielder streaked past defenders on a breakaway; a corner kick on the third field; and on the fourth, a straight shot found the back of the net. In the stands, cheers went up for “Dani!” and “Ari!” and “Kylie!” and “Amber!” And as the night wore on, more and more of these young women stood with flushed faces and hands on hips, breathing deeply whenever a stoppage gave them a chance. The Soccer Coliseum bills itself as the “leading youth soccer arena in America, attracting more teams … than any other indoor facility.” Since 1996, this fútbol mecca — which rents space inside New Jersey’s Teaneck Armory — has offered youth soccer programs, including tournaments, classes, and camps, for kids as young as 3, introducing a generation of children to the beautiful game. Under the 35,000 square feet of red, artificial turf and the site-mandated rubber-soled shoes, however, lurked a hidden danger. The basement had housed an Army National Guard indoor firing range, or IFR, for decades. Each time a citizen-soldier fired a rifle or pistol, it emitted an extremely dangerous form of lead: toxic dust that research shows is frequently tracked around armories on soldiers’ clothing and dispersed through ventilation systems. Exclusive documents obtained by The Intercept show that the Army National Guard knowingly endangered the health and safety of soldiers and civilians at armories — also known as readiness centers — across three, and possibly 53, states and territories. A Soccer Coliseum director told The Intercept that he was never informed about a potential source of lead contamination in the basement below the playing fields. The soccer fields at the Teaneck Armory in early 2024. Photo: Nick Turse for The Intercept Despite being aware of the public health threat posed by lead-contaminated indoor firing ranges, the Army National Guard “didn’t take required action to remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs,” according to a 2020 Army audit of more than 130 armories that was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. “ARNG, States, and territories potentially put Soldiers and family members health at risk from lead exposure.” At least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard indoor firing ranges may still pose a threat. An investigation by The Intercept finds that nearly 50 years after the U.S. government sounded the alarm about the “potential health hazard” of IFRs, almost 40 years after the National Guard admitted most of its indoor ranges were “unsafe,” and more than 25 years after a Pentagon study urged decontamination of National Guard indoor firing ranges due to “lead hazards,” at least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard IFRs, from coast to coast, may still pose a threat. Additional armories may also be falsely counted as safe; an untold number that have undergone remediation may still pose health risks. But exactly where citizen-soldiers and civilians are most endangered remains a mystery. National Guard officials admit to flawed recordkeeping and say they do not have a ready list of sites that they call “high-risk IFRs.” “There ought to be congressional action. And the Secretary of the Army should immediately order the clean-up of these 600 sites. They should be cleaned up in a hurry,” said Ruth Ann Norton, a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and a leader of Lead-Free NJ, a collaborative focused on addressing lead hazards in the state. “It’s worth the cost, the return on investment, in terms of preventing the health impacts — kidney malfunction, hypertension, stillbirths, miscarriages, cardiac issues, neurological dysfunction — not to mention the moral imperative not to put people at risk.” Teaneck’s Soccer Coliseum is not mentioned by name in the nearly 50-page audit which obscures even the names of the states where the armories are located, but a picture of the enormous facility, with its distinctive red turf, unique windows, and high arching roof, as well as the audit’s description of the site, leaves no doubt. “Soldiers, civilians, and the public had unrestricted access to two centers with three IFRs in State C,” reads the 2020 audit, noting, in understated fashion, that one of those centers in State C — which the Army confirmed is New Jersey — “hosted an indoor soccer league.” A photo from the 2020 audit of Army National Guard armories. U.S. Army Audit Agency A National Guard official told The Intercept that their database lists the Teaneck Armory as “cleaned and remediated” according to a November 2019 “final clearance document.” But the 2020 audit states that while New Jersey’s armories with IFRs were remediated from 2017 to 2019, the remediation was done with “a high-pressure power wash system” that is barred “because it may embed lead throughout a readiness center and generate large quantities of hazardous waste.” The audit further revealed that “soldiers and civilians used the basement — a former IFR — as a storage room” and that the room still contained “lead-contaminated sand” from its days as a firing range. “You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. … It’s just going to spew lead everywhere.” “You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. That’s prohibited. It’s just going to spew lead everywhere — and it embeds it in all kinds of places and then it comes back out,” said Maria Doa, the senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund who spent more than 30 years at the EPA. “The federal government should know its own regulations and abide by them. Not doing so seems criminal.” The Intercept spoke to Yas Tambi, a director of the Soccer Coliseum, about the findings of the Army audit. Tambi, who said he has been with the organization for 29 years, could not recall receiving any information from the State of New Jersey, the Army, or the National Guard concerning lead dust or lead abatement, including during 2017 to 2019 when power-wash remediation efforts reportedly took place at the Teaneck Armory. “It wasn’t on my radar. Even if remediation was mentioned, I would think, ‘OK, they’re doing their job,’” said Tambi. “If we heard about any kind of contaminants in the building, we would be the first to complain about it.” Tambi stressed that, to his knowledge, longtime staff suffered no health effects, and that no complaints had been made by members of the public. “If anyone got sick, I would know,” he told The Intercept. The Soccer Coliseum referred The Intercept to the New Jersey National Guard for answers to additional questions. “We’ll have a response for you by the end of the day today,” Maj. Amelia Thatcher, a spokesperson for the New Jersey National Guard told The Intercept on Tuesday. After the deadline came and went, Thatcher said her promise of a comment had been “optimistic.” The Teaneck facility was one of more than 130 armories where the Army National Guard put people at risk, according to the audit. In three states — New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio — National Guard personnel did not properly report whether armories with IFRs were active; restrict public access to sites when lead levels were unknown; or conduct thorough lead abatement, jeopardizing the health and safety of soldiers and civilians.  “State ARNGs didn’t thoroughly remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs and certify results before converting IFR space to other uses (such as storage area, classroom, or office space),” reads the September 2020 report, which goes on to note that IFRs that haven’t been remediated — such as those in New Jersey — “pose a significant risk” if public access isn’t restricted. The audit also questioned the efficacy of the ANRG’s ability to manage almost $200 million spent on lead dust abatement measures. Almost four years after the audit’s release, the Army National Guard still has not followed through on the auditors’ recommendation that the director of the National Guard compel personnel in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio to perform the required in-depth evaluations to identify the full extent of lead contamination levels and conduct required remediation at 73 armories with IFRs, according to Matt Ahearn, an Army spokesperson. “It’s stunning,” said Eve Gartner, director of Crosscutting Toxics Strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit that uses the courts to protect the environment and the public’s health. “We’ve known for 100 years that lead is a toxin that has very serious health effects especially for developing fetuses, children, and pregnant women, but we’ve really dropped the ball as a country in truly protecting people from exposure.” New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company at the Teaneck Armory on March 19, 2020. Photo: Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS From its opening in 1938, lead dust accumulated in the Teaneck Armory — as it did for decades in readiness centers across America. Whenever a National Guards member pulled a trigger, the bullet’s explosive primer, which ignites the gunpowder, released a tiny amount of lead; additional lead then flaked off as the bullet raced down the weapon’s barrel; and still more was released after it tore through its target, slammed into a backdrop, and fell into a sand pit. Across the U.S., this toxic dust was tracked into armories’ common areas on shooters’ clothing and was sucked into ventilation systems and spread throughout facilities. There is no known safe level of lead exposure according to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A heavy metal that is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, lead is particularly dangerous to children and causes permanent damage to the brain and nervous system, resulting in stunted mental and physical growth. Even low levels of lead in the blood can reduce a child’s ability to concentrate and negatively impact academic achievement. Damage caused by lead poisoning is irreversible. In adults, lead exposure increases the risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and kidney damage. Pregnant women exposed to high levels of lead are more likely to suffer miscarriages and stillbirths. According to a 2023 Lancet study, worldwide lead exposures may have contributed to 5.5 million adult cardiovascular disease deaths and 765 million lost IQ points among children under 5, in just one year. The danger of lead, especially to children, was becoming clear in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and several European countries banned or restricted the use of lead paint. Concerns over the toxicity of leaded gasoline were raised in the 1920s. But the U.S. would not ban lead paint until 1978, and leaded gas was not completely phased out until 1996.  Related Newark’s Lead Crisis Isn’t Over: “People Are Still Drinking Water That They Shouldn’t” Ignoring lead hazards has been a reoccurring theme in America. And over the last several decades, hidden dangers of lead have been revealed in myriad contexts, including in hundreds of neighborhoods around the U.S. where lead factories, known as smelters, once stood; in drinking water from lead pipes in places like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey; and in paint found in an estimated 29 million older homes. The hazards of lead-contaminated shooting ranges have been studied since the 1940s, and in the early 1970s, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted surveys of IFRs — most of them in basements or sub-basements similar to those in Teaneck and other armories — and discovered “a potential health hazard due to inorganic lead exposure existed at each range.” In 1979, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finally established standards for airborne lead exposure in the workplace, including indoor firing ranges. Since then, 45 years of official reports, media investigations, and failures to act have followed. In the 1980s, National Guard requests for funds to upgrade indoor firing ranges were met with rejections from the Army for failing to specify which IFRs were selected for renovation.  In the 1990s, the Defense Department’s inspector general investigated indoor firing ranges at National Guard and Army Reserve facilities and found hazardous levels of lead dust in 12 armories, noting that a number had converted firing ranges into storage and office space without decontaminating them. As a result, all ARNG indoor ranges were mandated to “fully comply” with health and safety standards, with the completion date scheduled for February 2010. Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the “hot zone” behind the targets at an indoor firing range in Belgium on May 2015. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS In 2016, an investigation by The Oregonian, based on tens of thousands of pages of official records from 41 states, found that hundreds of armories were still contaminated with dangerous amounts of lead dust. In 2015 and 2016, the Army National Guard directed all 54 states and territories to report on the operational status of readiness centers with IFRs, determine remediation requirements, restrict public access, and fully remediate all lead dust contamination by the end of 2022. All IFRs were shut down, according to National Guard Bureau spokesperson Paul Swiergosz, with about 1,300 identified as “needing remediation.” Congress also stepped in. “Nearly 20 years after a military audit urged a cleanup nationwide, the lawmakers said it’s time to make the nation’s armories safe,” reads a 2017 press release from 10 senators who called for lead remediation in National Guard armories.  But when the Army Audit Agency investigated readiness centers from 2018 to 2020, it found the same systemic problems that had persisted for decades. The audit discovered that in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio, 73 of 83 IFRs — nearly 90 percent of those analyzed — were not thoroughly remediated and the required in-depth lead evaluations were not conducted. Those 73 armories with IFRs also didn’t restrict public access when lead levels were unknown. North Carolina performed “routine housekeeping cleaning” of its 29 IFRs but not the areas outside of ranges where personnel may have tracked lead. It also failed to remediate lead from bullet traps, vents, and heating and ventilation systems. Ohio focused its lead dust remediation efforts on its 24 IFRs but neglected the rest of those facilities. Its armories did not clean or replace the heating and ventilation systems, and the audit found it was “likely that lead contaminants spread throughout the center when the system was operating.” A different 2020 audit, this one by New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, noted that while New York IFRs had not been used in more than 20 years, decades of accumulated lead dust had been tracked around armories on soldiers’ shoes; dispersed through the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; and spread by weapons cleaning, maintenance, and storage. In 2015 and 2016, 35 of 42 New York armories were found to have excessive levels of lead dust on surfaces. As part of the 2020 audit, investigators visited 12 armories that were undergoing remediation and found lead levels still exceeded the acceptable threshold at four of them: Manhattan’s Park Avenue Armory, which houses an arts institution and a women’s homeless shelter; the Jamaica Armory in Queens, also home to a women’s shelter; the Saratoga Armory, which contains a museum; and Manhattan’s Harlem Armory, home to the Harlem Children’s Zone, whose youth programs include “Parent and Me gymnastics for toddlers” as well as basketball, dance, and soccer. Bullets and rubber cleaned from an indoor firing range on Chièvres Air Base in Belgium on Dec. 6, 2017. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS Despite assurances by New York State’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs that it had posted warnings (“Danger — Lead Hazard Area” and “Pregnant Women Not Permitted”), the comptroller’s office found no such signage at any of the four armories with dangerously high lead levels. “None of these armories disclosed these excessive lead levels to the public and this is unacceptable,” said Stephen Lynch, New York’s assistant comptroller for state government accountability who spent a combined 30 years in military service, including the Army Reserve and National Guard. “There needs to be improved oversight.”  Lynch’s personal experience highlights the risk to current Guard troops as well as the plight of generations of veterans and former members of the Guard and Reserve who were exposed to toxic lead dust in armories. Toward the end of his service, while drilling in an New York armory, Lynch saw a memo directing that no civilians or pregnant women should enter the facility because of lead contamination. “It was,” he said, “concerning for many reasons and begs the question, ‘What about military members or civilians working or training at the armory?’” The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has been mostly overlooked. The number of military personnel and citizen-soldiers potentially exposed to lead dust in armories since the 19th century is astronomical. By the early 1900s, a significant percentage of “organized militia” in various states were using “indoor target galleries.” And since 1916, all Guard units have been required to “assemble for drill and instruction, including indoor target practice, not less than forty-eight times each year.” That year, there were 132,194 members of the Guard and militia. By the 1950s and 1960s, the average number of Guard members had ballooned to more than 360,000, and even off-duty marksmanship training at indoor ranges was being officially encouraged. By 1988, there were 455,182 Guard members, and between 1990 and 2023, alone, more than 2.8 million military veterans served in the National Guard or Reserve. The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has, however, been mostly overlooked. Doa, a top official in the EPA’s Science Policy Division until 2021, said that the threat posed by lead has long been given short shrift. “Lead does such horrible things to people and — I saw this when I was working on lead at EPA — it just was not taken as seriously as it needed to be,” she said. “The Army National Guard should go in and clean up these facilities following best practices for abatement. They should get down to EPA’s more protective proposed lead dust standards,” Doa told The Intercept, referring to changes which would classify any level of lead dust greater than zero as a hazard. Since New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio didn’t conduct the necessary lead dust remediation, it was, according to the Army audit, “highly likely that other states and territories may have done the same,” and the problem “likely exists ARNG-wide.” There is good reason to believe it.  The Intercept requested the status of 27 armories. The National Guard provided information on 13 and failed to locate two in their database. The Guard refused to search for information for 12 other armories because it was “taking up too much bandwidth of the environmental team,” according to Swiergosz, the National Guard spokesperson. He instead recommended filing Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents. The Intercept is still waiting on remediation documents requested via FOIA in 2023.  The Intercept found discrepancies in the National Guard’s own data, resulting in the continued use of facilities that may still be contaminated with lead dust. In New Hampshire, the Manchester armory’s IFR has been “closed” but has not been remediated, according to the National Guard. The armory has continued to host military personnel and civilians. In February, the facility was packed with National Guard members returning from the Middle East as well as their families, including a sizable contingent of children, according to photos published in Stars and Stripes. New Hampshire Guard members reunite with friends and family at a “welcome home” ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the armory in Manchester, N.H. Photo: Master Sgt. Charles Johnston/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS The National Guard told The Intercept that according to its national database, known as PRIDE, the armory in Hernando, Mississippi, is listed as “closed,” but the National Guard found no mention of a final clearance document. “Closed” status means an IFR has been shut down and the area certified as having acceptable surface lead levels. The Army audit, however, discovered that ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 IFRs listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The audit found, for example, an armory in North Carolina that hosted “ARNG family members” had a “fully functioning” IFR littered with bullet fragments but was nonetheless listed as “closed” in PRIDE.  The armory in Waterbury, Vermont, was cleaned in 2017 and is listed as “closed” in PRIDE. Decommissioned in 2022, it is now the site of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Recovery Center; was used this summer as the site of a youth camp for the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary to the U.S. Air Force, hosting about 75 tweens and teens; and has also been talked about as a future homeless shelter. The IFR at an armory in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, was listed as having been “cleaned, tested, and closed in 2017” in PRIDE, but the National Guard offered no additional information about remediation or a final clearance document. Last December, the armory hosted a Toys for Tots event.  ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 indoor firing ranges listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The Army Audit included 12 recommendations, including that armories in the states examined perform evaluations to identify the extent of lead contamination and that the ARNG ensure the accuracy of its database. Ahearn, the Army spokesperson, told The Intercept the critical recommendation that the states perform the required evaluations and IFR lead dust remediation efforts in accordance with ARNG guidance has not been met, although 11 other recommendations had. The Army National Guard’s ability to verify its compliance is, however, questionable.  The National Guard press office told The Intercept that “it is impractical for ARNG to travel to each site to verify completion” of remediation projects and that the Guard instead relied on self-reported data entered into the PRIDE database by the 54 individual states and territories. Two sources within the ANRG, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that even basic information about lead abatement in armories was inconsistently tracked and stored — one of the 11 issues supposedly addressed following the 2020 Army audit. Both expressed skepticism that lead contamination data was accurate. Swiergosz admitted as much in an email, noting that while he was no expert, it appeared “there are inconsistencies in how the data is entered into the database.” (He declared this was “off the record,” apparently without realizing that this stipulation is not achieved by unilateral decree.) These findings echo the Army audit which discovered proper documentation was often missing and basic information was lacking. “The data wasn’t complete or accurate,” the auditors wrote of PRIDE. “We couldn’t validate the reliability of facility and IFR data.”  “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings.” Experts say that the Army must provide definitive answers about the safety of armories and concrete proof of remediation. “Our laws are very under-protective,” said Earthjustice’s Gartner. “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings — even more so when it comes to a hybrid military and public facility.” The Army National Guard said it had “addressed” lead threats at around 710 IFRs, as of December 2023. These sites have been “repurposed” and are now “no longer a threat.” Swiergosz told The Intercept that the Army and the National Guard prioritized “high-risk IFRs” and, since 2017, allocated $205 million toward those projects. But when asked for a list of such sites, Swiergosz said they “really don’t track sites that way” and could not provide it nor an inventory of remediated armories.   In 2019, the PRIDE database listed 1,324 IFRs and 2,911 total armories, but investigators wrote that “ARNG personnel couldn’t tell us if IFRs existed at the remaining 1,587 centers.” The Army audit found that four states over- or under-counted a total of six IFRs and the operational status of another 25 was inaccurate in PRIDE. The auditors also identified one state, which was not in their review, that failed to report any IFRs in the PRIDE database but nonetheless conducted 29 lead remediation projects. Remediation is also no guarantee of safety. New York’s Whitestone Armory began serving as a community center in the 1980s and, by the early 2000s, was offering programs for children and seniors, including aerobics, arts and crafts classes, basketball, and line dancing. Information from the New York State Comptroller’s Office shows a $1.6 million contract, mostly for “lead mitigation” at the site, was awarded in 2017 and ran until 2020. The next year, however, New York’s Army National Guard informed the state’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs of excessive lead levels there. It was the same for the Orangeburg and Staten Island armories which were remediated under contracts issued in the late 2010s but were also, the comptroller’s office told The Intercept, found to have unacceptably high lead levels in 2021. “It is a known problem that armories across the country have been found to be contaminated with high levels of lead,” DiNapoli told The Intercept, noting that while New York’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs had taken steps to remediate the lead hazards, more was needed. “If testing is not done consistently and safety standards are not enforced, then unsafe levels of lead could have serious health effects on people using armory facilities.” While some National Guard armories became community centers decades into their existence, the Teaneck, New Jersey, site was never intended to be a purely military facility. As its basement began accumulating toxic dust, the Teaneck Armory became, according to the Bergen Record, the “Madison Square Garden of Bergen County.” Beginning in 1938, spectators crowded in to watch amateur boxing and, over the ensuing decades, dog shows, bingo, roller derby, professional wrestling, professional tennis, a rodeo, the crusade of evangelist Billy Graham, performances by entertainers from Frank Sinatra to the Ronettes, and a speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. In the 1960s, the armory even briefly became the home of the New Jersey Americans of the American Basketball Association. (Today, they are the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets.) The armory eventually became a movie soundstage for films like the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy “You’ve Got Mail” before becoming home to the Soccer Coliseum. One morning earlier this year, girls from NJ Crush Football Club, New York City Football Club, and other teams sprinted back and forth on the Soccer Coliseum’s red turf. As the hours evaporated, goals added up and wins and losses mounted. In the stands, players’ younger siblings climbed over the folding seats, sat transfixed in front of iPads, or wolfed down baggies of snacks.       For years, scenes like this have played out weekend after weekend, adding to the hundreds of thousands of people — soldiers and civilians, children and adults — who have visited the armory over its long tenure as a sports arena, concert hall, and community hub. Much the same can be said for other National Guard armories from coast to coast that have opened their doors to members of their local communities. The number of those potentially exposed to lead dust over more than a century is staggering — and so are the potential costs. “Lead poisoning doesn’t stop when a child turns 6, the risks continue: kidney impacts, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and a 46 percent increase in early mortality,” said Lead-Free NJ’s Norton, the architect of the State of Maryland’s effort to reduce childhood lead poisoning. “But this is so fixable. It’s just a question of whether we make the moral and political choice to fix it.” The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

An Intercept investigation reveals that the Army National Guard has known about poisonous lead dust at armories open to the public for years, but is doing little to respond. The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

The matches came in rapid-fire succession on four pitches squeezed next to each other beneath a cavernous roof. Five boys per team, four matches at once, each 18 minutes, with only 90 seconds between them. Twelve hours later, the boys were gone, but the games went on. Eight teams, four fields, a sea of bouncing ponytails.

It was peak soccer simultaneity. A vicious shot hit the crossbar on one pitch; on the next, a midfielder streaked past defenders on a breakaway; a corner kick on the third field; and on the fourth, a straight shot found the back of the net. In the stands, cheers went up for “Dani!” and “Ari!” and “Kylie!” and “Amber!” And as the night wore on, more and more of these young women stood with flushed faces and hands on hips, breathing deeply whenever a stoppage gave them a chance.

The Soccer Coliseum bills itself as the “leading youth soccer arena in America, attracting more teams … than any other indoor facility.” Since 1996, this fútbol mecca — which rents space inside New Jersey’s Teaneck Armory — has offered youth soccer programs, including tournaments, classes, and camps, for kids as young as 3, introducing a generation of children to the beautiful game.

Under the 35,000 square feet of red, artificial turf and the site-mandated rubber-soled shoes, however, lurked a hidden danger. The basement had housed an Army National Guard indoor firing range, or IFR, for decades. Each time a citizen-soldier fired a rifle or pistol, it emitted an extremely dangerous form of lead: toxic dust that research shows is frequently tracked around armories on soldiers’ clothing and dispersed through ventilation systems.

Exclusive documents obtained by The Intercept show that the Army National Guard knowingly endangered the health and safety of soldiers and civilians at armories — also known as readiness centers — across three, and possibly 53, states and territories. A Soccer Coliseum director told The Intercept that he was never informed about a potential source of lead contamination in the basement below the playing fields.

The soccer fields at the Teaneck Armory in early 2024. Photo: Nick Turse for The Intercept

Despite being aware of the public health threat posed by lead-contaminated indoor firing ranges, the Army National Guard “didn’t take required action to remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs,” according to a 2020 Army audit of more than 130 armories that was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. “ARNG, States, and territories potentially put Soldiers and family members health at risk from lead exposure.”

At least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard indoor firing ranges may still pose a threat.

An investigation by The Intercept finds that nearly 50 years after the U.S. government sounded the alarm about the “potential health hazard” of IFRs, almost 40 years after the National Guard admitted most of its indoor ranges were “unsafe,” and more than 25 years after a Pentagon study urged decontamination of National Guard indoor firing ranges due to “lead hazards,” at least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard IFRs, from coast to coast, may still pose a threat. Additional armories may also be falsely counted as safe; an untold number that have undergone remediation may still pose health risks. But exactly where citizen-soldiers and civilians are most endangered remains a mystery. National Guard officials admit to flawed recordkeeping and say they do not have a ready list of sites that they call “high-risk IFRs.”

“There ought to be congressional action. And the Secretary of the Army should immediately order the clean-up of these 600 sites. They should be cleaned up in a hurry,” said Ruth Ann Norton, a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and a leader of Lead-Free NJ, a collaborative focused on addressing lead hazards in the state. “It’s worth the cost, the return on investment, in terms of preventing the health impacts — kidney malfunction, hypertension, stillbirths, miscarriages, cardiac issues, neurological dysfunction — not to mention the moral imperative not to put people at risk.”

Teaneck’s Soccer Coliseum is not mentioned by name in the nearly 50-page audit which obscures even the names of the states where the armories are located, but a picture of the enormous facility, with its distinctive red turf, unique windows, and high arching roof, as well as the audit’s description of the site, leaves no doubt. “Soldiers, civilians, and the public had unrestricted access to two centers with three IFRs in State C,” reads the 2020 audit, noting, in understated fashion, that one of those centers in State C — which the Army confirmed is New Jersey — “hosted an indoor soccer league.”

Screenshot
A photo from the 2020 audit of Army National Guard armories. U.S. Army Audit Agency

A National Guard official told The Intercept that their database lists the Teaneck Armory as “cleaned and remediated” according to a November 2019 “final clearance document.” But the 2020 audit states that while New Jersey’s armories with IFRs were remediated from 2017 to 2019, the remediation was done with “a high-pressure power wash system” that is barred “because it may embed lead throughout a readiness center and generate large quantities of hazardous waste.” The audit further revealed that “soldiers and civilians used the basement — a former IFR — as a storage room” and that the room still contained “lead-contaminated sand” from its days as a firing range.

“You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. … It’s just going to spew lead everywhere.”

“You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. That’s prohibited. It’s just going to spew lead everywhere — and it embeds it in all kinds of places and then it comes back out,” said Maria Doa, the senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund who spent more than 30 years at the EPA. “The federal government should know its own regulations and abide by them. Not doing so seems criminal.”

The Intercept spoke to Yas Tambi, a director of the Soccer Coliseum, about the findings of the Army audit. Tambi, who said he has been with the organization for 29 years, could not recall receiving any information from the State of New Jersey, the Army, or the National Guard concerning lead dust or lead abatement, including during 2017 to 2019 when power-wash remediation efforts reportedly took place at the Teaneck Armory. “It wasn’t on my radar. Even if remediation was mentioned, I would think, ‘OK, they’re doing their job,’” said Tambi. “If we heard about any kind of contaminants in the building, we would be the first to complain about it.”

Tambi stressed that, to his knowledge, longtime staff suffered no health effects, and that no complaints had been made by members of the public. “If anyone got sick, I would know,” he told The Intercept.

The Soccer Coliseum referred The Intercept to the New Jersey National Guard for answers to additional questions. “We’ll have a response for you by the end of the day today,” Maj. Amelia Thatcher, a spokesperson for the New Jersey National Guard told The Intercept on Tuesday. After the deadline came and went, Thatcher said her promise of a comment had been “optimistic.”

The Teaneck facility was one of more than 130 armories where the Army National Guard put people at risk, according to the audit. In three states — New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio — National Guard personnel did not properly report whether armories with IFRs were active; restrict public access to sites when lead levels were unknown; or conduct thorough lead abatement, jeopardizing the health and safety of soldiers and civilians. 

“State ARNGs didn’t thoroughly remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs and certify results before converting IFR space to other uses (such as storage area, classroom, or office space),” reads the September 2020 report, which goes on to note that IFRs that haven’t been remediated — such as those in New Jersey — “pose a significant risk” if public access isn’t restricted. The audit also questioned the efficacy of the ANRG’s ability to manage almost $200 million spent on lead dust abatement measures. Almost four years after the audit’s release, the Army National Guard still has not followed through on the auditors’ recommendation that the director of the National Guard compel personnel in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio to perform the required in-depth evaluations to identify the full extent of lead contamination levels and conduct required remediation at 73 armories with IFRs, according to Matt Ahearn, an Army spokesperson.

“It’s stunning,” said Eve Gartner, director of Crosscutting Toxics Strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit that uses the courts to protect the environment and the public’s health. “We’ve known for 100 years that lead is a toxin that has very serious health effects especially for developing fetuses, children, and pregnant women, but we’ve really dropped the ball as a country in truly protecting people from exposure.”

New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company are briefed during in-processing and medical screening for state activation at the Teaneck Armory in Teaneck, N.J., March 19, 2020. The New Jersey National Guard has more than 150 members activated to support state and local authorities during the COVID-19 outbreak. Bother the 508th and 143rd will be working with the New Jersey Department of Health and local first responders at a mobile testing facility located at Bergen Community College in Paramus, N.J. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Matt Hecht)
New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company at the Teaneck Armory on March 19, 2020. Photo: Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS

From its opening in 1938, lead dust accumulated in the Teaneck Armory — as it did for decades in readiness centers across America. Whenever a National Guards member pulled a trigger, the bullet’s explosive primer, which ignites the gunpowder, released a tiny amount of lead; additional lead then flaked off as the bullet raced down the weapon’s barrel; and still more was released after it tore through its target, slammed into a backdrop, and fell into a sand pit. Across the U.S., this toxic dust was tracked into armories’ common areas on shooters’ clothing and was sucked into ventilation systems and spread throughout facilities.

There is no known safe level of lead exposure according to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A heavy metal that is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, lead is particularly dangerous to children and causes permanent damage to the brain and nervous system, resulting in stunted mental and physical growth. Even low levels of lead in the blood can reduce a child’s ability to concentrate and negatively impact academic achievement. Damage caused by lead poisoning is irreversible.

In adults, lead exposure increases the risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and kidney damage. Pregnant women exposed to high levels of lead are more likely to suffer miscarriages and stillbirths. According to a 2023 Lancet study, worldwide lead exposures may have contributed to 5.5 million adult cardiovascular disease deaths and 765 million lost IQ points among children under 5, in just one year.

The danger of lead, especially to children, was becoming clear in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and several European countries banned or restricted the use of lead paint. Concerns over the toxicity of leaded gasoline were raised in the 1920s. But the U.S. would not ban lead paint until 1978, and leaded gas was not completely phased out until 1996. 

Related

Newark’s Lead Crisis Isn’t Over: “People Are Still Drinking Water That They Shouldn’t”

Ignoring lead hazards has been a reoccurring theme in America. And over the last several decades, hidden dangers of lead have been revealed in myriad contexts, including in hundreds of neighborhoods around the U.S. where lead factories, known as smelters, once stood; in drinking water from lead pipes in places like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey; and in paint found in an estimated 29 million older homes.

The hazards of lead-contaminated shooting ranges have been studied since the 1940s, and in the early 1970s, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted surveys of IFRs — most of them in basements or sub-basements similar to those in Teaneck and other armories — and discovered “a potential health hazard due to inorganic lead exposure existed at each range.” In 1979, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finally established standards for airborne lead exposure in the workplace, including indoor firing ranges.

Since then, 45 years of official reports, media investigations, and failures to act have followed. In the 1980s, National Guard requests for funds to upgrade indoor firing ranges were met with rejections from the Army for failing to specify which IFRs were selected for renovation. 

In the 1990s, the Defense Department’s inspector general investigated indoor firing ranges at National Guard and Army Reserve facilities and found hazardous levels of lead dust in 12 armories, noting that a number had converted firing ranges into storage and office space without decontaminating them. As a result, all ARNG indoor ranges were mandated to “fully comply” with health and safety standards, with the completion date scheduled for February 2010.

Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the "hot zone" behind the targets in the TSC Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range, in order to sort the rubber material from the bullets, in Chièvres, Belgium, May 12, 2015. In accordance with the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Europe Sustainable Range Program, the Training Support Center Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range is regularly maintained, the bullet catcher is cleaned of the bullets, and all lead, contaminated debris and hazardous material are safely disposed of. (U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/Released)
Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the “hot zone” behind the targets at an indoor firing range in Belgium on May 2015. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS

In 2016, an investigation by The Oregonian, based on tens of thousands of pages of official records from 41 states, found that hundreds of armories were still contaminated with dangerous amounts of lead dust.

In 2015 and 2016, the Army National Guard directed all 54 states and territories to report on the operational status of readiness centers with IFRs, determine remediation requirements, restrict public access, and fully remediate all lead dust contamination by the end of 2022. All IFRs were shut down, according to National Guard Bureau spokesperson Paul Swiergosz, with about 1,300 identified as “needing remediation.”

Congress also stepped in. “Nearly 20 years after a military audit urged a cleanup nationwide, the lawmakers said it’s time to make the nation’s armories safe,” reads a 2017 press release from 10 senators who called for lead remediation in National Guard armories. 

But when the Army Audit Agency investigated readiness centers from 2018 to 2020, it found the same systemic problems that had persisted for decades. The audit discovered that in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio, 73 of 83 IFRs — nearly 90 percent of those analyzed — were not thoroughly remediated and the required in-depth lead evaluations were not conducted. Those 73 armories with IFRs also didn’t restrict public access when lead levels were unknown.

North Carolina performed “routine housekeeping cleaning” of its 29 IFRs but not the areas outside of ranges where personnel may have tracked lead. It also failed to remediate lead from bullet traps, vents, and heating and ventilation systems. Ohio focused its lead dust remediation efforts on its 24 IFRs but neglected the rest of those facilities. Its armories did not clean or replace the heating and ventilation systems, and the audit found it was “likely that lead contaminants spread throughout the center when the system was operating.” A different 2020 audit, this one by New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, noted that while New York IFRs had not been used in more than 20 years, decades of accumulated lead dust had been tracked around armories on soldiers’ shoes; dispersed through the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; and spread by weapons cleaning, maintenance, and storage.

In 2015 and 2016, 35 of 42 New York armories were found to have excessive levels of lead dust on surfaces. As part of the 2020 audit, investigators visited 12 armories that were undergoing remediation and found lead levels still exceeded the acceptable threshold at four of them: Manhattan’s Park Avenue Armory, which houses an arts institution and a women’s homeless shelter; the Jamaica Armory in Queens, also home to a women’s shelter; the Saratoga Armory, which contains a museum; and Manhattan’s Harlem Armory, home to the Harlem Children’s Zone, whose youth programs include “Parent and Me gymnastics for toddlers” as well as basketball, dance, and soccer.

A contractor shows the bullets and rubber that he cleaned in the Training Support Center Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range, on Chièvres Air Base, Belgium, Dec. 6, 2017. In accordance with the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Europe Sustainable Range Program, the TSC Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range is regularly maintained, bullets are removed from the bullet catcher, and all lead, contaminated debris and hazardous material are safely disposed. (U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie)
Bullets and rubber cleaned from an indoor firing range on Chièvres Air Base in Belgium on Dec. 6, 2017. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS

Despite assurances by New York State’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs that it had posted warnings (“Danger — Lead Hazard Area” and “Pregnant Women Not Permitted”), the comptroller’s office found no such signage at any of the four armories with dangerously high lead levels. “None of these armories disclosed these excessive lead levels to the public and this is unacceptable,” said Stephen Lynch, New York’s assistant comptroller for state government accountability who spent a combined 30 years in military service, including the Army Reserve and National Guard. “There needs to be improved oversight.” 

Lynch’s personal experience highlights the risk to current Guard troops as well as the plight of generations of veterans and former members of the Guard and Reserve who were exposed to toxic lead dust in armories. Toward the end of his service, while drilling in an New York armory, Lynch saw a memo directing that no civilians or pregnant women should enter the facility because of lead contamination. “It was,” he said, “concerning for many reasons and begs the question, ‘What about military members or civilians working or training at the armory?’”

The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has been mostly overlooked.

The number of military personnel and citizen-soldiers potentially exposed to lead dust in armories since the 19th century is astronomical. By the early 1900s, a significant percentage of “organized militia” in various states were using “indoor target galleries.” And since 1916, all Guard units have been required to “assemble for drill and instruction, including indoor target practice, not less than forty-eight times each year.” That year, there were 132,194 members of the Guard and militia. By the 1950s and 1960s, the average number of Guard members had ballooned to more than 360,000, and even off-duty marksmanship training at indoor ranges was being officially encouraged. By 1988, there were 455,182 Guard members, and between 1990 and 2023, alone, more than 2.8 million military veterans served in the National Guard or Reserve. The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has, however, been mostly overlooked.

Doa, a top official in the EPA’s Science Policy Division until 2021, said that the threat posed by lead has long been given short shrift. “Lead does such horrible things to people and — I saw this when I was working on lead at EPA — it just was not taken as seriously as it needed to be,” she said.

“The Army National Guard should go in and clean up these facilities following best practices for abatement. They should get down to EPA’s more protective proposed lead dust standards,” Doa told The Intercept, referring to changes which would classify any level of lead dust greater than zero as a hazard.

Since New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio didn’t conduct the necessary lead dust remediation, it was, according to the Army audit, “highly likely that other states and territories may have done the same,” and the problem “likely exists ARNG-wide.” There is good reason to believe it. 

The Intercept requested the status of 27 armories. The National Guard provided information on 13 and failed to locate two in their database. The Guard refused to search for information for 12 other armories because it was “taking up too much bandwidth of the environmental team,” according to Swiergosz, the National Guard spokesperson. He instead recommended filing Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents. The Intercept is still waiting on remediation documents requested via FOIA in 2023. 

The Intercept found discrepancies in the National Guard’s own data, resulting in the continued use of facilities that may still be contaminated with lead dust.

In New Hampshire, the Manchester armory’s IFR has been “closed” but has not been remediated, according to the National Guard. The armory has continued to host military personnel and civilians. In February, the facility was packed with National Guard members returning from the Middle East as well as their families, including a sizable contingent of children, according to photos published in Stars and Stripes.

New Hampshire Guardsmen reunite with friends and family at a 3-197th Field Artillery Regiment welcome home ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the Manchester armory in New Hampshire. About 370 Soldiers, including a battery of 84 Guardsmen from Michigan, deployed last spring to the Middle East. The New Hampshire Army National Guard HIMARS (high mobility rocket system) battalion completed a nine-month rotation in support of Operations Spartan Shield and Inherent Resolve. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Charles Johnston)
New Hampshire Guard members reunite with friends and family at a “welcome home” ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the armory in Manchester, N.H. Photo: Master Sgt. Charles Johnston/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS

The National Guard told The Intercept that according to its national database, known as PRIDE, the armory in Hernando, Mississippi, is listed as “closed,” but the National Guard found no mention of a final clearance document. “Closed” status means an IFR has been shut down and the area certified as having acceptable surface lead levels. The Army audit, however, discovered that ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 IFRs listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The audit found, for example, an armory in North Carolina that hosted “ARNG family members” had a “fully functioning” IFR littered with bullet fragments but was nonetheless listed as “closed” in PRIDE. 

The armory in Waterbury, Vermont, was cleaned in 2017 and is listed as “closed” in PRIDE. Decommissioned in 2022, it is now the site of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Recovery Center; was used this summer as the site of a youth camp for the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary to the U.S. Air Force, hosting about 75 tweens and teens; and has also been talked about as a future homeless shelter. The IFR at an armory in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, was listed as having been “cleaned, tested, and closed in 2017” in PRIDE, but the National Guard offered no additional information about remediation or a final clearance document. Last December, the armory hosted a Toys for Tots event

ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 indoor firing ranges listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.”

The Army Audit included 12 recommendations, including that armories in the states examined perform evaluations to identify the extent of lead contamination and that the ARNG ensure the accuracy of its database. Ahearn, the Army spokesperson, told The Intercept the critical recommendation that the states perform the required evaluations and IFR lead dust remediation efforts in accordance with ARNG guidance has not been met, although 11 other recommendations had. The Army National Guard’s ability to verify its compliance is, however, questionable. 

The National Guard press office told The Intercept that “it is impractical for ARNG to travel to each site to verify completion” of remediation projects and that the Guard instead relied on self-reported data entered into the PRIDE database by the 54 individual states and territories.

Two sources within the ANRG, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that even basic information about lead abatement in armories was inconsistently tracked and stored — one of the 11 issues supposedly addressed following the 2020 Army audit. Both expressed skepticism that lead contamination data was accurate. Swiergosz admitted as much in an email, noting that while he was no expert, it appeared “there are inconsistencies in how the data is entered into the database.” (He declared this was “off the record,” apparently without realizing that this stipulation is not achieved by unilateral decree.) These findings echo the Army audit which discovered proper documentation was often missing and basic information was lacking. “The data wasn’t complete or accurate,” the auditors wrote of PRIDE. “We couldn’t validate the reliability of facility and IFR data.” 

“We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings.”

Experts say that the Army must provide definitive answers about the safety of armories and concrete proof of remediation. “Our laws are very under-protective,” said Earthjustice’s Gartner. “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings — even more so when it comes to a hybrid military and public facility.”

The Army National Guard said it had “addressed” lead threats at around 710 IFRs, as of December 2023. These sites have been “repurposed” and are now “no longer a threat.” Swiergosz told The Intercept that the Army and the National Guard prioritized “high-risk IFRs” and, since 2017, allocated $205 million toward those projects. But when asked for a list of such sites, Swiergosz said they “really don’t track sites that way” and could not provide it nor an inventory of remediated armories.  

In 2019, the PRIDE database listed 1,324 IFRs and 2,911 total armories, but investigators wrote that “ARNG personnel couldn’t tell us if IFRs existed at the remaining 1,587 centers.” The Army audit found that four states over- or under-counted a total of six IFRs and the operational status of another 25 was inaccurate in PRIDE. The auditors also identified one state, which was not in their review, that failed to report any IFRs in the PRIDE database but nonetheless conducted 29 lead remediation projects.

Remediation is also no guarantee of safety. New York’s Whitestone Armory began serving as a community center in the 1980s and, by the early 2000s, was offering programs for children and seniors, including aerobics, arts and crafts classes, basketball, and line dancingInformation from the New York State Comptroller’s Office shows a $1.6 million contract, mostly for “lead mitigation” at the site, was awarded in 2017 and ran until 2020. The next year, however, New York’s Army National Guard informed the state’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs of excessive lead levels there. It was the same for the Orangeburg and Staten Island armories which were remediated under contracts issued in the late 2010s but were also, the comptroller’s office told The Intercept, found to have unacceptably high lead levels in 2021.

“It is a known problem that armories across the country have been found to be contaminated with high levels of lead,” DiNapoli told The Intercept, noting that while New York’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs had taken steps to remediate the lead hazards, more was needed. “If testing is not done consistently and safety standards are not enforced, then unsafe levels of lead could have serious health effects on people using armory facilities.”

While some National Guard armories became community centers decades into their existence, the Teaneck, New Jersey, site was never intended to be a purely military facility.

As its basement began accumulating toxic dust, the Teaneck Armory became, according to the Bergen Record, the “Madison Square Garden of Bergen County.” Beginning in 1938, spectators crowded in to watch amateur boxing and, over the ensuing decades, dog shows, bingo, roller derby, professional wrestling, professional tennis, a rodeo, the crusade of evangelist Billy Graham, performances by entertainers from Frank Sinatra to the Ronettes, and a speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. In the 1960s, the armory even briefly became the home of the New Jersey Americans of the American Basketball Association. (Today, they are the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets.) The armory eventually became a movie soundstage for films like the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy “You’ve Got Mail” before becoming home to the Soccer Coliseum.

One morning earlier this year, girls from NJ Crush Football Club, New York City Football Club, and other teams sprinted back and forth on the Soccer Coliseum’s red turf. As the hours evaporated, goals added up and wins and losses mounted. In the stands, players’ younger siblings climbed over the folding seats, sat transfixed in front of iPads, or wolfed down baggies of snacks.      

For years, scenes like this have played out weekend after weekend, adding to the hundreds of thousands of people — soldiers and civilians, children and adults — who have visited the armory over its long tenure as a sports arena, concert hall, and community hub. Much the same can be said for other National Guard armories from coast to coast that have opened their doors to members of their local communities. The number of those potentially exposed to lead dust over more than a century is staggering — and so are the potential costs.

“Lead poisoning doesn’t stop when a child turns 6, the risks continue: kidney impacts, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and a 46 percent increase in early mortality,” said Lead-Free NJ’s Norton, the architect of the State of Maryland’s effort to reduce childhood lead poisoning. “But this is so fixable. It’s just a question of whether we make the moral and political choice to fix it.”

The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Thoracic surgeon Jonathan Villena explains why early screening for lung cancer is critical—even for those without symptoms.

Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer among women in the United States, surpassing the mortality numbers of breast and ovarian cancer combined. And surprisingly, younger women who have never smoked are increasingly being diagnosed with the disease.Here to explain what could be driving this trend—and why early screening can make all the difference—is Johnathan Villena, a thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us.Johnathan Villena: Thank you for having me.Feltman: So our viewers and listeners might be surprised to hear that lung cancer [deaths] in women now tops breast cancer, ovarian cancer combined. Can you tell us more about what’s going on there?Villena: Yeah, definitely. So in general lung cancer is the number-one cancer [killing]people in the U.S., both men and women. If you look at the American Cancer Society, around 226 new—226,000 new cases of lung cancer are projected to be diagnosed in 2025. Of those about 50 percent are cancer-related deaths, meaning [roughly] 120,000 people die every year from lung cancer. Now, what’s—the good news is that the incidence has actually been decreasing in the last few years.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics, in the last 10 years [ of data, which goes through 2021], the, the incidence of lung cancer has decreased in men around 3 percent per year. And it’s about half of that in women, meaning it’s decreasing [roughly] 1.5 percent per year. So one of the reasons that they think that this might be happening is that there was an uptick in smoking in women around the ’60s and ’70s, and that’s why we’re seeing a slight, you know, decrease in the incidence in men but not so much in the women.What’s more interesting and very surprising is the fact that when you look at younger people, meaning less than 65 years old—especially younger never-smoking people—there’s actually an increase of women in that subgroup. They’re overrepresented, and that’s something very surprising.Feltman: Does the research offer us any clues about what’s going on in this demographic of younger women?Villena: Yeah, so there’s been a lot of research. So, you know, in general—and something that people don’t know is that about 20 percent of lung cancers actually occur in people that have never smoked in their entire lives.Feltman: Mm.Villena: This is something that we don’t really understand why this happens to this one in five people, but there are some risk factors associated with it. Number one is exposure to radon, which is a natural gas that sometimes people are exposed to for a prolonged time. Number two is secondhand smoking ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So they don’t smoke directly, but they live in a household where they smoke. And number three are kind of other environmental factors, things such as working in a specific, you know, manufacturing plant that deals with specific chemicals. And then lastly, the one that has had, actually, had a lot of research into it are genetic factors. There’s definitely a preponderance of certain mutations in somebody’s genes that can cause lung cancer, and that is overrepresented in women.Feltman: Do women face any unique challenges in getting diagnosed or treated when it comes to lung cancer?Villena: So, yes. First of all, you know, how do we treat or catch lung cancer? So the newest and, and latest way of catching this disease is actually through lung cancer screening.That’s something that’s relatively new; it’s only happened in the last 10 years. And that’s in certain demographics, meaning that if someone is over 50 years old and they have smoked more than one pack per day for 20 years, they meet the criteria for lung cancer screening, which is basically a radiograph or a CAT scan of their lungs. That’s the way that we pick up lung cancer.That’s the—almost the exact same thing that people have for breast cancer, such as mammography, or colonoscopy. So that’s before any symptoms come in. That’s really just to try to capture it when it’s in very nascent stages, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Where it’s very small or not symptomatic. And that’s the way we diagnose a, a lot of lung cancer.Now, that being said, there’s a couple of things. So first of all, [roughly] 60 to 70 percent of people, like, in general get mammographies.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: [About] 60 to 70 percent of people get colonoscopies. Only 6 percent of people actually get lung cancer screening. So it’s dismally low.Feltman: Yeah.Villena: The reason being that sometimes people don’t know about it; it’s relatively new. Sometimes even doctors don’t know about it. There’s also a little bit of guilt involved, where people, you know, they think they did it to themselves by smoking ...Feltman: Hmm.Villena: So they don’t wanna go do it. The second thing is that, as you could imagine, this is only for high-risk individuals or people that have a history of smoking, all right? So it misses these never-smoking one in five patients. So that’s one of the things that we’re actively working on.Feltman: Yeah, how else does the, you know, the stigma associated with lung cancer because of its association with smoking, how does that impact people’s ability to get diagnosed and treated?Villena: I think there’s a lot of hesitancy between patients. There’s, you know, a recent study that showed that people are more—have more tendency to downplay their smoking history, meaning that if they quit, let’s say 10 years ago, you tell your doctor that you never smoked.Feltman: Mm.Villena: And that’s something very common. Or if you smoked, you know, one pack a day, maybe you say you smoked half a pack a day because you feel that guilt. So then you don’t give your doctor or your caretaker the full picture. And sometimes that prevents you from getting these tests, right? So there’s definitely that attitude.There’s also a bit of a fatalistic attitude, sort of like, “I did it to myself. I’d rather not know. You know, this is something that—you know, I made that choice, and if I get cancer, that’s my choice.” Right? So that’s, that’s also another attitude that we’re constantly trying to change in patients. You know, the treatment, once you capture it, is all the same, but really it’s about getting screening and it’s about finding the lung cancer.Feltman: So with smoking no longer necessarily being the driving factor, at least in this younger demographic, what kinds of risk factors should we be talking about more?Villena: So I think, you know—so smoking is always number one.Feltman: Sure.Villena: In the never-smoking people it’s either radon, secondhand smoking or environmental factors, and then a little bit of genetics plays, plays a part.Radon is something that people can test for in their homes. It’s something that people should read up on. So that’s number one: if you have exposure to that, to get rid of that.If you are in, in an environment, let’s say you work with chemicals that you think, you know, are astringent or have caused—causes you to have coughs or, you know, affects you in any sort of way, to kind of try to talk to your employer to work in a more ventilated setting.Really important with genetic factors is understanding your family history.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you have a mother, a grandmother, a grandfather who died of cancer or you have a lot of cancer in your family, sometimes understanding that and knowing that from your, you know, from your family perspective will actually clue a doctor in to doing further tests, to looking into that further, ’cause that sometimes is passed down and you can have the same genes.Feltman: Are there any big research questions that scientists need to answer about lung cancer, specifically in young women?Villena: So, you know, there’s so much to look at, all right? So if we think about just the genetic aspect of it, there’s one specific gene called the EGFR gene—or it’s a mutation that’s found in lung cancer that in, if you look at all people with lung cancer, it’s found in about 15 percent ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Of the population with lung cancer. Now, if you look at never-smoking Asian women that get lung cancer, it’s about 60 percent of them ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Have that mutation. So the important thing about that EGFR mutation is there’s a specific drug for that mutation, all right?So there’s definitely a lot of genetic kind of information that we’re still actively researching. But the important thing about this genetic information is that there’s drugs targeted specifically for those mutations. So the more we know, the more we understand, the better.Feltman: So for folks who are hearing this and are surprised and, and maybe concerned what is your advice for how they should proceed, how they should look into their risk factors?Villena: You know, I think one of the, the, the major aspects of health in general is understanding your own health.Feltman: Mm.Villena: I think that younger people tend to delay care, tend to not see their doctors, and because, one, they’re busy, right, at their very busy moment in their lives. But second is that, you know, you don’t wanna deal with it, and you think that you will not get cancer, that you will not get this disease because you’re young and you’ve never smoked and you’ve never done anything bad.Feltman: Mm.Villena: But, you know, you have to be very aware of your body, so what are the kind of top four symptoms? So number one, let’s say you have a cough, and that cough lasts for longer than two weeks, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: A normal cold, things like that will go away after a couple of weeks. But if it’s there for a couple of months, and I’ve definitely seen patients that tell me in retrospect, you know, “I’ve had this cough for three months,” right, and it should have been checked up sooner. So understanding yourself, understanding your body, not, you know, waiting for things, not procrastinating, which is very hard to do, but you should definitely see your doctor ...Feltman: Yeah.Villena: Regularly.Second is, like I said before, understanding your family, right, and what your genetic makeup is, right? Knowing your family history, understanding if your parents, grandparents had cancer, etcetera, or other chronic diseases.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: And that’s, that’s basically the, the major aspects of it. It’s really being in tune with yourself.Feltman: So once a patient is actually diagnosed, what does treatment look like?Villena: So treatment for lung cancer, actually, is heavily dependent on the stage. There’s everything from stage 1, in which it’s localized to one portion of a lung, to stage 4, where it actually has gone to other parts of the body.Now, stage 1 disease, you basically need a simple surgery, where that lung nodule, or that lung cancer, is surgically removed, and typically you don’t need any other treatments. So stage 1 is what we look for. Stage 1 is the reason that lung cancer screening works because stage 1 doesn’t really have any symptoms ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So when you find it that early patients do very well.Stage 4, once it’s left the lung, you are no longer a surgical candidate, unless in, you know, sometimes very specific cases, but for the most part you’re no longer a surgical candidate. And there you need systemic treatments.Feltman: And how long does the treatment tend to take for a stage 1 patient, if it’s just a surgical procedure?Villena: So if it’s just a surgical procedure, look, I do these surgeries all the time: the patient comes in; we do the surgery; the patients usually go home the next day.Feltman: Wow.Villena: And then we follow the patient and get CAT scans every six months for a long time to make sure nothing comes back or nothing new comes. So it’s pretty straightforward, and we do this all the time. We do these surgeries robotically now. Patients recover incredibly well, and they’re out, you know, doing—living their lives in a couple of weeks. So it’s really something very, very, very efficient.Feltman: Yeah, so huge incentive to get checked early.Villena: Mm-hmm.Feltman: Are there any advances in treatment, you know, any new treatments that doctors are excited about?Villena: Yeah, so there’s two major steps forward that have changed lung cancer treatment. Number one is something called targeted therapy.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: So that means that there’s a drug that targets a specific mutation. So just how I was speaking about earlier about the EGFR mutation in young, never-smoking Asian women, there is a drug that targets that mutation that has really shown amazing results at all stages now.And the second one is actually immunotherapy, which won the Nobel Prize, which is this idea that you can use your own body’s immune system to kill the cancer cell. So cancer is very smart—what it does is it evades your immune system; it pretends that it’s part of your own body. And what this drug does is that it basically reawakens your immune system to recognize that cancer again and kill it. And we’ve seen amazing results, even in the stage 4 patients, where they are potentially cured of cancer, which, which we’ve never seen before.Feltman: What motivated you to get into this specialty?Villena: You know, I do have a family history of this in an uncle that passed away from lung cancer ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: And he was a heavy smoker. And, you know, I saw how, basically, decimated his, he was—[his] life [was], basically. He was a very vibrant guy, he was very active, and in six months he was gone, right?And I think, you know, once I started getting into, you know, medical school and understanding things, one of the major things that I really got into was research. And I see that if my uncle had been treated 20 years ago, he potentially could have been saved ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Because of these advances in research. And right now we are right at the cusp where we are learning all these new things, and we actually have the tools to change how patients are treated, you know? And this—every year there’s a new treatment, which prior to that, there was no new treatment; i t was basically just chemo, and that’s it, all right? So I think that that really motivated me—something that I can actually take part in and actually change the course for a lot of people.Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. This has been great.Villena: Thank you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday to unpack the shocking story of a missing meteorite.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura and Kylie Murphy. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time.

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It would have blocked the sales of cleaning products, dental floss, children's products, food packaging and ski wax that contained such chemicals starting in 2028 and cookware with them starting in 2030. While the bans would have only applied in California, the state’s sheer size gives it significant influence over what gets manufactured for sale across the nation. Newsom, in his veto message Monday, raised concerns about the availability of affordable cookware if the ban were to be implemented. “The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” the likely 2028 presidential hopeful wrote. “I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added. However, proponents of the bill say the veto will result in more exposure to toxic chemicals.  “By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a written statement.  “It’s unfortunate that misinformation and greed by some in the cookware industry tanked this policy,”  Reade added. Forever chemicals are the nickname of a group of chemicals called PFAS that have been used in a wide variety of everyday products, including those that are nonstick or waterproof. Exposure to them has been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, as well as immune system and fertility issues.  They can persist for decades in the environment instead of breaking down and have become pervasive in U.S. waterways, tap water and human beings. California has historically been a relatively aggressive state in terms of environmental and product regulations — for example, requiring that products containing certain chemicals contain warning labels. However, several other states have already banned PFAS in cookware and other products.

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of […] The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of these organisms to environmental alterations caused by such substances. The research was carried out by student Gabriel Brenes from the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University (Iret-UNA) as part of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Tropical Ecotoxicology. Through both field and laboratory studies on earthworm species abundant in the area, the research determined a reduction in enzyme activity and defense mechanisms when the worms were exposed to soils containing agrochemicals or samples taken from them. After conducting behavioral tests, it was found that 90% of the worms avoided remaining in contaminated environments, moving instead to soils managed with organic practices or with lower agrochemical use. According to the study, this could have consequences for agricultural activity, as earthworms improve soil fertility, facilitate nutrient cycling and water movement, and contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. “The intensive use of agrochemicals induces physiological stress in earthworms and causes them to flee contaminated soils. This can have repercussions on the microfauna community and the ecosystem services that sustain agriculture,” explained Brenes. Evidence of reduced intestinal microbial diversity in soil worms exposed to agrochemicals indicates alterations that negatively affect soil health. “We found that the intestinal microbiome of earthworms functions as a sensitive bioindicator of soil health. A reduction in its diversity can affect not only the organisms themselves but also the ecological services they provide, such as fertility and nutrient recycling,” said the researcher. It also detected seasonal changes in microbial composition between the dry and rainy seasons on organic farms with good practices, demonstrating plasticity and adaptation to environmental conditions. For example, during the rainy season, there was an increase in the abundance of genera such as Lactobacillus and Acinetobacter, which were not dominant in the dry season. In contrast, worms from conventional soils showed no seasonal change in their intestinal communities, indicating a loss of ecological flexibility. The research showed that contamination is not limited to plots where agrochemicals are applied. Residues reach organic farms and nearby forest areas, confirming processes of drift and environmental transport. In Zarcero, a small area with intensive horticultural production, the presence of agrochemicals in untreated soils demonstrates that environmental exposure is widespread. The excessive use of agrochemicals in our country is aggravated by the fact that 93% of them are classified as highly hazardous. The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

The fear tactic strikes a nerve with both conservatives and liberals alike. Here’s what you need to know.

If you’ve ever muttered to yourself, “I should really get the organic peaches,” or “I need to replace my old makeup with ‘clean’ beauty products” or “I really want to buy the “non-toxic’ laundry detergent,” you may have fallen into the chemophobia trap, an almost inescapable phobia that’s infiltrating lots of homes. Chemophobia is complicated, but, in short, it’s a distrust or fear of chemicals and appears in many of aspects of life from “chemical-free” soaps and “natural” deodorants to vaccine distrust and fear-mongering about seed oils.But, unlike most things, it plays on the emotions of both conservative MAGA voters and liberal MAGA opposers, even though actual chemophobia-based thoughts vary significantly in each group.“Much of this started on the left-leaning side of the political aisle as a result of misunderstanding the difference between legitimate chemical industrial incidents and just chemicals more broadly,” said Andrea Love, an immunologist, microbiologist and founder of Immunologic, a health and science communication organization.Appealing to the left, it was seen as counter-culture and opposed the “evil market forces,” said Timothy Caulfield, the co-founder of ScienceUpFirst, an organization that combats misinformation, and author of “The Certainty Illusion.”“But now we’re seeing it shift to the right, and I think it’s almost now entirely on the right, or at least the loudest voices ... are on the right,” Caulfield noted. These are voices like Casey Means, a wellness influencer and surgeon general nominee, and even Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary.On the right-leaning side, chemophobia appears as a distrust and demonization of things like studied vaccines and medications and the pushing of “natural” interventions, “when those have no regulatory oversight compared to regulated medicines,” Love noted.“On the left-leaning [side], this gets a lot of attention because it plays into this fear of toxic exposures, and this ‘organic purity’ narrative ... ‘you have to eat organic food, and you can’t have GMOs,’” Love said.No matter your political party, chemophobia has infiltrated people’s homes, diets and minds, while also infiltrating brand slogans, marketing campaigns and political messaging (ahem, Make America Healthy Again). Here’s what to know:Chemophobia says you should avoid chemicals, but that’s impossible — water is a chemical and you are made up of chemicals.“First of all, everything is chemicals,” said Love. “Your body is a sack of chemicals. You would not exist if it were not for all these different chemical compounds.”Chemophobia leads people to believe that synthetic, lab-made substances are inherently bad while “natural substances” — things found in nature — are inherently good, and that is just not true, Love said.The current obsession with “all-natural” beef tallow as a replacement for “manufactured” seed oils is a prime example of this.“Your body ... has no idea if it’s a synthetic chemical, meaning it was synthesized in a lab using chemical reactions, or if it exists somewhere out on the planet,” Love added.Your body doesn’t know the difference between getting vitamin C from a lime and getting vitamin C that’s made in a lab, she explained. Your body only cares about the chemical structure (which is the same in synthetic chemicals and natural chemicals) and the dosage you’re being exposed to, Love noted. “This irrational fear of chemicals, just by and large, is antithetical to life because chemistry and chemicals are why everything exists,” Love said.Everything that is made up of matter is a network of chemicals, she explained. That goes for your body, your pets, your car, your TV, your home and the food you eat.“Everything is just these structures of chemicals linked together into physical objects ... so, there’s zero reason to be afraid of chemicals broadly,” said Love.Chemophobia was born from the ‘appeal to nature fallacy’ and a desire to ‘get back to ancestral living.’Chemophobia was born from the “appeal to nature fallacy,” said Love, which is “the false belief that natural substances ... are inherently safe, beneficial or superior, whereas synthetic substances are inherently bad, dangerous, harmful or worse than a natural counterpart.” There is nothing legitimate about this belief, she added. But both chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy are central to pseudoscience, the anti-vaccine movement and the MAHA wellness industry, Love noted.At the core of chemophobia and appeal to nature fallacy is also a “romanticization of ancestral living, when, in reality, we lived very poorly, we died very young and often suffering and in pain,” Love said.“Going back to simpler times” are talking points for both MAHA and MAGA, which, of course, stands for “Make America Great Again,” a slogan that alludes to the past. And, RFK Jr. has repeatedly claimed America was healthier when his uncle, John F. Kennedy, was president.This is complicated, but not true; two out of three adults died of chronic disease and life expectancy was almost 10 years less than it is now, according to NPR.Chemophobia is designed to elicit negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.Chemophobia is incredibly effective because it evokes people’s negative emotions, said Love. And it’s hard for most people to separate emotions from facts.If someone on social media says that a certain ingredient is harming your kids, you’ll be scared and want to make lifestyle changes. If someone claims your makeup is bad for you, you’ll also be scared and want to make changes.“Take, for example, fructose, since it’s having a moment,” said Andrea Hardy, a dietitian and owner of Ignite Nutrition, who is referring to a viral social media video about the “harms” of fructose.“An influencer online might say ‘fructose is bad, the liver can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be eating any fructose. I’ve cut all fructose from my diet and I’m the healthiest I’ve ever been.’ Then a mom, wanting to do the best for her children says, ‘I need to cut out all fructose’ and not only removes the ultra-processed foods like sweetened beverages, but also says no to fruit in her household because of this misinformation,” Hardy said.This has lots of consequences, including a lack of nutrition in the home (from missing out on the fiber and vitamins from fruit) and the encouragement of disordered eating in kids, who, from this elimination of fructose, will learn the false idea that “fruit is bad” or “fructose is bad,” explained Hardy.Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: GettyChemophobia makes products that claim to be "natural" or "clean" feel superior, even when that isn't the case.Our brains want clear, black-and-white information. Vilifying one product while celebrating another achieves that.Between social media and the internet, we live in a “chaotic information environment,” according to Caulfield. There’s seemingly factual information coming at you from everywhere, and it can be hard to know what to trust.“The reality is, our brains want simple. They want black and white,” said Hardy. We make choices all day long, which makes categorizing things, like food, as “good or bad” appealing to our minds, Hardy said.And, everyone wants to make the “good” choice, Caulfield added. “We want to do what’s best for ourselves and for the environment and for our community and our family,” he said.As a result, we look for “clear signals of goodness,” or “short cuts to making the right decision,” added Caulfield. We turn not only to words like “good” or “bad,” but also “toxin-free,” “natural” and “clean,” he said.Seeing these words slapped on a jar of nut butter, on a shampoo bottle, or on sunscreen makes making the “right choice” easier, he added — “even though the evidence does not support what’s implied by those words, those ‘health halos,’” noted Caulfield.These words are an “oversimplification,” Hardy said. “People now leverage their social media presence to share those oversimplified nutrition messages, most of which are at best, wrong, at worst, harmful.”Chemophobia is really hard to escape. It’s even built into marketing campaigns and product names.If you’ve ever fallen into the chemophobia trap without knowing, you aren’t alone. It’s complicated and nuanced, and the science is, at times, messy.Moreover, chemophobia is the inspiration behind brand names and entire product categorizations; “clean beauty” is one huge example.Fears of chemicals are now marketing ploys. “You’re going to find products that claim that they’re ‘chemical-free,’ and that doesn’t exist,” Love said, referring to the fact that, once again, everything is made up of chemicals.Market forces take over and cling to the chemophobia buzz words of the moment, whether that’s “clean” “gluten-free” or “non-GMO,” Caulfield said.Now, we have Triscuits labeled with non-GMO marketing, he said. We also have entire product lines at stores like Sephora that are categorized as “clean.”“It creates this perception [of] ‘if that one’s chemical-free, then the alternative that isn’t labeled as such must be dangerous, must be bad,’” Love said.Once again, making the “good” choice easy.This isn’t to say there isn’t room for improvement in the health and food space.“I work in the public health space. I don’t know a single public health researcher, a single agricultural researcher, a single biomedical researcher who doesn’t want to make our food environment safer for everyone,” said Caulfield.Just because Caulfield speaks out against chemophobia doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make our food and health environment healthier, he stressed.“I do think we should always be challenging both industry and government to do exactly that, but at the same time, we have to be realistic and understand the nature of the risks and the magnitude of risks at play,” he said.Both our food environment and agricultural practices could be safer, “but those moves should be based on what the science says, and not on slogans,” Caulfield said.Corporate greed and capitalism hinder these safety changes.“The huge irony here ... the answer to all of these chemophobia concerns ... it’s more government regulation. It’s more robust, science-informed regulation. And in this political environment, that ain’t going to happen, That just simply isn’t going to happen, as we’ve already seen,” Caulfield said.The Trump administration wants to repeal environmental protections that help fight climate change (and the air we breathe has huge health implications) and has cut funding to departments that are in charge of food safety, which could jeopardize the items you buy at the grocery store.“So, it all just becomes slogans and wellness nonsense,” along with the peddling of unregulated, unproven supplements (that are basically just untested chemicals), Caulfield added.And, many of the people who claim to be so concerned about chemicals then profit from the sale of unregulated supplements, Caulfield said.Jeff Greenberg via Getty ImagesThe hyper-focus on things like food dyes and seed oils actually distracts from the true health — and healthy equity — issues in this country.Focusing on one ‘bad’ ingredient or so-called ‘natural’ alternatives won’t actually make you healthier.This fear of chemicals will have an enormous impact and is “something we won’t even realize and see the effects of for years to come,” Hardy said.“If we want to improve public health, focusing on a single ingredient in food or swapping seed oils for beef tallow isn’t the answer to our public health problems, it’s a distraction,” Hardy said.Food dyes, seed oils, “non-clean” beauty, whatever the item may be, become a common enemy, allowing folks to ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a problem that’s central to the country’s health outcomes, Love added.RFK Jr. has claimed that “Americans are getting sicker” and research does show that America has worse health outcomes while spending more on health care than other Western countries, but it’s too simple (and flat-out wrong) to blame any one makeup chemical or item in your pantry.“Instead of critically assessing and saying, ’Hey, we do have some health challenges, but what are the underlying factors to that? Maybe it’s housing inequity and lack of national health care and all of these societal, structural issues, and it’s not these singular food ingredients,” Love said.“These conversations distract us from the real things that we can do to make ourselves and our communities healthier, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems with MAHA,” said Caulfield.“No one’s a huge food dye fan. I’m not going to go to the mat for food dye [but] ... all these are distractions from the things that really matter to make us, to make our communities healthier — equity, justice, access to health care, education, gun laws — these are the things that, on a population level, are really going to make a difference,” Caulfield said.Whether someone has conservative or liberal views that fuel their chemophobia, the fear of chemicals is dangerous. And, it’s, sadly, more prevalent than ever, Caulfield said.It’s causing people to say no to necessary vaccines, not wear sunblock out of fears of “toxins,” avoid fruit because of fructose and more.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“This is going to kill people ... this is really serious stuff, and it’s an incredible time in human history in the worst possible way,” Caulfield said.

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.