Chemicals

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares79 Views

    Citing N.I.H. Cuts, a Top Science Journal Stops Accepting Submissions

    by

    With federal support, Environmental Health Perspectives has long published peer-reviewed studies without fees to readers or scientists.Environmental Health Perspectives, widely considered the premier environmental health journal, has announced that it would pause acceptance of new studies for publication, as federal cuts have left its future uncertain.For more than 50 years, the journal has received funding from the National Institutes of Health to review studies on the health effects of environmental toxins — from “forever chemicals” to air pollution — and publish the research free of charge.The editors made the decision to halt acceptance of studies because of a “lack of confidence” that contracts for critical expenses like copy-editing and editorial software would be renewed after their impending expiration dates, said Joel Kaufman, the journal’s top editor.He declined to comment on the publication’s future prospects. “If the journal is indeed lost, it is a huge loss,” said Jonathan Levy, chair of the department of environmental health at Boston University. “It’s reducing the ability for people to have good information that can be used to make good decisions.”The news comes weeks after a federal prosecutor in Washington sent letters to several scientific journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine, with questions that suggested that they were biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Massive Iran Port Explosion Kills 4 and Injures Hundreds

      by

      There was no immediate indication that the blast was caused by sabotage or a deliberate attack. State media said it was likely caused by containers of chemicals catching fire.A massive explosion on Saturday at the Iranian port of Shahid Rajaee in Bandar Abbas killed several people and injured hundreds, according to state media. The exact cause of the blast was not immediately clear, although there was no suggestion of an attack or sabotage.Mohammad Rasoul Moradi/Islamic Republic News AgencyA massive explosion at a port in southern Iran on Saturday killed at least four people and injured more than 500, according to state media.The exact cause of the blast at the Shahid Rajaee port in the city of Bandar Abbas was not immediately clear. But Iranian authorities did not suggest it was sabotage or a deliberate attack.The state-run Islamic Republic News Agency quoted an official as saying the ignition of containers of chemicals most likely set off the explosion. The blast sent up clouds of black smoke, according to footage from the scene distributed by an Iranian broadcaster and video from social media that was verified by The New York Times.Bandar Abbas is strategically located along the Strait of Hormuz, a busy Persian Gulf shipping lane for the world’s oil and natural gas.In 2020, Israel launched a cyberattack that hampered operations at the Shahid Rajaee port as part of its long-running shadow war with Iran.Israeli officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday’s explosion.The explosion came around the time that American and Iranian officials began meeting in the Gulf sultanate of Oman on Saturday for a third round of talks on Iran’s nuclear program.Last week, The New York Times reported that Israel had planned to attack Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month, but it was waved off by Mr. Trump, who wanted to negotiate an agreement with Tehran instead. But Mr. Trump has also vowed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including by military action if necessary. More

    • 150 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      My ‘Natural’ Hairdresser Uses Synthetic Chemicals. Can I Leave a Bad Review?

      by

      The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on responding to a small-business owner’s misleading claims.I’ve been going to a hairstylist who promotes his all-natural, organic dye as healthy for hair. I never questioned it, until at my most recent visit he dyed my hair the wrong color. When I asked him to fix it, he made it even worse, turning my hair a deep mahogany instead of the golden copper I requested. For two weeks he repeatedly insisted, via text, that he had done it correctly, and that I didn’t know what I wanted. His rude, angry responses made me too uncomfortable to ever return. Frustrated, I researched the dye brand he used and was horrified to learn that its key ingredient, ethanolamine, is potentially more damaging to hair than ammonia, and I’ve read that it could be carcinogenic.Now I’m torn. My hairstylist refunded my money, and I sympathize with him as a small-business owner, but I also feel compelled to warn people that his “healthy” dye may not be as safe as he claims. Am I obligated to speak up, or should customers be responsible for doing their own research? Would posting a negative review protect others or punish him by potentially putting his small business at risk? What’s the right thing to do? — Name WithheldFrom the Ethicist:I understand why you’re feeling torn. You don’t want to jeopardize someone’s livelihood over a disappointing experience, but you also feel a responsibility to speak up if others might be misled. Two key questions are whether your stylist knowingly misrepresented the product and whether it really poses health risks.It’s entirely possible he genuinely believed what he was saying. Companies often use carefully crafted language to make their dyes sound especially “natural.” Naturtint, for example, highlights its U.S.D.A. BioPreferred certification and touts “botanical-inspired formulas.” Aveda describes its hair-color line as “vegan.” Both brands still contain industrially synthesized chemicals. (Yes, chemists classify most carbon-containing compounds as “organic,” but that’s not how marketers use the term.) Your stylist may simply be parroting what the product reps told him.When it comes to safety, precision matters. Ethanolamine-based dyes may not be as gentle as their marketing suggests — some studies do indicate they can weaken hair more than ammonia does. Still, they’re far less harsh than the all-natural potash or slaked lime our ancestors once used. Like ammonia, ethanolamine helps open the hair cuticle so color can penetrate. It’s also a normal product of our body’s metabolism, though it’s industrially produced for commercial use. While it shouldn’t be combined with substances that can form harmful nitrosamines — a risk reputable brands are careful to avoid — ethanolamine is not classified as a carcinogen.Which brings us to your dilemma. If you do write a review, focusing on your personal experience — the color errors and how the stylist responded — would be the fairest and most helpful approach. There’s no clear legal definition of “natural” for cosmetic products; the status of ethanolamine is complicated; and unless you feel confident explaining it clearly, it may not be the most relevant detail to include.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Aims to Eliminate E.P.A.’s Scientific Research Arm

      by

      The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, firing as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, according to documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.The strategy is part of large-scale layoffs, known as a “reduction in force,” being planned by the Trump administration, which is intent on shrinking the federal work force. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the E.P.A., has said he wants to eliminate 65 percent of the agency’s budget. That would be a drastic reduction — one that experts said could hamper clean water and wastewater improvements, air quality monitoring, the cleanup of toxic industrial sites, and other parts of the agency’s mission.The E.P.A.’s plan, which was presented to White House officials on Friday for review, calls for dissolving the agency’s largest department, the Office of Research and Development, and purging up to 75 percent of the people who work there.The remaining staff members would be placed elsewhere within the E.P.A. “to provide increased oversight and align with administration priorities,” according to the language shared with The New York Times by staff members who work for Democrats on the House science committee.Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that the agency “is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements” and stressed that changes had not been finalized.“We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water and land for all Americans,” she said, adding, “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure the E.P.A. is as up to date and effective as ever.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Said to Drop Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemical

      by

      The Trump administration plans to drop a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing high levels of a likely carcinogen from its Louisiana plant, according to two people familiar with the plans.The government filed the lawsuit during the Biden administration after regulators determined that chloroprene emissions from the Denka Performance Elastomer plant were contributing to health concerns in an area with the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.The 2023 lawsuit was among several enforcement actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of poor and minority communities that have disproportionately borne the brunt of toxic pollution.The Denka plant is located in the predominantly Black community of LaPlace, La., in a region so dense with industrial facilities that it is known as “Cancer Alley.” Chloroprene is used to produce neoprene, a synthetic rubber that is found in automotive parts, hoses, beer cozies, orthopedic braces and electric cables.The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The agency intends to ask the United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana this week to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the two people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.The lawsuit had given the neighboring community a measure of hope that pollution levels might finally come down, said Robert Taylor, a founder of Concerned Citizens of St John Parish, a community group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’

      by

      Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards. “Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ Are Pervasive in Water Worldwide, Study Finds

      by

      A global survey found harmful levels even in water samples taken far any obvious source of contamination.They’re in makeup, dental floss and menstrual products. They’re in nonstick pans and takeout food wrappers. Same with rain jackets and firefighting equipment, as well as pesticides and artificial turf on sports fields.They’re PFAS: a class of man-made chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are also called “forever chemicals” because the bonds in their chemical compounds are so strong they don’t break down for hundreds to thousands of years, if at all.They’re also in our water.A new study of more than 45,000 water samples around the world found that about 31 percent of groundwater samples tested that weren’t near any obvious source of contamination have PFAS levels considered harmful to human health by the Environmental Protection Agency. About 16 percent of surface water samples tested, which were also not near any known source, have similarly hazardous PFAS levels.This finding “sets off alarm bells,” said Denis O’Carroll, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New South Wales and one of the authors of the study, which was published on Monday in Nature Geoscience. “Not just for PFAS, but also for all the other chemicals that we put out into the environment. We don’t necessarily know their long-term impacts to us or the ecosystem.”High levels of exposure to some PFAS chemicals have been linked to higher cholesterol, liver and immune system damage, hypertension and pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, as well as kidney and testicular cancer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      New E.P.A. Rules Aim to Minimize Damage From Chemical Facilities

      by

      The rules require facilities to explicitly address threats such as wildfires or flooding, including those linked to climate change.The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday designed to prevent disasters at almost 12,000 chemical plants and other industrial sites nationwide that handle hazardous materials.The regulations for the first time tell facilities to explicitly address disasters, such as storms or floods, that could trigger an accidental release, including threats linked to climate change. For the first time, chemical sites that have had prior accidents will need to undergo an independent audit. And the rules require chemical plants to share more information with neighbors and emergency responders.“We’re putting in place important safeguards to protect some of our most vulnerable populations,” Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, told reporters ahead of the announcement.Administration officials called the stronger measures a step forward for safety at a time when hazards like floods and wildfires — made more extreme by global warming — pose a threat to industrial sites across the country. In 2017, severe flooding from Hurricane Harvey knocked out power at a peroxide plant outside Houston, causing chemicals to overheat and explode, triggering local evacuations.Some safety advocates said the rules don’t go far enough. They have long called for rules that would make facilities switch to safer technologies and chemicals to prevent disasters in the first place. The new regulations stop shy of such requirements for most facilities.The lack of tougher requirements was particularly disappointing, the advocates said, because President Biden championed similar measures, as senator, to bolster national security.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More