This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
This story was originally published in The New Lede , a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission. consumers contain chemicals that pose greater health risks to people than prior formulations suspected of causing cancer, according to an analysis by an environmentalhealth advocacy group.
Disclosure: This consumer study is released in partnership with EnvironmentalHealth News. Donations were provided by EnvironmentalHealth News and Mamavation community members. You can also give a tax-deductible donation to our consumer studies here through EnvironmentalHealth Sciences.
Disclosure: This consumer study is released in partnership with EnvironmentalHealth News. Donations were provided by EnvironmentalHealth News and Mamavation community members. You can also give a tax-deductible donation to our consumer studies here through EnvironmentalHealth Sciences.
The heavy layer of pollution killed 20 people and caused long-term health effects for at least 5,900 people. The union’s continued advocacy paved the way for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, OSHA regulations, Superfund laws, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and climate change legislation.
The Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub is one of seven proposed, federally funded networks of this type of infrastructure announced a year ago — an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The Department of Energy and the companies involved have not been transparent,” Coptis said.
As chief financial officer of a law firm specializing in environmental toxic exposure cases including those involving PFAS I have seen firsthand how this crisis has deeply affected countless individuals. Witnessing those stories unfold up close has made it clear just how far-reaching and personal this issue is.
Exposure to PFAS, a group of thousands of compounds, has been linked to health problems including cancer, decreased response to vaccines, and low birth weight, according to a federally funded report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Not long after she moved, Valle started feeling sick. California Gov.
Publichealth, explained: Sign up to receive Healthbeats free national newsletter here. Valle worries that eating food from her farm and drinking the water, found also to contain arsenic, are to blame for health issues shes experienced recently. Californias Central Valley is one of the nations biggest agricultural producers.
Concerns are growing about the fate of a Biden-era rule to limit toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water, with some states moving to introduce laws that would lock in place PFAS protections that could survive any potential rollback by the Trump Administration. I think the quicker we can move the better. An annual report released Feb.
Later, after reading the DOE's public summary of the event, she felt frustrated. “I They said details of the projects remain hazy, public input is only planned after industry partners have received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities feel that they have no say in the decision-making.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. health care system, starting with deep cuts to the agencies Kennedy now leads. Kennedy and his allies argue such moves are needed to change federal culture and improve efficiency in the name of long-term health improvements. They were practicing evidence-based publichealth.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content