by Alan Bell
Our global pandemic is terrifying, yet many people choose to look the other way rather than face their own mortal vulnerability. Sadly, the human race is committing this ultimate crime against itself—and against future generations.
There are no geographic, economic, ethnic, political, or religious borders when it comes to environmental toxins. We are all at risk of being poisoned. However, everyone is not equally exposed to toxins. Those living in economically challenged circumstances are more likely to encounter toxins where they work and live. They are the least able to protect themselves legally and lack the necessary financial resources to flee from their proximity to environmental contamination.
As I learned during my years as a prosecutor and, later, as a toxic tort lawyer, those in power don’t always do the right thing. It’s up to us to fight for our own environmental health if we’re going to save the humans and survive as a species.
• • •
In a recent issue of International Business Times, one particular headline caught my attention: “Unhealthy Environment Was a Factor in Nearly a Quarter of Global Deaths in 2012.”
As I read the article, my heart sank, even though I already knew all about the problem. According to the World Health Organization’s latest report, environmental risk factors like climate change; the pollution of our air, soil, and water; and chemical exposures are responsible for nearly a quarter of all deaths worldwide—that’s 12.6 million deaths out of a total of 55.6 million.
There are plenty of other terrifying statistics out there. Worldwide, about 682 pounds of toxic chemicals are released into our air, land, and water every second by industrial facilities—that’s approximately 10 million tons (over 21 billion pounds) of toxic chemicals released into our environment each year. Of these, over 2 million tons (over 4.5 billion pounds) per year are recognized carcinogens, according to the website Worldometers, which gathers statistics from the United Nations Environment Program and the EPA, among others.
Another recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives linked sixteen thousand premature births in the United States each year to air pollution. This is a costly health crisis: preterm births associated with particulate matter—a type of pollutant—led to more than $4 billion in economic costs in 2010 due to medical care and lost productivity resulting from disability. Not surprisingly, the affected populations tended to be concentrated in low-income communities composed of mostly minority residents.
Many governments around the world legislate to clean the air we breathe, but there is much more work to be done. Voice of America recently cited a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology reporting that nearly two hundred thousand deaths in the United States alone occur each year as a result of air pollution, with most related to emissions from road transportation and electrical power generation. “Wasteland,” an article published in the December 2014 issue of National Geographic magazine, takes a good look at the hazardous waste sites in the United States. Although many have been cleaned up, many more remain. Nearly one in six Americans live near a toxic waste dump that is poisoning the ground beneath our schools, homes, and workplaces. Even where the waste has supposedly been cleaned up, as in the case of the Florida incinerator, it’s often still there, just swept under the surface. Cancer is only one danger associated with these sites; birth defects is another.
Meanwhile, an article published in a March 2014 issue of the Atlantic magazine details the damage done to human brains—especially to the brains of developing infants and young children—by lead and other neurotoxins commonly found in our environment. The article cites my Environmental Health Foundation colleague, Dr. Landrigan, and a paper he co-authored spelling out the “silent pandemic” caused by twelve toxins found in everyday furniture and other common household products. These chemicals are linked to disorders like autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorder.
The real issue here—as the writer points out in the Atlantic article—is not the twelve neurotoxins that Landrigan names as culprits (including lead, arsenic, DDT, and methylmercury, which are already regulated), but the many other chemicals pouring into our environment before they are proven to be 100 percent safe for human health.
Even if you don’t live near a toxic waste dump and the air you’re breathing seems clean, you and your family could be exposed to harmful chemical exposures through the water you drink. On March 27, 2016, a New York Times editorial by Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician at Hurley Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine, reminded us that the Environmental Protection Agency’s “action level” for lead contamination in drinking water is fifteen parts per billion. Recent tests of tap water in Flint, Michigan, reveal that 1,300 homes exceed that—with thirty-two of those families exposed to lead levels above one thousand parts per billion.
“For almost two years, Flint’s children have been drinking water through lead-coated straws,” wrote Hanna-Attisha.
People who believe they are immune to toxic dangers because they can afford homes in “nice” city neighborhoods or the suburbs are fooling themselves. Sure, your water and air might be free of harmful toxins, but what about your own backyard?
An article published in the March 28, 2016, issue of Reader’s Digest titled “The Dark Side of the Perfectly Manicured American Lawn: Is It Giving You Cancer?” cites alarming facts about pesticide use. Despite the fact that Agent Orange was the notorious defoliant used in Vietnam—it was originally developed during World War II to destroy an enemy’s rice crops—one of its key components, the pesticide 2,4-D, is still being widely used.
Today’s worldwide annual sales of 2,4-D surpass $300 million. You probably have it in your own neighborhood, since it’s commonly found in products used to keep our lawns green and weed free, despite the fact that several research studies link this toxin to reproductive health problems and genetic mutations, as well as to a variety of cancers.
Even far from crowded cities and suburban green lawns, rural residents are equally at risk of being poisoned. According to an article published in the June 13, 2011, issue of the Atlantic magazine, The Farmworkers Association of Florida conducted a survey in 2006 showing that 92 percent of the region’s agricultural workers were exposed to pesticides through aerial spraying, as well as by touching poisoned plants and inhaling pesticides. Little wonder, then, that in a state where the rate of birth defects is 3 percent, a whopping 13 percent of the farmworkers in the agricultural region of Florida near Apopka had children born with defects.
The bottom line? Whoever you are, wherever you live and work, you and your family are at risk of being poisoned without knowing it, unless you learn how to protect yourself.
• • •
Our government is broken. As a former prosecutor, I believe every criminal is innocent until proven guilty. However, as a legal advocate for victims of environmental poisoning, and as a victim myself, I strongly believe that every chemical should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Many people mistakenly believe that if they buy a fertilizer for their lawn, a new carpet, or a gallon of paint, they are buying something that has been tested and deemed safe through various governmental regulations and channels, just like the drugs their doctors prescribe for them. I once believed this, too, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.
When chemicals are developed for pharmaceutical purposes, they undergo rigorous safety testing using animal models and human exposure studies. These drugs aren’t approved for market until after preclinical trials show they don’t cause adverse health effects. When chemicals are developed for industry use, on the other hand, and they’re not marketed for human consumption per se, these substances don’t go through the same rigorous testing. They’re only regulated after the fact, if data emerges showing that their use leads to toxic effects in people. This data emerges chronologically and cumulatively while the casualties continue.
Many people are injured by chemical exposure before any regulation is put into place.
Several European countries have moved toward more rigorous testing of chemicals before they go on the market. The European Union has a chemical testing protocol called “REACH” (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals). This involves a multitiered approach to regulating chemicals, requiring in-depth testing only of chemicals produced in large amounts. In 2009, the European Parliament passed laws banning twenty-two pesticides linked to the disruption of human hormones or reproduction, or associated with cancer.
The United States lags behind in reforming chemical regulations because of our powerful chemical lobby. The only existing US law regulating chemicals is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); this law was passed in 1976 and requires testing only those chemicals that pose “an unreasonable risk.” Even worse, at the time TSCA was passed, sixty-two thousand chemicals were grandfathered in because they were already on the market. Over twenty thousand new chemicals have been introduced since then.
This is wrong. The burden of proof should be placed upon industry to show that the chemicals they’re manufacturing and using are safe for human use before being introduced into the marketplace. Instead, we wait until people become ill or die in large enough numbers to suspect a problem. Then we backtrack, trying to prove such chemicals are linked to illness.
Those who argue against chemical regulation claim such testing would be unduly expensive. They ask how companies could possibly make money with that financial burden. If manufacturers had to pass that burden on to consumers, it would be horrible for business!
There is persistent lobbying against any sort of chemical regulation, and safety laws don’t get passed as a result. Meanwhile, humans around the world are paying the steepest price for this insanity.
Dr. Landrigan and his colleagues argue that our country needs stronger chemical safety legislation. Scientists realize it’s not financially feasible to subject every chemical to long, randomized control studies prior to being brought to market. However, they point to the Tox21—the Toxicology in the Twenty-First Century program—as offering a potential solution, at least in the short term, because Tox21 is laying the groundwork for accelerated, large-scale testing. Some of this testing includes screening industrial chemicals through simple cell-based studies—in short, chemicals that cause cells in a petri dish to show a toxic reaction would be subjected to further testing.
As a collaborative effort between the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration, the Tox21 project aims to develop better methods to quickly and efficiently test chemical compounds and determine whether they have the potential to cause biological disruption, human disease, or injury.
In the meantime, there has been an onslaught of class action lawsuits proving that specific chemicals are harmful. Many toxic tort lawsuits, like the ones I have described here, force companies to take responsibility for the harm they do through the poisons they manufacture and distribute. But that is too little, too late.
I see this issue from a number of perspectives. As a former victim of chemical poisoning and as a survivor, I understand both the personal and global issues at stake. I’ve prosecuted criminals and defended big business in the courtroom. As a legal avenger and an environmental health advocate, I’m hoping now to put a face on this issue—my face.
• • •
My life span and quality of life have been severely compromised. That’s what happens when your immune and nervous systems are injured by toxins. I’m resigned to that.
Yet, my life has meaning. My efforts have become a lightning rod for change because my personal story is not just another disease of the week.
Our species cannot adapt fast enough to survive the onslaught of chemicals pouring into our environment. Chemical poisoning is a risk we all face. This is why I wrote this book: to send up a flare, sound the alarm, and give a voice to this problem. We must face it now, before it’s too late.
While I believe laws governing how and when companies bring chemicals to market should be changed, I’m not optimistic about that happening any time soon. We can’t rely on our government to protect our health.
So what’s the solution?
We must educate ourselves and each other. It’s time to expose this ultimate crime—a crime so vicious that it leaves millions of victims in its wake; a crime so insidious that the villain is often invisible. We can no longer look away.
We must join together and become vigilant in protecting our own health and the lives of our family members because industry and government are obviously not doing it. We must be alert and knowledgeable about which chemicals are harmful. Then, we can modify our lifestyles to minimize our risk of toxic exposure.
I wish I had known, all those years ago, what I know now. I wish I’d identified my flu-like symptoms, runny eyes, blurred vision, fatigue, and many other symptoms as my body’s reaction to a toxic workplace. What if I’d been smart enough to leave that 110 Tower? Who knows what my life would have been like, if I had trusted my instincts, instead of sweeping my symptoms under the rug?
But I believe everything happens for a reason. I heard that voice on the mountain summit with Ashlee, and I have embraced my wake-up call to help make a difference. I no longer care about keeping up with the Joneses. I treasure every moment I’m alive. Doctors told me I wouldn’t survive beyond the age of forty, so I am grateful for every moment of life I am given.
One amazing day, my friends and family gathered to throw a surprise party for my fiftieth birthday in my brother’s Miami Beach condo. My presence was perhaps as much of a surprise to many of the guests as it was to me, and I was overwhelmed by how much love was in that room.
It was wonderful that Ashlee had the opportunity to meet people from my past—my high school and college buddies, my law school colleagues, my family and friends—talk about me as a fierce fighter and a loyal friend. Hopefully, I can pass this hard-won wisdom on to my daughter. I owe her at least that much, and so much more. I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for Ashlee’s support and her determination to find a cure for her dad.
My plight was preventable. You can prevent this from happening to you and your family. I urge you to take charge of your own health and destiny. Modify your lifestyle to minimize your risks. Start the process of protecting yourself against chemical exposures now, so that you and your loved ones can embrace every moment of a long and healthy life.
APPENDIX A: HOW TO MODIFY YOUR LIFESTYLE TO MINIMIZE CHEMICAL INJURY
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY (MCS)—A DIAGNOSIS used to describe adverse symptoms caused by environmental exposures—remains a controversial diagnosis.
The concepts underlying MCS were developed by allergist Theron G. Randolph, MD (1906–1995), who believed his patients reacted and became ill when exposed to chemicals at doses far below levels normally considered safe. In the 1950s, he suggested that human failure in adapting to modern-day synthetic chemicals was causing widespread hypersensitivities to many environmental substances.
Other names for MCS that have emerged through the years include allergic toxemia, chemical sensitivity, ecologic illness, environmental illness, immune system dysregulation, total allergy syndrome, total immune disorder syndrome, and toxic response syndrome. Other related terms include sick building syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, and toxic carpet syndrome.
Whatever you choose to call it, people suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals experience symptoms that may include depression, irritability, an inability to concentrate, memory loss, digestive problems, fatigue, allergy symptoms, flu-like aches and pains, headaches, and lack of coordination.
Mainstream medicine still doesn’t understand a whole lot about the human body and how it reacts to chemicals in our environment. Many people—including physicians—remain in the dark about chemical sensitivity. It’s difficult to put a descriptive term on
symptoms that are difficult to pinpoint and often impossible to link to specific blood tests or diagnostic imaging.
Science has not yet caught up in diagnosing environmentally induced injury and illness. My test results showing brain lesions, strange blood counts, abnormal enzyme levels, and a suppressed immune system puzzled most physicians. They saw the smoke but couldn’t find the gun that fired the bullet.
What should you do if you suspect you’ve been injured by toxins? Start with your personal physician and keep asking questions if you don’t get answers. See specialists, too, and get the necessary tests to see if there are ways to treat your symptoms. Keep going until you find treatments that work for you.
Many doctors tell patients suffering from environmentally induced illnesses that it’s all in their heads, because science is still in the Dark Ages. If you’re sick, however, you owe it to yourself—and your family—to pay attention to your own body and do whatever it takes to find answers for yourself. You are your own best advocate.
Go to the best mainstream institutions, whether you’re seeking legal or medical help. That’s certainly what I did: from the Mayo Clinic to the Cleveland Clinic, I sought out experts who had earned recognition worldwide. Most universities and medical schools have environmental health departments. Check those out, too. Keep going until you find answers and relief for your symptoms.
If, over time, mainstream medicine fails you, and you believe you’re suffering from an environmentally induced illness, I urge you to consider contacting the nearest physician affiliated with the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. (AAEM, originally founded by Dr. Randolph as the Society for Clinical Ecology, is made up of about five hundred osteopathic and medical physicians.) Through this network, you will at least find a physician who will listen to you with compassion, and who may have treatments your primary physician isn’t aware of yet. Leave no stone unturned in your quest for treatment.