Toxic firefighting foam has polluted water systems across the US for years. But one firefighter is taking the first step to hold the foam makers accountable. She is filing a lawsuit alleging the chemicals in AFFF caused her ulcerative colitis. Her case could have massive repercussions.
In this article, we will explore the implications of this lawsuit and more.
The Hidden Dangers of “Forever Chemicals”
While firefighting foams effectively combat liquid fuel fires, scientists have raised health concerns about their ingredients.
In the 1960s, the Navy worked with 3M to develop aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) for ships and aircraft. This new foam contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which became widely used in firefighting.
PFAS are synthetic chemicals with strong carbon-fluorine bonds, making them resistant to breaking down. NFPA says over 9,000 types have been used since the 1950s in products like nonstick cookware and food packaging. Their persistence in the environment and bodies of humans/animals led the EPA to call them “forever chemicals.”
Erik D. Olson from NRDC explains why PFAS pose risks. As they don’t degrade, contamination spreads easily. Even extremely low exposures can impact health. However, the EPA doesn’t regulate or test most PFAS, and manufacturers aren’t obligated to declare their usage of the chemical.
Given these concerns, it’s important to be aware of potential PFAS sources and reduce unnecessary exposures when possible. Further research and regulation are also still needed to improve understanding and safety.
PFAS Pose Widespread Risk Through Drinking Water, Says USGS Research
The USGS conducted a nationwide study. They tested tap water samples from 700+ private wells and public water systems locations for the presence of 32 different types of PFAS chemicals.
According to the study, over 45% of the tap water samples taken across the country had at least one form of PFAS present. The most commonly detected PFAS were PFBS, PFHxS, and PFOA. Detection of PFOS and PFOA exceeded EPA health guidelines in some samples.
Higher detection rates were found near urban areas, which are potential industry sources of PFAS pollution. Detection was also more common in tap water from urban areas than in rural locations.
This was the broadest nationwide study of PFAS in tap water to date. The results provide useful data on exposure risks and can inform policies around testing and treatment. If concerned, homeowners with private wells are advised to test their own water supply for PFAS.
The study helps increase understanding of these persistent contaminants. It also helps understand how widely they have spread into tap water sources used for drinking and everyday use by communities across the US. The USGS work contributes to ongoing efforts to monitor and address PFAS threats to water quality and public health.
A Woman Allegedly Developed Health Issues From PFAS Exposure in Local Water
According to AboutLawsuits, a Colorado woman was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease. She says the health issues stemmed from consuming municipal water contaminated with toxic PFAS used in AFFF.
The complaint names chemical companies producing AFFF, which has been used at the Colorado Springs Airport and elsewhere near her home. Extensive research has linked long-term PFAS exposure to ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and various cancers.
The woman indicates she was diagnosed in 2022 after a lifetime of consuming locally contaminated water. Her suit alleges manufacturers knew of AFFF’s toxicity but failed to mitigate risks to human health and the environment.
Colorado Springs faces severe PFAS contamination largely tied to AFFF used at its airport. The area is central to consolidated litigation regarding firefighter foam pollution. Early trials will help assess jury response to key evidence from locations like this facing documented water contamination.
As per TorHoerman Law, there are over 4,700 known legal cases involving alleged harm from AFFF firefighting foam exposure. These cases encompass both individual personal injury claims as well as actions by municipalities concerning water contamination.
By consolidating similar lawsuits into an MDL, the legal system aims to efficiently and consistently manage this extensive volume of interconnected claims. Organizing the cases under one federal judge allows for consolidated pre-trial coordination and can facilitate overall progress.
While individual outcomes won’t impact other claims, the amounts may influence future settlement negotiations to resolve the nationwide litigation. Those exposed to military, fire, or industrial PFAS seek accountability and compensation for their resulting health burdens. Notably, attorneys predict that AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts could range between $40,000 to $300,000 or more.
It’s crucial to remember that since every case is different, actual settlements might vary substantially. The factors could depend on individual circumstances and the evolving legal landscape surrounding PFAS contamination.
FAQs
1: What steps should I take to participate in an AFFF legal action?
A: Joining an AFFF lawsuit involves several key steps. Start by gathering all relevant health and employment records. These should show your exposure to AFFF foam chemicals. Next, submit the required legal paperwork to join the lawsuit. Your lawyer will then negotiate with the AFFF manufacturer. They’ll aim for the highest possible settlement on your behalf. Your case could end up in court if required. Your legal team will fight for a favorable verdict there.
2: Can you explain the significance of the $17.5 million payout in previous PFAS-related legal cases?
A: A significant PFAS-related settlement occurred in 2021. Tyco Fire Products and other manufacturers were involved. They agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle claims. The settlement was with residents near Peshtigo. This area had suffered water contamination. The contamination came from chemicals used at a firefighting training facility nearby.
3: Which U.S. states have implemented prohibitions on AFFF?
A: Several states have banned the sale of firefighting foam containing PFAS. As of now, twelve states have such bans in place. These include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maine. Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont have also enacted bans. Remember, laws can change. It’s best to check current regulations for your specific state.
As we can see, PFAS exposure is allegedly causing more health issues. Consolidated litigation may reveal chemical manufacturers’ knowledge of these dangers. This legal action could provide relief for affected communities. Accountability is crucial for transitioning to safer alternatives.
We must protect public health and water resources for future generations. This firefighter’s case outcome may significantly advance these important goals. It could push for more responsible practices in the industry. The litigation might lead to stricter regulations on PFAS use. It may also encourage more research into safer firefighting foam options. Ultimately, this case could be a turning point in addressing PFAS-related health concerns.