National Academy of Sciences ~ Community Perspective of Firefighter PFAS Exposure — May 25th Town Hall
by Diane Cotter
Thank you for hearing our community perspective today.
Firefighters know the job is dangerous, they know they will likely get cancer. They trusted their gear would not be the cause. They were told the AFFF was as safe as dish-washing liquid.
In October of 2015 my husband, a Worcester, MA firefighter was diagnosed with prostate cancer with a Gleason Score of 7. It would end his career and our lives were forever changed.
In August of 2019 I would join a group of fire-wives who came together to ‘braid’ commemorative ‘braids’ for the 20th anniversary of the Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse Fire. At my table of 6–8 wives of active and retired firefighters, ages mid-thirties to late 60’s, when asked what type of cancer Paul had I would reply ‘prostate’. Each woman replied, “mine too”.
This was one table. Since Paul’s surgery in 2015 he’s kept a list of WFD members who have reached out to him with their cancer diagnosis. The list has 32 names now.
In 2017 I was contacted by Jason Burns of Fall River, MA. He was president of Local 1314. He had just lost two mid-thirty year old firefighters with rare brain cancers.
Michael O’Reagan also of Fall River fire is fighting to keep his kidneys. He’s been diagnosed with multiple cancers. Michael speaks of the days they would use AFFF to hose down the station bays to remove diesel exhaust, and spray their turnout gear with AFFF to wash it. It’s the best cleaner in the world. And it’s safe as dishwashing liquid. They were told by Dana Faber Cancer Center that Fall River Fire has ‘statistically impossible’ rates of cancer.
We belong to a many social media groups dedicated to the discussion of PFAS in the fire service, from all walks of firefighting. The discussion in these groups is very difficult to witness. Firefighters that gave everything for their country and their communities are now suffering with tumors, brittle bones, loss of organs, rare cancers , loss of reproductive abilities, failing kidneys, failing bladders, and rare brain cancers which is increasing in young firefighters, staggering numbers of testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma , thyroid cancers and esophageal cancers. And recently we learned of a brave firefighter diagnosed with no sperm.
In 2015 the FOX Biomonitoring study tested for PFAS and focused on a cohort of Firefighters. The study was published and expressed the need for larger groups of firefighter PFAS studies:
Conclusions:
Perfluorodecanoic acid concentrations were three times higher in this firefighter group than in NHANES adult males. Firefighters may have unidentified sources of occupational exposure to perfluorinated chemicals.
In 2015 while Paul was recovering from surgery and adjusting to a life he never envisioned (not being a firefighter while still in the best shape of his life) I began researching the materials used in firefighter PPE. I came across a 1999 Safety Alert that spoke of a recall for the ‘Breath-tex Moisture Barrier’ (the moisture barrier is the middle layer of the 3 layer highly technical turnout gear).
The union was hearing that this piece of material was ‘degrading’. Manufacturers were resistant and the union threatened legal actions if no recall was acted on. That sent a big ‘hum’ down my spine because the firefighter culture was entrenched with manufacturers who declare they want firefighters in the safest gear possible. That led to finding an obscure ‘NFPA Standard’ (National Fire Protection Association) that the moisture barrier had to meet a ‘xenon light test’. Jeff Stull a chemist on Standards committee called this test ‘fallacious’ as it served no purpose. The only material that could meet that standard is Teflon.
Proposal 1971–39 Log #103: I would like to go on record as finding the “Light Degradation Test” as fallacious. While the intent of the test is worthy, the task group and the committee have failed in demonstrating that the mode of moisture barrier failure on which the test is based is truly the cause of the Breathetex degradation problem. No evidence has been ever been provided that UV degradation alone (even along with the laundering and heat conditioning) adequately explains the phenomena observed in the field. The fact that the chosen conditions would render most outer shell materials to a completely unusable state, remembering that it would be the outer shell that is attenuating the vast majority of UV light exposure, is proof positive that the selected test conditions fail to appropriately mimic the conditions of Breathetex failure. I understand that the task group expended a great effort in developing the proposed requirements, but the commitment of these resources in of itself does not constitute a valid reason for adding this requirement. Consider that if Breathetex degradation had been instead the result of a product defect, either in the film or manufacturing process or both, that was limited to only a portion of the material placed in the marketplace, then the proposed test would have no value whatsoever. I believe the committee should reconsider the test on the basis of its merits only as compared the original direction of the task group to prevent “Breathetex-like failures.”
In 2017 I received a call from Erin Brockovich. She reached out after my numerous emails to her discussing the ‘degradation of ‘Nomex/Kevlar’ and my concern knowing that the groin area of the firefighter was the most absorptive place on the body of the firefighter. She was first to ask if the gear contained PFOA. She’d had a call from a New Hampshire fire chief that had 13 firefighters with cancer.
That began the search to see if our turnout gear contained these chemicals. We could not get information. From anyone. Not labor, not industry, not institutions. But we had questions. And in 2017 I purchased a set of new, never-worn turnout gear, circa 2004 (all that was available to a non-firefighter), and after appealing to the science community I was connected with Dr. Graham Peaslee who agreed to ‘test’ this set of gear.
Industry fought back telling us the new replacements are ‘ten times less toxic!’ and we should be happy with that. From the Milliken team:
In 2020, Dr. Graham Peaslee published his peer reviewed study of 17 years’ worth of new and decommissioned turnout gear. He found PFOA in everything. In each layer of the gear. Among other PFAS soup. And it would show that our moisture barrier was more than 30% Teflon. But, the study would also show that in 2017 a new PFAS compound showed up. Dr. Peaslee found that a 2017 new, never worn moisture barrier held 90,400 ppb PFBS. This was just one layer of the 3 layer garment. Find our complete study here:
In September of 2017 Attorney Robert Bilott would challenge the EPA, CDC/ATSDR and US AG Jeff Sessions. He would demand medical monitoring and health studies for first responders in this 196 page letter. His co-filers would be Kentucy Fire Chief Jeffrey Hermes and C8 Science Panel Dr. Paul Brooks.
No response ever came that I am aware of.
In 2018 when firefighters were omitted from the first CDC PFAS Study because they were occupationally exposed to PFAS. Attorney Bilott would write a 48 page letter in protest of the CDC reasoning. Still no studies on the scale that are needed for firefighters.
Still no studies on the scale that are needed for firefighters across all genre of firefighting.
June 2020, Dr. Peaslee published his peer reviewed study of 17 years’ worth of turnout gear. He found PFOA and PFAS soup in everything except a 2017 moisture barrier that was more than 30% Teflon. The moisture barrier has a new compound, it held 90,400 ppb PFBS. This was just one layer of the 3 layer garment. https://www.lastcallfoundation.org/nd-article
Rebuttal from industry to any advocacy on this issue complicates the fire-service saga as firefighters look to equipment manufactures for science on their gear. This has been the culture for decades. When a firefighter wants to know about the safety of their gear or AFFF they go right to the manufacturer:
We challenged industry that our cancers may be coming from more than products of combustion, and, like in the case of my husband, his PFAS exposure may never have come from AFFF as Paul couldn’t recall ever using AFFF in his career on a rescue company.
Dr. Peaslee was able to find a ‘PFAS textile signature’ in our turnout gear, that matched the PFAS dust study of 15 Massachusetts fire houses, then our route of exposure is certainly inhalation and ingestion. The real scary though is dermal — because the firefighter wears this body encasing garment, and sweats in profuse amounts. Dr Peaslee states that turnout gear is the most highly fluorinated textile seen.
- What challenges do you think medical professionals face in providing advice on PFAS exposure?
- For what specific health situations would you like this report to provide advice?
Firefighters lacking tools to engage and educate their medical providers. In 2019 Pauls PCP hadn’t been able to secure him a serum draw as there was no ‘code’ for it back then. We’ve engaged with Vista Analytical Labs who just today provided us with a letter for firefighters to bring to their PCP’s. We’ll share that with NAS and on our social media.
Does the value of getting tested for PFAS exposure depend on how much scientific evidence there is linking exposure to health effects?
The fire service is inundated with junk science coming from industry itself who has endless amounts of money to produce propaganda. .
January 2020 the union recycled the dialogue from Lion Gear during a webinar about pfas.
The former union president supported Lion Gear’s ‘Exponent ‘ study and even allowed the H&S leaders to promulgate the exact language used by Lion Gear to the fire service, that “pfas was too big to pass through their skin, it was like volleyballs and tennisballs”.
That conflict of interest was dwarfed by decades of silence from manufactures who sat on the NFPA safety standards. They worked very hard to never discuss the PFAS while ensuring their products would acquire the ‘meets nfpa standards’ seal of approval required for every purchase order written for AFFF or gear.
Also in January, firefighters Sean Mitchell and Jason Burns of Massachusetts and Florida allies called for a overhaul of the IAFF affiliations with industry the science that labor would accept. Resolutions 28 and 31 were voted in essentially shunning industry from labor.
So we look to you. The science community. But it won’t be easy for you as you all know. Just this week we saw a report from Hank Campbell of Science 2.0 who rebutted the work of Dr’s Jeff Burgess and Alberto Caban-Martinez on their study of PFAS in volunteer firefighters.
Thank you for hearing us today. Please visit our website dedicated to this subject.
www.yourturnoutgearandpfoa.com
additional articles: