TRANSCRIPT: Captain Sean Mitchell via Jim Burneka Firefighter Cancer Consultants — Episode 63 on 11/3/2020
JB: Welcome everyone to episode 63 of ‘The 25 Live’. My name is Jim Burneka. My special guest this week is Sean Mitchell. Now Sean is the secretary-treasurer of the Nantucket Local 2509 that’s located on a little island there in Massachusetts. And, I brought him on the show — I wanted to give him a platform to kind of share his story. You know, Sean is a firefighter — he’s the end user, the tip-of-the-spear if you will, and he’s been making all sorts of noise regarding this PFAS-PFOA that’s in our fire gear. So, he’s been able to actually uncover a lot of different things and I just wanted to give him the opportunity to share that with my listeners here. So, without further ado let’s bring Sean in.
All right, welcome everyone to this week’s episode of ‘The 25 Live. My name is Jim Burneka. My special guest this week is Sean Mitchell — all the way from Nantucket, where he’s the secretary-treasurer of Local 2509. How’s it going Sean?
SM: Not bad Jim. I’m doing well here in Nantucket. Appreciate you having me on. Um, I’m a fan of your show — I’ve listened to it quite a few times over the past ten-twelve months. So um, I’m happy to be here and talk with you.
JB: Well good deal. Thanks, brother, for that. So, I want to just jump right into — that’s kind of what I do, and ah, I think where we should start is, you’re story’s similar to a lot stories out there. You got a message from some lady — and just take it from there.
SM: (Laughter) So ah — in 2017, um — as you said similar to a lot of other stories — so, we were probably one of who knows how many, maybe a thousand, maybe more — messages that ah — Diane Cotter sent out to firefighters, fire departments, unions, ah — you name it. And ah, so that was in 2017. And her message was telling us that our turnout gear contained PFOA. And so probably like most of the other people who got that message back then — had no idea what that meant — right, she um, she was pretty passionate about it and ah, but again I didn’t know what it meant. And so we looked into it a little bit here and what we did is contact our distributors — the people that sell us the gear, the people who ah, who come to the station and tell us all about our gear basically.
And so we heard back from them — the gear was safe, there was no PFOA in our turnout gear and that it’s safe to wear. Nothing to worry about. And so, we — we didn’t really worry about it. We trusted those people and — and you know they were telling us what they were told — ah, those people didn’t know either. That’s what I think anyway — ah, at that level. And so, they ah, they told us there was nothing to worry about, so we didn’t worry about it. And I think we got one more message from Diane maybe a few months later, um reiterating her first message. But again we had been told that — that there was nothing to worry about in our gear.
So um, but I — but I did look into Diane a little bit and I knew she was from Worcester , Mass — which is where I’m from and so I started to follow her on social media — on Twitter ah, and Facebook. And ah, but all the while I was just sort of assuming her fight must have to do with her husband Paul and the gear that he had in Worcester or something like that because — because like I said we had been told it didn’t — it didn’t affect us. So — or maybe it was just the older gear that — from back you know early 2000’s late 90’s when Paul was on the gear — and it didn’t affect us.
So, so fast forward a couple years — nothing really changed until early this year in 2020. My union began to meet to negotiate a new contract. And so we talked a lot about ah health and safety. That’s our focus. We want to try to improve some things health and safety-wise and one of the members of our negotiating committee is ah — a friend of mine named Nate Barber. And Nate is a Captain and he’s ah- at the time I think he’s 38 years old. And he was out of work at that time of that meeting because he was recovering from testicular cancer. And so he had been diagnosed — ah, just about a year ago. October of 2019. And quickly had to leave Nantucket — which is an island of course — so, to get to Boston for ah — medical treatment, which ah creates a whole — a whole extra amount of problems compared to people who maybe live not on an island — to get cancer treatment. So you add that to it and he had been out of work for a few months. So he had been through a lot. And he was telling us about what he had learned about A-triple-F (AFFF) and how the PFAS chemicals in AFFF have been linked to a few things including testicular cancer — which he was at that time still fighting.
And, um the conversation sort of got back around to what we had been told by Diane and we decided that we were gonna look a little bit deeper into what she’d been telling us — um, so again we reached out and this time they sent us actual letters from the different textile manufacturers and the PPE manufacturers — ah, and they’re all dated around 2017 and we came to find out that was because they wrote those letters basically in response to what Diane had been telling everybody right — once she wrote an article and began contacting you know — the country and so they —
the manufacturers started to scramble and come up with their defense and that was to write these letters that essentially said — sort of what we had been told back in 2017 — ah, vague language probably written by high priced attorneys that were saying you know, ‘PFOA is not ah, in your turnout gear’ um, in so many words. Ah it did mention that fact that they really on phased PFOA out by 2016.
So they wrote these letters in 2017 saying that ‘your gear does not contain PFOA’. But they didn’t mention that the gear that we were all wearing contained PFOA. And that PFOA had been linked in a court of law thanks to the C8 Science Panel that you’ve probably seen in the movie Dark Waters and all the work that Rob Bilott did.
So you know all that gear that we’re wearing did actually contain the chemicals that Diane had been warning us about. Um, and so through that research, from — from this ah, negotiating committee getting together we realized that there was a problem with our turnout gear, and that we wanted to do something about it um, especially for Nate who was battling a cancer that had been linked to these chemicals. And so we wanted him to come back to work with turnout gear that did not contain these chemicals. Um, and so we decided to write a letter to our town **** um an request — you know — we provided the letter but we also provided some research and some statistics on firefighters cancer. Um and we wrote a letter requesting that they replace all of our turnout gear manufactured prior to 2016. But still at that time we thought — you know — at some point in 2016, maybe a little bit before, depending on the manufacturer — they had removed PFOA. And at that time we didn’t that they just replaced it with other PFAS chemicals that are probably just as bad maybe worse ah depending on how you look at it.
So the letter was requesting replacing all the turnout gear prior to 2016. We passed that ah, across to the town — they quickly accepted it because luckily we have a Chief and town administration that understood the issue and understood that this — this is a risk. Um, and that they wanted to help keep us safe and they knew that ah, removing this old turnout gear with the PFOA in it would do that.
So once they accepted that we kind of got to work and had to try and figure out how are we going to replace this gear. And so that’s where all of my research um, started. And I had to figure out — ok, you know, they’ve agreed — which is amazing — to replace out turnout gear, but now what are we gonna get? And so the first thing I did was reach out to Diane Cotter and um, up until then I don’t think I’d ever you know, interacted with her. I never responded to her messages unfortunately back in 2017. So ah, I told her kind of what we were up to and how basically she had written and her research ah, had helped us to get to this point and that — that we were just sort of starting to look into replacement gear. Um and she, she told me about a paper that you’re familiar with written by Graham Peaslee that was coming out — ah back then, this was probably April, ah March, April — sometime 2020. And she said, “keep an eye out for a paper from Graham Peaslee”.
Um, and so as we know when that paper came out it basically told us that there is no turnout gear that is PFAS free. And while they may have re — removed or eliminated PFOA from the older turnout gear, they simply replaced it with other PFAS chemicals um, which are probably just as bad — they just haven’t been studied as much as the PFOA has been yet. And not only that these ‘short chain’ as they call them um, PFAS chemical can degrade and become the longer chain PFAS chemicals *** (data) and we’re right back where we started — still being exposed to C8 and the long chain chemicals.
So ah- so really what I started — is I realized that we may not have a choice as far as finding PFAS free turnout gear, which was our goal. Um, so I started to sort of reach out to all of the textile and gear manufacturers that I could. Basically I would just send them an online inquiry, with a question. Pretty much the same question to all of them. Some were very responsive. Some ah, not so responsive. Um, and, and so that’s sort of where I was back in the summer of this year. Just listening to everything that they were telling me — trying to figure out what was true and what’s not true and um, still working to try to figure this whole thing out.
JB: What were some of the things that they were telling you back in the summer?
SM: Well actually there’s one ah — there’s one in-particular that — that comes to mind. And it’s — it was because of the timing of it was just crazy. So I had a call set up with um, one textile manufacturer for a Friday — I think it was a Friday. And that morning — early that morning we had a call here at the fire department for a fire at our landfill. And so I responded to that. I um, you know, came into the station from home. I had to put on my — my backup set of turnout gear because my — my newer set was being washed and wasn’t put back together yet. So my backup set of turnout gear was manufactured in 2009, right, so that um, was certainly made with PFOA. Um, and I wore that for probably three or four hours at that fire and then you know, came back and did what you’re supposed to do — took a shower, took the gear off, washed off, put my newer set together and got back into ah, into service.
But, so later on that day I called this ah textile manufacturer and we started talking and it came up where ah, I told him that I — you know — I had some concerns about the older, what they would call ‘legacy’ turnout gear because I’m still wearing it and PFOA um, and how that was still in that gear. And he — he ah, he basically told me that, ‘there’s nothing to worry about even with PFOA’. So even the one that we know causes cancer and other illnesses — he was telling me that there’s nothing to worry about because the risk is — is minimal because the amounts that are in this gear are so low. And um, and I couldn’t believe the was saying that to me because everything I’d learned up to that point was completely opposite. But of course he was saying that because they produce a textile that is loaded with PFOA. And not only firefighter textile but many, many other things and it’s a huge part of their business so certainly he’s not going to ah, come right out and agree with people like Graham Peaslee or Diane Cotter .
And so his proof that he offered me — because I told him I wanted to see some proof — um, a study — you know — some science that proved that. And so he sent me ah, what they call their ‘exposure assessment’ and it’s a two-page document and basically the point of the document is to say and support that PFOA exposure is, is basically nothing to worry about for firefighters. Even from their old turnout gear because um, the amount is so low in their old moisture barriers that ah — it will not, basically cause these illnesses. And I’m sort of paraphrasing there so, but basically with ah, this exposure assessment, I looked into it a little bit further and at the bottom, a lot of the information in this exposure assessment came from ah — um a study, and it was referenced at the bottom. So I looked up the people who wrote the study. And the lead author of this study, that supposedly is telling us that PFOA is completely safe, the lead author who wrote that is a man named Steven Washburn, who — I looked him up and he — turns out, he is a defense expert for DuPont in multiple lawsuits. And then he’s the lead author, almost all the other authors are employees from DuPont, Chemours, and um this other company — which I came to learn later, they’re called Environ or Ramboll *** one of them bought the other out so I’m not sure which one they are now.
But they’re basically science for hire. Um, and so that’s what this was. This paper was basically written by people who are hired — you know — they wrote the conclusion before they wrote the rest of it. They knew what they were gonna write. Now this guy is sending that out to firefighters to say, ‘don’t worry about that gear you wore, because it’s completely safe’. ‘Here’s scientific — here’s scientific proof’. And it’s completely made up. And ah, so that’s really where it turned for me from just research and trying to figure out what we do next — to anger. Because how many other firefighters out there has he shown this to and you know they — they just believe it, which I would of done last year, prior — you know? Um, but I learned a little bit from talking to Diane *** up to that point to know ah that we have to look into these things a little bit further.
And so, that really, over the summer was where it turned for me and I started to go into every conversation or email with these manufacturers and their salespeople through a lens of just — you know, I’m not going to believe anything they tell me until they prove that it’s true. And none of them, up until — even through today, none of them have been able to back up what they say.
That’s just one example of phony science handed out to firefighters, there are — there are others from other manufactures, so um, you know that’s just one story of sort of the research.
JB: It sounds awfully familiar.
SM: Yeah.
JB: Unfortunately. So, in your — in your search for this PFAS free gear is there any hope? Is there anything on the horizon — at any point have any of these gear manufactures, these textile manufacturers — have they said, ‘you know what, we’re going to get away from that, we’re going with something else’.
I mean are they even working towards it that you can tell?
SM: Ah, some are, and some are not. So that — that story that I just told you is um a company called Gore. W.L. Gore and everybody is probably familiar with Gore-Tex. And um, you know, I have a pair of boots that aren’t even made by Gore but they’re waterproofed by Gore. So you know, Gore is everywhere — raincoats, all kinds of fabrics and things like that.
So that company, they told me um, that they don’t see anything on the horizon. They make a moisture barrier. And so the moisture barrier is made with PTFE, which is basically a Teflon sheet. And so Gore has told me that you know, they don’t — that’s the reason why they sent me their exposure assessment is because they don’t think there’s an issue to do with PFOA. Ah, or any PFAS chemical. So no they- they ah, according to the person I spoke with, there is nothing on the horizon from them. There are other moisture barrier manufacturers who say that ah, they would like to offer an alternative but in order to pass the NFPA certification requirements they have to use it — ah Teflon basically. Um, so according to them if the NFPA certification requirements change and so that they can meet the requirements of NFPA 1971, then they would offer an alternative.
The ah, the outer shell — there are a few textile manufacturers who — as far as I know already have a PFAS free outer shell. Ah, I don’t believe they’re available yet but they will be soon. Um, and so I think there is some hope probably in the near future we can get some gear that does not have PFAS chemicals on the other shell at least- or the thermal liner. But till things change ah, from what I’m told at the NFPA, we don’t have a choice and we will be wearing a moisture barrier made with Teflon. And then there’s the argument of um, you know is- is- Teflon is it a risk to be wearing that? And you know the scientists can argue that one out. I believe it is. But if I lived in a community where they produced Teflon I would tell ya that I don’t want it produced anymore because we look at, you know, North Carolina and West Virginia, New Jersey, and all these manufacturing plants and so the production of these things is contaminating entire communities and their water. Um, they incinerate it- it- just comes down, rains down, it lands in their- in their land.
Um, and the other problem is end-of-life. So after we are done with our turnout gear, what are we gonna do with it? Are we going to throw it in a landfill- and get into our groundwater? It may not affect you and I but our kids ah, and grand-kids will be drinking our moisture barrier basically. Um, so that’s why we want completely PFAS free turnout gear.
There is some hope on the horizon, the more people like you , and Graham Peaslee and Rob Bilott, and Diane, Jeff Knobbe, and people like that are out letting- letting this issue sort of gain the relevance it deserves then I think you know, it will eventually get there. But ah, right- right now, today if we were gonna purchase turnout gear it would not only have a Teflon moisture barrier but it would also have a PFAS outer shell.
JB: Then there’s no getting around that right now?
SM: No getting around that.
JB: If you had to purchase something right now.
SM: Right and that’s why- so we are, our town- they did agree to replace our turnout gear but we have not replaced it yet because ah, what we were hoping to get is completely PFAS free turnout gear and it doesn’t exist right now. Um, and we would like to get the outer shell and the moisture barrier to be PFAS free. But we may end up just um, needing to get the PFAS free outer shell with that Teflon moisture barrier until something else changes.
JB: Let me ask you this, cause you mentioned talking to all the textile companies, the gear manufacturers- you mentioned also NFPA. Have you reached out, have you talked to these kind of governing bodies, these- these institutions that we as firefighters look to for direction and assistance? Like the NFPA, like the IAFF, like the IAFC, the National Volunteer Fire Council? I mean all those different organizations? Have you talked to them at all, and kinda- have they- if you did, what were they telling ya?
SM: Alright, I didn’t necessarily reach out to the NFPA themselves but I did reach out to some people who sit on the NFPA 1971 committee. And so that’s the- 1971 is the standard on structural turnout gear. And um so I reached out to a few of them by email. Asked basically, just some basic PFAS/turnout gear questions. Um, and a couple of them it turns out, are the same people that I spoke to ah, from the textile and gear manufacturing companies. They- they sit on NFPA 1971 committee. So ah, they’re the ones taking part in making the decision regarding the ah, certification requirements that require PFAS chemicals- right, they’re the ones who sit- that assist and make those decisions. So, you know, I spoke to them and I also spoke to um, somebody else and he was great, he got back to me right away and invited me to take part in a um, sort of a task group they call it, from 1971 they’ve broken out into this task group that is looking at chemicals in our turnout gear and potentially making some amendments.
Um so, we’ll see where that- where that ends up. But again um, there are some people on there who- who work for and represent the manufacturers and you know they don’t have an interest- you know, they may- they may be fine with offering an alternative but I don’t know that they’re ever gonna admit that the stuff they’ve been selling us for decades is dangerous. Because then they- they may be liable for that because you know they’ve probably known that it’s dangerous um, at least some of them have and so they’re not gonna come out and say, ‘hey, we need to get rid of all of this PFAS gear because it’s- it’s- it’s gonna potentially make you sick, potentially kill you, certainly gonna harm the environment down the road’. Nobody can dispute that. Um, they’re not gonna admit that cause if I called them
today that’s what they’d sell me. You know? So these people who sit on this committee, you know they’re a little bit probably conflicted. Ah, so I don’t know how that task group will go.
Regarding the union. I’ve reached out to ah my- my state union here, ah Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts and I’ve sent them some letters and some information. Um, I did have one phone call where I sort of explained- sort of the whole story um, of what we’re doing here and why we’re doing it. Um, and you know, and they haven’t acted. I got some lip service back from them that they’re- they’re working hard behind the scenes but ah, we haven’t seen any evidence of that. And so ah, you know, I’m just sort of- I’m contacting- for the past couple weeks I’ve been reaching out to locals in my state and in the area and um, just sending them messages with ah, some things that I’ve learned; things that they should look out for when they’re purchasing new turnout gear. Because clearly our state unions’ not gonna do that.
JB: It’s like all of a sudden you’ve become Diane.
SM: (Laughter) Um, there’s only one Diane (laughter). Um but you know, she’s right. You know, so that’s why — and it- and it took a while to really, for me, to understand that she was right because ah, it’s a very complicated situation and you know, you get on the phone with somebody who has a Ph. D., and they’ve been working in the chemical industry for- you know their entire lives and you kinda want to just believe what they’re telling you because you know, why would they want to mislead me? Um, but there are people who are paying to mislead us. And you know, it took me a while to realize that. And some of those people are the people who make textiles and turnout gear that we as firefighters have to wear every day. And ah, Diane has been trying to tell people that for years and ah, some people listened right away, some people like me- it took a while. Um, and, but I’m here now so that’s why I’m trying to also spread the message.
JB: One of the things that kind of intrigued me to getting you on the show is- cause I’ve talked to you know, an attorney ** I’ve talked to multiple scientists and ah, but you’re the actual end user who’s getting out there and making the most noise and kind of stirring the pot and getting things done. So I thought it was ah, it was important to get you on here and to give the opportunity to talk to all my listeners as well because you know you’re the ones that are actually using this gear.
SM: Yeah. Well I appreciate you having me on. You know I’m here like you said, just as a firefighter. I don’t really represent anyone but myself. Ah, nobody’s paying me to be here. Nobody’s paying me to have this opinion. This opinion was formed over the last year. Somebody who didn’t know anything about this and I’ve put a lot of time and effort into researching it and that’s where my opinion comes from. And, you know, I’ve heard some of the people that you’ve had on your show and I think it would be important for them, you know, to start off- maybe the interview, by telling us if anybody’s paying them for their opinion. Has anybody ah, financially backing their work? And who those people are. Because they may not necessarily ah, those people may not necessarily be looking to mislead us or like I said earlier to write the conclusion before they do the study, um, but I think that where the money comes from seems to be ah, where the opinions come from. And so, ah, that’s- that’s what I’ve found and I’m happy to- to explain that to people anytime. There’s loads of evidence out there it just takes a little research.
And so I think anybody listening to this- when you- when you listen to- to anybody talk about this subject or any subject- something that I’ve learned that probably other people already realize is that don’t believe anybody until you go and figure out who they are and maybe why they’re saying what they’re saying because um, a lot of times all they’re trying to do is muddy the water and, and um, and bring a little doubt to what people like Diane or Graham Peaslee are telling us. And you know, when you dig deep into somebody like Graham Peaslee you don’t find DuPont supporting him. You know?
When you dig deep into some of these other people, or sometimes not so deep, you find who supports their university or who supports their ah, their work. And so, it’s really important and I wish that people would just- of course they’re not gonna just do it, but I wish they would tell us um, if they’re influenced at all.
JB: Exactly. Just having some kinda independent research that says, is this a problem? Is this not? If it is a problem- which we know it is, fixing it. How many firefighters are there throughout the world that are wearing this stuff that probably shouldn’t be? If it is, if it is causing all these different cancers and illnesses?
SM: Yeah. And at least give us the choice. Or at least give us the knowledge. Because they’re not telling us, you know? Nobody’s telling us that they phased out PFOA because it’s linked to cancer while we’re all still wearing it. Nobody’s telling us that. You know? Why wasn’t it recalled? Why- why didn’t they sent out letters?
JB: Even if you’re abiding by NFPA and the ten-year rule that still means, like you said earlier- we’re still wearing that stuff.
SM: Right. And we will be for four or five more years.
JB: A couple more years for sure.
SM: Yeah, and um-
JB: And then- and then you know again, that C6- we don’t know enough about it yet. There’s been a C8 Panel, but there hasn’t been a C6 Panel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
SM: Right, and so when- so say nothing happens, ten years from now they find C6- ‘oh sorry, it’s linked to brain cancer and all sorts of other things. They’re just gonna switch to something else and not tell us that and we’ll be stuck wearing that gear for ten more years.
That’s how it’s already gone, you know? Um, and they’ll just buy the science so that they can keep operating ah- it’s just the same story being told over and over again. And now it’s PFAS. It used to be tobacco um, it’s the same thing.
JB: Yes. And flame retardants and you and I won’t be alive to even be able to say, “I told you so”.
SM: (Laughter) No we won’t- and those companies will still be making billions of dollars and ah, pretending that they’re not doing anything wrong, you know? And then so- one thing that came up recently that’s kind of blown my mind- guess who now is in the water purification business?
JB: (Laughter) Who?
SM: DuPont
JB: No!
SM: Well, DuPont — they call it DuPont Water Solutions and ah, they’re trying to clean up our water- for a fee of course. Right? That’s how they’re making money now. So they’re responsible as a truly evil company who is responsible for contaminating the entire world, basically, right? Them, 3M, and a few others, but DuPont’s the big one.
They’ve contaminated all of us. All of our blood, all of our children, um, our groundwater, the environment, polar bears, you name it. You’re gonna find their chemicals. And instead of admitting responsibility they just ah, kinda swung off into something called Chemours .
Now they blame it all on them even though they’re basically the same people. They just change the name. And now you can pay them to help clean up your water that they’re responsible for contaminating. And nobody- nobody seems to mind. Where’s the government? Where’s the EPA? It’s just how things appear to operate and ah, meanwhile people like us are the ones who are affected by it.
JB: I know this is audio, but ah, you and I can see each other and it’s just- you just gotta shake your head man.
SM: Yeah, it’s incredible. It doesn’t- I can’t even believe- it’s almost funny how insane it is. That DuPont has DuPont Water Solutions. You know? And follow em- you can follow em on social media. And it’s like they’re you know- it’s like the don’t even recognize who they are.
JB: It’s the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
SM: Yes.
JB: God. Ha-ha. Well. I don’t- I don’t know how I’m gonna top that!
SM: Laughter.
JB: Um, Do you got anything else you want to share? Anything else you want to say? You’ve got a- you’ve got a forum, you’ve got an audience.
SM: Um-
JB: We’ll get to- we’ll have a little bit of fun and do some personal stuff- I’ll do that. We’ll do the ‘25’. But you got the floor if you want to say anything else.
SM: Um. You know, I guess I could maybe tell another- couple stories of my research quickly? If that’s alright? Because I think it might help other firefighters who maybe are just learning this, and maybe they’re gonna make a phone call tomorrow to their distributor or to one of the textile manufacturers.
Um, so one of the big ones out there- anybody can look it up online is this textile company called Milliken* . And so they have on their website; ‘The Milliken White Paper’. And- and I think the subtitle is something like, ‘The Truth About Firefighters and Cancer’. Something like that. I don’t have it in front of me.
But, basically Milliken- they ah, produced this document that they call ‘The Milliken White Paper’. And when you get down to the part about C6- so they talk a little bit- which contradicts other manufacturers- they talk about PFOA and how it was phased out because of what it’s linked to, but meanwhile you go to another manufacturers website and they’ll tell you PFOA is perfectly fine. Um, so it’s a little bit contradictory. But then you get to the part about C6 and ah, there are a few references. So, there’s about a paragraph or two on C6. And one of the paragraphs ends by saying ‘C6 is well studied and found to be extremely safe’. And then there’s a reference.
So you go down and look um, at the bottom- you look at all the references- and I think in the whole C6 part ah, those two paragraphs- there’s maybe three or four citations. So you go down and look and you check out the citations and so I looked into each one of them and who the authors were. And- and all of them- all of the authors who wrote that C6 is well studied and extremely safe and some other things about C6- all of those people work for, guess who? DuPont, Chemours, Ramboll, Environ, these- these ah, either the people who make it or the people who the people-who-make-it hire to tell us that it’s safe.
They’re supposedly independent scientists and they’re not because they’re just paid for their- for their opinion. Um, they’re paid for their science. And they’re alongside people who actually- you know, you look up their LinkedIn- that’s how I found em, and it says, ‘DuPont Toxicologist’, ‘Chemours Toxicologist’. And so these are the people who Milliken, who makes probably- there’s probably who knows how many firefighters out there right now wearing textiles in their turnout gear that come from Milliken and if they were to call Milliken tomorrow or to look up on their website, it would tell em, ‘C6 has been well studied and is found to be extremely safe’. But they’re basing that on science done by the people who make it. And so, to me, that seems like a problem.
Um, and so I- I ended up speaking to somebody involved in that white paper and I asked him- because he actually told me- in the conversation he told me um, that I should look up their white paper, and I already had and I already knew all this, so I- I asked him, “why- everything you say about C6, why does it only come from the people who make it?” “Where’s the independent science that also says that it’s well studied and found to be extremely safe?” And he didn’t have an answer. Because it doesn’t exist. There was just silence. And then so- another person from there took over the call for a while wile this guy went- tried to find another study- an independent study- scrambling to find something. And he came back on and said, “I found one more”. Um, but, it was written by Daikin which is another chemical company. And so that’s not independent either. But that’s the best he could do- is to find something else from another chemical company who- who makes the stuff.
Um, so you know, if anybody’s researching this and you go on these websites or you hear these people talk at conferences- ah, you know- I’m not saying everything they say is untrue- misleading um, but you have to find out for yourself if it is. Don’t- don’t take anything at face value because the bottom line is they’re concerned about their bottom line and their profit and ah, if they have to give us a little bit of misleading science so that we keep buying their turnout gear then clearly they’re gonna do it. Because that’s what they’ve been doing ah, for- for- for who knows how long.
Um, the other one- once I started ah, really gettin’ into this research I sort of got my hands on a study that came from another fire department who was speaking with ah- speaking with a textile manufacturer and they told these people that they wanted some independent science that would prove that their- that their gear is safe. Basically they were telling them that C6, the shorter chain, newer PFAS chemicals were safe. So, they told them, “we want some independent science that proves that”. So they ended up sending them this study- um, and I won’t say who it was done by um, and I’ll tell you why in a minute, but they- they sent them this study that was sort of questioning and saying that maybe- you know- C6 um, in soil and ground water- because it move so quickly — or for other reasons is maybe not quite as much as a risk um, as maybe you know- the older- the longer PFAS chemicals.
And so this was their proof. And so I looked- again I looked up the lead author of that and he- you know, to my surprise actually, is completely legitimate. Um, completely well-respected um, independent scientist. And so, so I call- I sent him an email- I found his email online and I sent him an email and we set up a phone call. And my first question was, “your study” (and I told him the title cause he’s probably done a million of em) I said, “this study is being used by turnout gear manufacturers to send to firefighters to tell them that the C6 short-chain chemicals are completely safe and there’s no risk in being exposed to it”. And he told me, um, not only in the phone call but in a follow up email, that his study has nothing to do with firefighters- nothing to do with firefighter turnout gear- nothing to do with textiles even. Um, and that he was completely against his work being used to try to convince firefighters that C6 is safe and he went as far as to say, you know, ‘it’s probably not safe because- and he hasn’t studied it- because of the extremes that we’re exposed to’. So extremely high temperatures maybe extremely low temperatures- um and all the other hazards of crawling around and throwing your turnout gear in and out of a truck and the degradation that happens to the textiles and the fabrics from that.
And so, this guy- this guy’s study that he did on something completely different is not being- replacing you know- replacing the paid for science and they’re just trying to pass it off as something to convince firefighters that- that ah, that they have nothing to worry about. And the people who wrote the study don’t agree with it.. you know and the funny part is, this guy sent it to this fire department because he knew probably the scientist who did it was independent and well-respected, but he didn’t count on the fact that somebody was gonna call the guy and ask him what he thought of it. And that’s all you have to do. And, you know, every single time something like this happens- when you follow through and research a little bit more, it all leads back to the same thing- and that is the industry is trying to mislead
us. And um, you know sometimes it takes a lot of research to figure that out, sometimes it’s a little- just a quick Google search- but ah, I think anybody who can put a little bit of time into this research will come to the same conclusion that I have and I think they’ll be just as angry about it as I am.
JB: Do you feel like, to put it quite simply, it’s been- they’ve chosen profit over health?
SM: One hundred percent. Ah, profit over health. You know, and they will- they’ll stop at nothing, you know? They’ll stop at nothing to- to make sure that they don’t affect their profit. Ah, even it- it means searching for science that they don’t even know what it is- but they know it comes from somebody who’s not a complete paid for hack scientist who’s just selling his opinion.
Even if they do that- if they have to go that far- then they’ll- they’ll do it.
JB: All right. Well, no good seg-way. Let’s just get right to ‘The 25’. So, you’ve seen this show before- at least heard it and you know I’ve got a list of 25 questions- not gonna make you do them all. But we’ll do a handful of em and actually get to know a little bit about Sean- just the dude.
SM: Al right. That sounds good.
JB: So why don’t you- I’ve got these questions one through twenty-five, go ahead and just pick one.
SM: Ah, I’m thinkin- I’ll start with eleven.
JB: Laughter. All right. So. I’m gonna even rephrase this just a little bit differently for you.
All right. So, in ‘Dark Waters II’, The #GreatestDeceptionEver — who would play you?
SM: Laughter. Ah, I don’t know, ah — how about you?
JB: Me?
SM: Yeah, why not? We’re both ah-
JB: See I got a great mustache right now so I’d go — I don’t know.
SM: We got the same hairstyle though.
JB: Yeah we do. Kinda Bruce Willis.
SM: That’s right.
JB: Bruce Willis. Yeah. Do you agree?
SM: Sure. Absolutely.
JB: Die Hard 8.
SM: Laughter.
JB: All right well pick another question.
SM: Um, how bout number two.
JB: All right. I think I know what your answers gonna be for this one. Toilet paper holder, over or under?
SM: Oh. Over. Big pet peeve of mine. Under makes no sense. Anytime I come across an under I have to make it an over.
JB: It’s true. Another number. That was easy.
SM: Has anybody ever said under?
JB: My wife.
SM: Yeah. Yeah, mine too. Paper towels always under and I have to switch it to over. Ah, how bout number seventeen?
JB: First car?
SM: First car was ah, hand me down from my parents. An Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Probably like early 90’s late 80’s. I turned sixteen in 1996 so, it’s probably around a 1990 Cutlass Supreme. That lasted quite a few years. It actually went to my brother first, he’s two years older than me. And so ah, he drove it a few years.
JB: He didn’t ruin it for you?
SM: He didn't ruin it no. I think I ruined it. And that was- it didn’t go to anybody else after that. (Laughter)
JB: Nice. All right lets try one more.
SM: How bout number 3.
JB: I always like this one. First concert?
SM: First concert was The Beach Boys. The Beach Boys- ah it was probably 1985 or 86’. There was a placed Great Woods in Massachusetts- it’s not called that anymore but back then it’s an outdoor music venue called Great Woods and ah- so, back then in the 80’s and still today actually- I’m a big Beach Boys fan- and so we went and saw The Beach Boys and I think Roy Orbison was there also.
JB: No way!
SM: Yeah, pretty good. I’d go today if I could. Um, but that was my first concert. Yup it was good I still remember it.
JB: That’s- wow, that’s was a great one to start with. I men is this in-tact Beach Boys? Like Brian Wilson-
SM: No. I think it was- there was no Brian Wilson, but I think pretty much the rest of them were there. So Mike Love and all those guys. Brian Wilson was already gone by then, but I did- I did see probably about ten years ago, my brother and I went and saw Brian Wilson solo. Which was really good.
JB: I feel like ah, I know there’s- some of the Wilson brothers have died- I saw the Al Jardines’, Mike Loves’, the Brian Wilson separately.
SM: Yes.
JB: They hit a point- I think ten years ago there was a summer in which they got together, and I did not see them for that. That would have been cool.
SM: That would have been cool. But no, I didn’t seem them either. But anytime they’re around I try to- I try to go. It’s a pretty fun concert.
JB: But yeah, Roy Orbison too.
SM: Roy Orbison. Yeah.
JB: Part of the Million Dollar Quartet. I mean that’s huge.
SM: I don’t know.
JB: You don’t know who that was? That’s ah, Karl Perkins, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison. Right? And I think Jerry Lee Lewis is in there too, somehow- I don’t know. I saw a Broadway show once about it. Pretty damn cool.
All right I digress. Oh- there I said it- gonna give me shit- yeah because I always say, ‘I digress’ too much. I was good until right then.
Um, where can individuals track you down? I’m sure they’re already monitoring us- some of these people. (Laughter) phones are tapped.
SM: Um, you know I’m on Twitter *** @smittchy but I don’t really Tweet. Um, but I follow a lot of people, so I guess you can find me-
JB: If anybody wanted to email you, where would they email you at?
SM: So, they can email me- my email address is smittchy@gmail.com
JB: All right. Good deal.
SM: And anybody can email me anything and I’m happy to ah- explain anything I’ve said further or um, just talk about- talk about stuff.
JB: (Laughter) What kind of stuff?
SM: (Laughter) No I’m kidding — I take that back. Just like, PFAS questions.
JB: (Laughter) No I appreciate you banging the drum. Keep doing that
For all my listeners, don’t forget to; share, comment, like. You know get this out there. Let’s spread the word about this ah and help Sean band that drum some more.
So, with that I thank you. He’s Sean Mitchell. I’m Jim Burneka. We’ve already bullshitted for too long so we’re out of time.
SM: Thank you Jim.
JB: Thank you Sean.
Dc 11.9.2020