L.A. Firefighters Who Fought Blazes Show Elevated Mercury and Lead Levels
Days after their work, some of those firefighters had elevated levels of lead and mercury inside cells in their blood — amounts higher than those found in colleagues who had fought earlier forest fires in less populated areas.
That is an early finding from the L.A. Fire Health Study, a 10-year effort by a consortium of researchers to understand the health effects of exposure to smoke and other pollution from the recent California wildfires.
The Palisades and Eaton firefighters' lead levels were five times higher than the forest firefighters' levels, and their mercury levels were three times higher, said Kari Nadeau, the chair of the environmental health department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and one of the lead researchers on the study.
Dr. Nadeau said she had been alarmed to find that the metals had entered the firefighters' cells, not just their blood plasma. That means the metals can come into contact with cellular DNA, potentially causing short- and long-term health consequences. Lead and mercury exposure have been associated with neurological impairments, among other problems, but how the firefighters' specific exposures will affect them is not clear; the researchers will continue to follow them over time.
The Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is working to provide treatment to firefighters, and the researchers hope their findings could lead doctors to diagnose more people early. Quick detection of lead and mercury toxicity is key, Dr. Nadeau said. A therapy called chelation can help prevent the long-term effects, but is most effective if administered early.
The data shared by Dr. Nadeau are preliminary. They come from only 20 firefighters and have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed paper.
But Minghao Qiu, an assistant professor at Stony Brook University who has studied the health effects of wildfire smoke but was not involved in this study, said that he gave 'quite some weight' to the findings. He said that they began to answer questions on which data had not been available. Previous research had measured toxins in the air, but not inside firefighters' bodies.
Research has started to link wildfire smoke to a range of health problems. But as climate change has made wildfires more frequent, intense and widespread, evidence is emerging that the health consequences could differ in kind, not just frequency.
The finding that firefighters who fought the Palisades and Eaton blazes were affected differently than those who fought forest fires fits with existing evidence that wildfire smoke is not the same everywhere. Its contents differ based on the fuel source, the fire's intensity and interactions with atmospheric conditions, said Michel Boudreaux, a health policy expert at the University of Maryland.
That means a fire burning buildings will produce different chemicals from a fire burning a forested area, Dr. Qiu said.
The implications of this are a subject of ongoing research. But studies on the health effects of climate change could be affected by the news this week that the National Institutes of Health may stop funding studies on the topic.
The N.I.H. is a primary source of funding for such research, though the L.A. Fire Health Study has received much of its money so far from a philanthropist.
The researchers don't yet know what all of the long-term effects of the exposure to mercury and lead might be, nor have they finished analyzing the firefighters' blood. They plan to continue to track the levels of lead, mercury and other toxins in the firefighters' blood, and the trajectory of their health. The researchers and their partners are also working to track local residents' health and to measure how well or poorly interventions like masks and household air filters protected them.
In a separate part of the study in February, researchers found elevated levels of benzene and styrene in the air even after the smoke appeared to have dissipated. Those chemicals can potentially increase the risk of cancer, lung disease, stroke and heart attacks.
Dr. Qiu said further research was needed to confirm how the lead and mercury had gotten into the firefighters' blood. If they inhaled the chemicals through smoke while battling the fires, public health officials might make different recommendations from those they would make if the firefighters were exposed via the ash after the blazes had been put out.
'The recent findings highlight the many unrecognized cascading health effects from climate-intensified wildfire,' said Jennifer Runkle, an environmental epidemiologist at the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies who has studied wildfire exposure but was not involved in the L.A. Fire Health Study.
Scientists already know a fair amount about short-term risks, such as that exposure to wildfire smoke is linked with asthma flare-ups. 'But beyond these immediate impacts,' Dr. Runkle said, 'there is a hidden human cost that we have yet to measure effectively — one that lingers beneath the surface and has long-term health consequences for both firefighters and exposed communities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11-08-2025
- Los Angeles Times
Scientists argue for stricter lead soil contamination standards. What fire survivors should know
It's a number thousands of Palisades and Eaton fire survivors have come to depend on: 80 milligrams of lead in each kilogram of soil. Below this concentration, California has historically deemed yards safe enough for families to rebuild and move home after a fire. Any more, state scientists say, comes with a notable risk of kids developing neurological problems from the lead they accidentally inhale, absorb through their skin and eat while playing outside. In a new paper out Friday, Harvard environmental health researchers argue it's not strict enough. The scientists contend that the state's health standard is not based on sound science and should sit around 55 milligrams per kilogram of soil (a measure also referred to as 'parts per million') instead. 'We're getting asked these questions every single day, like every other scientist ... 'Is it safe for my kids?' ' said Joseph Allen, lead author on the paper and a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health professor who has been working with fire survivors through the LA Fire HEALTH Study research program. 'I can't look at somebody in the eye any more, knowing what I know about these models, and tell them yes.' However, other soil and health researchers said it's a debate best confined to technical scientific papers, with few implications for fire survivors wondering if their property is safe. Here's what you should know: Lead can cause negative health effects at virtually any level of exposure, so scientists at California's Department of Toxic Substances Control set their health standard for lead in residential soil by first starting with a goal: The standard should prevent children from losing one IQ point due to lead exposure. To answer this, the department uses a computer model, LeadSpread, that estimates how much lead might enter the body of a kid who plays in the dirt, primarily through accidentally eating dirt left on their hands. Then, it determines what fraction of lead that has entered the body actually makes it into the bloodstream. From there, DTSC estimates that 1 microgram of lead per deciliter of blood results in a loss of one IQ point. By digging through DTSC's papers outlining how it calculated the 80 mg/kg standard, the Harvard researchers identified three issues. First, they point out that the standard comes from an old version of the department's model, LeadSpread 8. When DTSC recalculated the number with the updated LeadSpread 9, they got 70 mg/kg, but determined that the difference wouldn't significantly impact IQ. The Harvard researchers argue DTSC does not have a strong basis for that assumption. Second, the Harvard scientists warn that the LeadSpread model is disconcertingly dependent on other assumptions. For example, the model determines what percent of lead that enters the body ends up in the blood based on a 1983 study looking at infants who consumed formula contaminated with lead. It's a very different situation than soil, the Harvard scientists argue, and even a slight shift of that percentage can give a much stricter result of around 55 mg/kg. The same is true if DTSC were to use a higher estimate for how much dirt, on average, a kid ingests per day. Finally, the Harvard researchers point out that lead causes harm not just to the nervous system — for which the IQ metric attempts to account — but also to bones, the kidneys and the heart. And not all kids have the same risk. Kids with other health conditions may be more sensitive, as are 2-year-olds compared to 6-year-olds. 'The model sort of happens in a vacuum,' said Lindsey Burghardt, chief science officer at Harvard's Center on the Developing Child and author of the paper. 'But kids … live in the context of their developmental environment where they're having a number of different exposures and experiences, whether they're positive or negative.' DTSC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Many soil and environmental health researchers say the debate shouldn't concern fire survivors all that much. Given all the uncertainty in lead modeling — and the wide range of sensitivity different kids may have based on their health conditions and how much they play in the dirt — many researchers say concerned residents should focus on their own risks and think about lead levels as 'much lower than the standard,' 'close to the standard,' and 'much higher than the standard' instead of obsessing over differences in digits. For example, much higher levels in soil that's about to get covered with a new concrete foundation might not matter all that much. Levels close to the standard in the yard of a home with no kids may not matter if the residents aren't avid gardeners and always take their shoes off when entering the house. On the flip side, even lower levels in the soil in an area where a 2-year-old likes playing in the mud could pose a risk that's unacceptable for a resident. Seth John, a professor of earth sciences at USC, pointed out that, while different LeadSpread assumptions could lead to a much lower standard, the opposite is also true. John also noted that the federal Environmental Protection Agency's standard is even higher at 200 mg/kg — which is down from 400 mg/kg for play areas and 1,600 mg/kg for other residential areas just a year ago. California didn't adopt its current standard until 2009. The Harvard scientists point out this downward trend in the standard has been due to new science showing kids are more sensitive to lead than previously thought. Their 55 mg/kg update, they say, is for the same reason. USC's Contaminant Level Evaluation and Analysis for Neighborhoods (CLEAN) project team, which John is working with to test the post-fire soil across L.A. County, said 43% of properties they've tested exceed the 80 mg/kg standard, while 57% exceeded 55 mg/kg. John also argued the debate over the lead standard distracts from the simple steps residents can take to protect themselves and their kids. USC CLEAN continues to offer free soil testing for all L.A. County residents — thanks in part to funding from FireAid. The L.A. County Department of Public Health is also offering free soil testing for residents in select areas inside and downwind of the Eaton fire burn scar. The department also offers free lead blood testing (as do most insurances) through Quest Labs for anyone concerned about their exposure. Soil researchers say the most effective way to remediate contaminated soil is to have the top layer scraped off and replaced with fresh soil. If residents can't afford a full scrape, simply adding fresh top soil on the contaminated soil can shield residents from the contamination. Even without remediation, there are plenty of ways residents can reduce their exposure. The most direct is by limiting contact with soil. For kids, that might mean going to clean parks to play in the dirt. For adults, it could mean always wearing gloves when gardening. To avoid continued exposure when inside, residents can routinely wash their hands, take their shoes off when entering the house, wipe down pets after they play in the yard, and invest in air purifiers to remove any contaminated dust.
Yahoo
11-08-2025
- Yahoo
This Popular Potato Dish Could Raise Your Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds
Key Points A new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that eating french fries three times a week or more is associated with a 20% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Other preparations of potato did not yield the same degree of risk, indicating that it's the cooking method that's the primary culprit. Nutritional guidelines and a dietitian emphasize that potatoes can still provide valuable nutrition, including fiber, potassium, and vitamin you love them baked, mashed, roasted, grilled, or stuffed, potatoes are popular all across America — and the world. But if you love your spuds in fry form, you might want to pause before firing up the deep fryer or placing that next fast-food fry order, because researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health just uncovered some potential health implications from this popular dish. The new study, published this week in The British Medical Journal, found that eating french fries three times a week was associated with a 20% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes when compared to eating them less than once a week. This is a valuable insight considering that about 1.2 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year, according to the American Diabetes Association. The Harvard team analyzed data from four decades of 205,107 adults in the United States who didn't have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer when the study began. The takeaway? The risk for developing type 2 diabetes wasn't the potato's fault on its own. Instead, it came down to how this humble ingredient was prepared, with deep-fried potatoes yielding the worst results. Is it still okay to include potatoes in your diet? Potatoes are considered a vegetable and can be included in a healthy eating plan, according to the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 'Potatoes are a staple in many cultural diets across the globe and can absolutely be considered a 'healthy' addition to the diet,' says registered dietitian and certified personal trainer Elizabeth Shaw, MS, RDN, CPT, an author and nutrition communications strategist. Potatoes are naturally fat-free and sodium-free, in addition to containing fiber, protein, and other key vitamins and minerals. For reference, one medium cooked potato with the skin on contains 118 calories, 0.1 grams of fat, 27 grams of carbohydrates, 2.5 grams of dietary fiber, and 2.5 grams of protein. It also provides 515 milligrams of potassium and is a source of vitamin C. Can the way you cook potatoes really change how they affect your body? According to researchers, yes. This study found no significant diabetes risk associated with potato preparations such as baked, boiled, and mashed tubers or even potato chips. The only culprit? French fries. Related: Scientists Say This AI-Created Diet Could Help Reduce Your Risk of Dementia French fries are typically deep-fried in oil, heavily salted, and in some cases made with added flours, sugars, or preservatives. Take McDonald's famous fries, for example. In addition to potatoes and vegetable oil, they include beef flavoring, dextrose (a simple sugar), sodium acid pyrophosphate (an additive), and salt. One large order packs in 480 calories, 23 grams of fat, and 400 milligrams of sodium. What is the most nutritious way to cook a potato? To start, keeping the skin on potatoes for serving is an excellent choice because this is where you'll find the most fiber. 'Increasing dietary fiber has been linked to improved health outcomes, including better blood sugar control, weight management, and more,' explains Shaw. She adds that the cooking method matters too, saying, 'It's best to consider the cooking method if they're a daily part of your diet, opting for boiled, baked, air-fried, or roasted over deep-fried options.' Related: This Nut May Help Lower Cholesterol and Boost Heart Health, According to a New Study So what should a fry lover do? Shaw recommends making homemade fries and cooking them in an air fryer. 'Slicing them into steak-size fries with a spritz of olive oil and salt yields that same restaurant-quality texture and taste without the fat and calories of a traditional french fry,' she notes. Mashed potato or baked potato fans can also make a few smart swaps if desired. Instead of opting for a pat of butter or using full-fat sour cream and cheese, try mixing in Greek yogurt or light sour cream for that same creamy taste with less saturated fat. How much is too much potato? 'A medium potato, or about 5 ounces, is the standard serving size… Think about the size of a small fist,' advises Shaw. How often you enjoy potatoes will depend on your individual nutritional needs and health goals. 'Personally, I recommend variety in my clients' diets, encouraging them to alternate between russets, sweet, and red potatoes to get their potato fix in while providing their body with a variety of nutrients,' she suggests. Related: Eating Sugar? Fine. Drinking It? Not So Much If you enjoy potatoes daily, that's okay too. 'It really depends on how you're enjoying them (like baked over fried) and alongside what other nutrient-dense foods.' Shaw recommends pairing potatoes with healthy fats and protein to help support balanced blood sugar levels. What it boils down to is that there's no need to shun potatoes from your kitchen. Just pay attention to preparation methods, limiting deep-fried french fries and opting for air-fried, boiled, baked, roasted, or mashed potatoes when possible. And as always, if you're concerned about whether or not potatoes are a good addition to your diet — and especially if you're concerned about diabetes — it's best to talk with a health professional who can ensure your nutrition meets your personal needs. Read the original article on Food & Wine
NBC News
06-08-2025
- NBC News
A salty twist: Diabetes risk study says french fries are a culprit
Craving french fries? Dunking your spuds in a deep fryer might be a recipe for elevating your risk of Type 2 diabetes. According to a study published Wednesday in the journal BMJ, swapping out your weekly dose of frites for boiled, baked or mashed potatoes could lower your risk of this chronic condition. The authors examined the diets of more than 205,000 adults in the U.S. who responded to questionnaires about what they ate over nearly four decades. Among those who consumed potatoes, the authors looked at which people developed Type 2 diabetes, a disease that leads to persistently high blood sugar levels. Eating three weekly servings of french fries, they found, was associated with a 20% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. But consuming the same amount of boiled, baked or mashed potatoes did not appear to be linked to the disease. The vast majority of the 1 in 10 people with diabetes in the U.S. have Type 2. The condition can increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes or kidney damage. The findings underscore that the way foods are prepared is key to their overall health risks or benefits, said Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, the study's lead author and a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Not all potatoes are created equal,' he said. 'Even a small amount of french fries, less than one serving in the week, is associated with a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes.' Unlike boiled or baked potatoes, french fries are deep-fried in oils that usually contain trans or saturated fats. The way the body metabolizes those fats can contribute to insulin resistance — when cells don't respond properly to insulin, a hormone that helps regulate blood sugar. Regular consumption of fried foods can also lead to obesity and inflammation, both of which raise the risk of Type 2 diabetes. 'When you fry the potatoes, the energy content — calories — increases because of the fat they absorb. If you eat many servings of french fries, it predisposes [people] to weight gain,' said Candida Rebello, the director of the nutrition and chronic disease program at Louisiana State University, who wasn't involved in the study. The study relied on data collected between 1984 and 2021, when several different frying methods were popular. Most fast-food chains today prepare fries using vegetable oils like canola, sunflower, soybean or peanut oil. But during the 1980s, beef tallow was common. And in the early 1990s, restaurants shifted to partially hydrogenated oils. (The oils were a major source of trans fat in the U.S. diet and were largely phased out of the food industry by 2018.) Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said the seed oils used today are 'poisoning' Americans and contributing to high levels of obesity in children. He has advocated for restaurants to switch back to beef tallow, a recommendation that isn't backed by scientific research. 'Beef tallow is high in saturated fats and other harmful fats. We definitely don't recommend that,' Mousavi said. One limitation of Mousavi's study is that it did not account for people adding unhealthy ingredients to their boiled, baked or mashed potatoes. 'What do people add to baked potatoes? Butter, bacon, cheese, sour cream,' said Shannon Galyean, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, who wasn't part of the research. 'Then we also don't know, did they eat it with the skins?' Galyean said potato skins contain nutrients such as fiber, which helps with blood sugar control. And potatoes, when they aren't deep-fried or slathered in butter, can be a useful source of potassium, which helps regulate blood pressure. 'Definitely, potatoes can be considered a healthy food when you don't fry it, or when you don't add lots of fat to it,' Galyean said. Mousavi said baking french fries at home with a healthier oil, such as olive or avocado oil, could help lower one's diabetes risk compared to eating them from fast-food restaurants. Swapping out potatoes with whole grains, such as farro or whole-grain bread or pasta, could make an even bigger difference. These foods have a lower glycemic index, meaning they're less likely to spike blood sugar levels. His study found that whole grains, when compared to all types of potatoes, were less likely to elevate one's diabetes risk. White rice, on the other hand, had a stronger association with Type 2 diabetes than either of these foods. Megan Mulcahy, the director of communications at Potatoes USA, a marketing and research organization that supports potato consumption, said fries can 'absolutely be part of a healthy eating pattern when enjoyed in moderation.' Galyean said it's important to consider a person's overall diet, which has a greater impact on their health than any individual food. Nutritionists generally recommend a colorful plate with a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and healthy proteins such as fish, beans or nuts. 'People don't eat just one thing, they eat meals,' Galyean said.
