By JUNE KINOSHITA
Waltham Times Contributing Writer
Neighborhoods in Waltham have a formaldehyde cancer risk that ranks slightly higher than the midpoint range, according to a new online tool from investigative news organization ProPublica.
For example, the tool indicates that in Banks Square in Waltham, “the incremental lifetime cancer risk from formaldehyde alone on this block is 1 in 75,000 which is about 33% higher than the midpoint of that range.” The tool notes that the EPA’s goal is to keep cancer risk from air toxics below 1 in 1 million and prevent it from exceeding 1 in 10,000. The ProPublica article notes that this tool only indicates outdoor levels.
Most other areas of Waltham had the same level of risk, although those living in the 02454 zip code have a risk of 1 in 80,000, which is about 25% higher than the midpoint.
Members of the public can use this tool shared by ProPublica to look up the level of outdoor formaldehyde in their neighborhood.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a finding on Jan. 2 determining that formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers, even when used as intended. The chemical irritates the skin, eyes and respiratory system upon short exposure. Long-term exposure can reduce lung function and increase incidents of asthma, allergy-related conditions and cancer.
Indoor formaldehyde levels may be greater than outdoor levels because many household items as well as gas and oil combustion release the chemical. A recent ProPublica investigation sampled air from homes, nail salons, furniture stores and other places where people can be exposed. It found levels between six and 13 times higher than the level that the EPA has deemed to not cause breathing problems.
The EPA notes that formaldehyde “is found nearly everywhere” and so “people are routinely exposed to formaldehyde in indoor and outdoor environments, often from more than one source at a time.” The EPA said workers “who are in workplaces where formaldehyde is used are at the most risk from formaldehyde exposure, particularly if workers are not wearing personal protective equipment.”
According to the EPA, people and animals produce and release formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is produced when organic material including leaves, plants and woodchips decay. Formaldehyde is also produced and released into the air when things burn, such as when cars emit exhaust, when furnaces and stoves operate, and through forest fires, burning candles and smoking. Finally, formaldehyde is used to make many consumer products and articles including textiles, foam bedding/seating, semiconductors, resins, glues, composite wood products, paints, coatings, plastics, rubber, construction materials (including roofing), furniture, toys, and various adhesives and sealants. Over time formaldehyde may be released from these products and people may inhale it.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA is now legally required to regulate formaldehyde. Such rules would be issued under the incoming Trump administration.
Industry groups are pressing for the EPA to revise its risk evaluation. “This risk evaluation relies on a flawed assessment by EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program – a program that has never been authorized by Congress, lacks transparency, and is out of step with the best available science and methods,” stated the American Chemistry Council. “EPA should go back to the scientific drawing board on formaldehyde instead of pursuing unaccountable lame duck actions that threaten the U.S. economy and key sectors that support health, safety and national security.”
But others say if anything, the EPA risk evaluation understates the risk from formaldehyde. In an interview with ProPublica, Jennifer Jinot, one of the EPA scientists who spent years calculating the leukemia risk, said there is always uncertainty around estimates of the health effects of chemicals. The real problem, she said, was cowardice.
“In the end, they chickened out,” said Jinot, who retired in 2017 after 26 years working at the EPA.
Thanks for reading! We are a reader-supported nonprofit newspaper. If you value our reporting, please support The Waltham Times through a tax-deductible gift.