Published in Medium.com on November 6, 2019
More than 200 residents filled the room at the Freedom Center in Chatsworth to watch a presentation given by Dr. Jeffrey Nordella about polytoxic exposure from the Aliso Canyon gas storage wells, that caused the largest gas blowout in US history in 2015. Several more hundreds watched the live feed on Facebook.
A theme that kept being repeated is that SoCalGas, the County Dept of Public Health (DPH), and other public agencies pushed the idea that residents’ symptoms were due to exposure to methane and mercaptans. And that there was no risk of developing long term health effects from these chemicals. This message contradicted the Prop 65 warning inserted into every bill about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm from the Aliso Canyon facility.
Dr. Nordella explained how he became curious in looking into the source of exposure when many of his patients were coming in with unusual combinations of symptoms in the fall of 2015. As with many of the residents who lived near Aliso, he disagreed that it was just the methane and the odorants, added to the gas, which were responsible for the symptoms which included nosebleeds, headaches, nausea, and respiratory problems.
He presented the data from phases 1 and 2, which were disclosed at prior town halls in 2017 and 2018. One welcomed result of the phase first discussed in October 2017, was that the Department of Water and Power started testing its water supply for lithium.
A rapt audience of SFV residents at Aliso Canyon town hall photo: Patty Glueck
One slide from the Saturday’s presentation showed the known toxic chemicals that were described by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), one agency that continues to underplay the health risks to residents.
Among the problems with determining how much the emissions from Aliso’s wells harm residents is that the literature and chemical info list possible effects from individual chemicals, but cannot explain what risks exist from combinations of several chemicals. Among these sources regarding individual chemicals include Pubchem and ToxTown (both are from the US National Library of Medicine for the National Institutes of Health) and the Chemical Book. Added in this equation are the numerous unknown chemicals that add to the “witch’s brew” that came into the environment of the affected communities, ever since October 23, 2015, and possibly even before that notorious blowout.
Because of the lack of information regarding the chemicals, Dr. Nordella questions the continued message given by the Dept. of Public Health that residents should not be concerned about long term health effects.
One organ system of particular concerned is the respiratory system as many of the chemicals in the emissions can be inhaled. Inhalation provides a more efficient method of entering the bloodstream than, say, medications taken orally due to the lack of enzymes that can degrade any toxins.
Of particular concern for this community are hydrogen sulfide and silica, which are used by oil and gas companies. Another concern comes from the presence of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), the smallest of which, Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) do not fall under regulatory standards.
One chemical that had been found in Porter Ranch and surrounding communities, crude oil, is a highly toxic mixture of carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other toxic compounds. Among its harmful components is benzene. Given that SoCalGas and the DPH knew there was a dissemination of crude oil in the community, Dr.Nordella wonders why health officials didn’t call for distribution of P100 masks that would filter out the oil.
Assembly member Christy Smith questioning Dr. Cyrus Rangan of DPH in oversight committee in August about directive telling doctors not to test for toxins
Dr. Nordella explained why many resident have what is now commonly called the “Aliso Cough,” and how the chemical damage done to the lungs can lead to related conditions of asthma, pneumonitis, and pneumonia.
Also discussed was an article published in June 2019 by Diane Gonzalez of UCLA, which examined how particulate matter and crude oil spread hazardous metals throughout Porter Ranch in levels above what the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (US EPA) considers safe. It explained how the topology of the area affected the distribution of toxins unequally. It also noted that a chemical analysis of the particulate matter was never conducted. In addition, it was suggested that further investigation should be done.
An earlier study by UCLA researchers in 2016 also advised additional testing. That led to the DPH initiating the Leighton Study, taking samples inside homes in Porter Ranch.
Dr. Nordella pointed out the department didn’t test for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, even though the UCLA study found that chemical high risk levels in the air samples taken. In addition, 96 per cent of the test homes tested positive for acrolein, another toxic chemical, associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.
Another action that Dr. Nordella wanted the town hall attendees to know about was when DPH came with SoCalGas in March 2016 to investigate complaints of oily spots at a community park. Instead of sending the gathered samples to an independent lab, DPH allowed the material to be sent to a lab of SoCalGas’s choosing.
