EPA Punts Microplastics Monitoring as Scientists Warn of Health Impacts

More stuff the Trump regime doesn't want you to know

By Mike Ludwig

This article was originally published by Truthout

If you’ve ever looked at a disposable bottle of water with suspicion before tossing it into a bin, you’re far from alone. On August 8, leading scientists across globe published an editorial in The Lancet warning there is “strong evidence” that plastics harm human health and natural ecosystems at every stage of production and consumption — from fracking for the fossil fuels used to make plastics, to the microplastics leaching into our bodies and the environment. Plastic waste is projected to triple by 2060 if governments fail to act.

Much of that harm is traced back to more than 16,000 chemicals used in plastic production. Hazardous plastic chemicals include known carcinogens, neurotoxicants, and endocrine disruptors such as phthalates, bisphenols, brominated flame retardants, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of highly persistence chemicals linked to a range of health harms, according to The Lancet.

Defined as pieces of plastic less than five millimeters in size, microplastics break down into even smaller nanoplastics that are invisible to the naked eye and notoriously efficient at carrying harmful chemicals into the internal organs of humans and animals. Microplastics also do not go away over time, and their release into the environment could double globally by 2040 unless current levels of pollution are reduced.

According to The Lancet, “microplastics and nanoplastics are everywhere,” from the depths of the ocean to the Arctic, in Himalayan glaciers, and in the air, food, and drinking water people consume daily. Most recently, studies have found microplastics in human lungs and fecal matter, suggesting exposure through inhalation and food, as well as in blood, carotid arteries, hearts, brains, livers, ovaries, and testes, in addition to placentas attached to fetuses.

Alarmingly, drinking water is one of top pathways of exposure to microplastics, and research suggests that tap water in United States has the some of the highest concentrations in the world. 

Microplastics Found in 84% of Serious Heart Attack Patients

Plastic pollution may be reaching the heart through the bloodstream

By European Society of Cardiology

In a study published in the European Heart Journal, researchers detected microplastics and nanoplastics in the coronary blood of 84% of patients who had experienced a serious heart attack. That compared with 40% of patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and 32% of those whose coronary arteries appeared normal.

The heart attack group also had a wider variety of plastics in their blood. Polyethylene, one of the world’s most widely used plastics and a common ingredient in packaging and consumer products, was the material found most often.

Although the results do not show that plastic particles trigger heart attacks, they add to concerns that pollution may be connected to cardiovascular disease through inflammation, lung exposure, and damage to blood vessels.

How Microplastics Enter the Human Body

“Micro and nanoplastics are tiny plastic particles that are found virtually everywhere in the environment, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, and many foods we consume,” said first author Dr. Pasquale Paolisso of Sant’Andrea Hospital at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. “In recent years, scientists have begun to detect these particles in human tissues and organs, raising concerns about their potential health effects.”

“However, very little was known about whether these particles are present in the coronary circulation, the blood flowing through the arteries that supply the heart, or whether environmental exposures such as smoking and air pollution might influence their presence.”

Microplastics generally measure less than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches), while nanoplastics can be small enough to interact with cells and biological tissues. Scientists have already reported plastic particles in human blood, lungs, placenta, and breast milk, but their long-term health effects remain uncertain.

Tiny plastics in drinking water may be making dangerous bacteria stronger

Can plastics make you sicker?

Virginia Tech

Nanoplastics are already a concern because people may ingest them directly, but new research points to another possible danger. These tiny plastic particles may also make harmful bacteria more difficult to control.

In a study published in Water Research, Virginia Tech researcher Jingqiu Liao and an international team found that nanoplastics can interact with environmental microbes in ways that may create indirect risks to human health, especially through drinking water systems.

"It is very important to better understand the adverse effects of the nanoplastics on human health, and not just in humans but also in the environment, which indirectly influences human health," said Liao, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering. "The nanoplastics can make the antimicrobial-resistant pathogens better survive, which could be harmful to the environment and would have public health implications."

Nanoplastics May Complicate Water Treatment

The researchers reported that bacteria exposed to nanoplastics can become more resistant to disinfectants. That could create serious problems for water treatment facilities and distribution networks designed to keep drinking water safe.

"When the nanoplastics interact with the biofilm and the bacteria inside them, they can strengthen the biofilm and make it more resistant to any kind of measures that are going to keep the water clean," said Liao, who is also an affiliate with Fralin Life Sciences Institute's Global Change Center.

Jingqiu Liao is an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering. Photo by Peter Means for Virginia Tech.

Nanoplastics are a smaller category of microplastics. They range from about one to 1,000 nanometers in size and cannot be seen with the naked eye. In this study, the researchers examined how these particles affect the formation of biofilms inside drinking water systems.

Bottle Bill, Producer Responsibility Again Topics of Legislative Debate, with No Resolution in Sight

Looks like we're going to kick the can (and nips and water bottles) down the road again

By Rob Smith / ecoRI News staff

House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. David Bennett, D-Warwick, tells the same story every year.

One year, for Christmas, he gave his 5-year-old grandson a toy truck. His grandson asked him for help opening the packaging on the truck, which had hard plastic, wire ties, buttons, and cardboard. It was difficult for his grandson to open, and, as Bennett tells the story, just as difficult for him as an adult to open.

Bottom of Form

“It took me penny cutters, write cutters, scissors, and pliers just to open the packaging on the truck,” Bennett said during a committee hearing May 27. “About 15 minutes later I’m done, and I turn around and he’s got three more trucks.”

For years now, Bennett has told that story when introducing his legislation (H7910) for extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for packaging and paper. The program puts the onus on producers of plastic and paper packaging to come up with a recycling program for the materials.

There’s no easy way to recycle the hard plastic that encases toys, electronics, and other high-value products. The traditional catechism from some producers of some packaging is it makes it harder to shoplift and cuts down on theft — but it also all but guarantees packaging fills up Rhode Island’s already limited landfill.

“It’s a theft, we’re throwing all that stuff in our landfill,” Bennett said. “We have to pay for that.”

Stronger EPR legislation has struggled to make it out of the General Assembly in recent years, due in part to local business opposition to its close cousin, the bottle bill (H7911).

Bottle bills, or beverage container redemption systems, attach a fixed fee — 10 cents per container, according to this year’s legislation — that can be redeemed once returned to a recycling collection center.

The redemption fee is aimed at incentivizing consumers to recycle empty water bottles, soda bottles, and other plastic waste associated with drinks. Similar programs exist in Rhode Island already for two categories of products: mattresses and paint.

Bottle redemption programs, like EPR programs, are run by producer responsibility organizations, entities made up of the producers of the waste being recycled.

Reducing use of personal care products quickly lowers toxic chemicals in the body

Study shows even small reductions lower levels of health-harming substances

Pamela Ferdinand, US Right to Know

Lindsey Deng steers a red shopping cart into the travel aisle of her local Target, filled with miniature bottles of shampoos, lotions, and cosmetics. Packing for a trip to Texas, the 24-year-old Northwestern University student scans shelves for TSA-friendly versions of products recommended by social media influencers.

“I only look at the ingredients for my own skin type. As long as a product is on the market and from a big corporation or reliable brand, I feel like it shouldn’t contain too much [to be worried about],” Deng said. “I trust the manufacturers.”

But a small study shows that assumption may not hold. Routine decisions about everything from mascara to moisturizer matter when it comes to shaping your chemical exposure and health risks, the researchers suggest.

On average, women use 13 personal care products a day, containing more than 100 unique ingredients, and men use about 11. Roughly 1 in 10 adults uses more than 25 products daily. Late last year, the FDA reported that more than 1,700 cosmetic products contain PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” tied to serious health risks including cancer, birth defects and liver disease.

The findings, published in the May issue of Environment International, indicate that switching from conventional personal care products to nontoxic alternatives can rapidly and significantly reduce exposure to harmful chemicals. Even a few changes in only a few days can lower body levels of substances linked to hormone disruption, cancer, developmental problems, and reproductive toxicity, the study shows.

A probe into ‘forever chemicals’ in activewear lays bare fashion’s greenwashing problem

Pay attention to what you wear

Caroline Swee Lin Tan, RMIT University and Saniyat Islam, RMIT University

Have you ever paid more for a product because a brand told you it was good for you and the planet? Many activewear shoppers do exactly this, trusting that the “healthy” image on the label matches what is actually in the fabric. That trust is now being questioned.

The Texas Attorney General’s office has launched a formal investigation into the activewear brand Lululemon. The question: does its activewear contain PFAS, a group of toxic “forever chemicals”?

This sits uncomfortably with a brand built on wellness. Lululemon has denied the claims. It says it phased out PFAS in 2023 and that these chemicals had only ever been used in a small number of water-repellent items. No wrongdoing has been found.

But the case highlights a wider problem: a gap between what fashion brands promise and what is actually in their products.

An industry-wide habit

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, stains and sweat. They have also been used in nonstick cookware and some food packaging.

They earned the name “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the environment or our bodies. Instead, they accumulate over time.

This is not a single-brand issue; it is a widespread one. Their use runs across much of the fashion industry.

The issue first came to wide attention in 2011, when Greenpeace’s “Dirty Laundry” investigation named several global giants for links to dumping perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), now broadly classified as PFAS, into Chinese waterways.

URI pharmacy professor part of major federal microplastics effort

One of the few health and environmental programs Trump hasn't killed. Yet.

Patrick Luce 

University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy and George and Anne Ryan Institute of Neuroscience Assistant Professor Jaime Ross is taking her extensive research into the scourge of microplastics to the nation’s capital after being invited to join a nationwide $144 million program “to create the definitive toolbox for measuring, researching, and removing microplastics and nanoplastics in the human body.”

Ross received an invitation to attend the historic announcement of STOMP: Systematic Targeting Of MicroPlastics, revealed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.. The STOMP program, led by program managers Ileana Hancu and Shannon Greene, aims to find a way to measure microplastics in human organs, understand which plastics affect the body negatively, and seek methods to remove the contaminants. The program aims to protect people from plastic contamination and help lower the potential downstream costs that microplastic-related disease could otherwise impose on the nation’s health care system.

“Microplastics are in every organ we look at—in ourselves and in our children. But we don’t know which ones are harmful or how to remove them,” said Alicia Jackson, director of HHS’ Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). “Nobody wants unknown particles accumulating in their body. The field is working in the dark. STOMP is turning on the lights.”

Ross has been shining the light on the extensive dangers of microplastics for the last five years. She has found that the microscopic plastic particles infiltrate all systems of the body, including breaching the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from harmful substances as small as viruses and bacteria. In a subsequent study, published in the journal Environmental Research Communications, Ross’ team has found the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastics in the brain leads to cognitive decline, and can trigger Alzheimer’s-like behavior in test mice.

“It was riveting to receive an invitation to attend the monumental event, ‘Confronting Microplastics,’ and discuss the STOMP initiative with policymakers and other leading scientists in the field,” Ross said. 

Scientists Uncover Hidden Chemical Risks in Crops

Are Your Vegetables Safe?

By McGill University

A sweeping international analysis is raising new concerns about what may be quietly entering our food supply. Scientists report that crops can absorb “contaminants of emerging concern” (CECs), a broad group of modern pollutants that includes pharmaceuticals, microplastics, engineered nanomaterials, and PFAS (commonly known as “forever chemicals”).

Even in trace amounts, these substances can interfere with plant growth, reshape soil ecosystems, and potentially move into the human diet.

Unlike traditional pollutants, many CECs are not routinely monitored or regulated in agriculture. Yet the study shows they can enter farmland through unexpected routes, including recycled wastewater, treated sewage sludge, manure, and plastic-based farming materials. Some of these practices are widely promoted as sustainable solutions, which raises a difficult question about hidden trade-offs in modern agriculture.

Scientists solved the mystery of missing ocean plastic—and the answer is alarming

The plastic didn’t disappear—it went invisible and spread everywhere.

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

Scientists have uncovered something surprising in the Atlantic Ocean. The majority of plastic pollution may no longer be visible at all. Instead, it exists as nanoplastics, particles so small they are measured in billionths of a meter.

"This estimate shows that there is more plastic in the form of nanoparticles floating in this part of the ocean than there is in larger micro- or macroplastics floating in the Atlantic or even all the world's oceans!" said Helge Niemann, researcher at NIOZ and professor of geochemistry at Utrecht University. In mid-June, he received a 3.5 million euro grant to further investigate nanoplastics and what ultimately happens to them.

Ocean Expedition Reveals Tiny Plastic Particles

To gather data, Utrecht master's student Sophie ten Hietbrink spent four weeks aboard the research vessel RV Pelagia. The ship traveled from the Azores to the European continental shelf, where she collected water samples at 12 different locations.

Each sample was carefully filtered to remove anything larger than one micrometer. What remained contained the smallest particles. "By drying and heating the remaining material, we were able to measure the characteristic molecules of different types of plastics in the Utrecht laboratory, using mass spectrometry," Ten Hietbrink explains.

First Real Estimate of Ocean Nanoplastics

Previous studies had confirmed that nanoplastics existed in ocean water, but no one had been able to calculate how much was actually there. This research marks the first time scientists have produced a meaningful estimate.

Niemann notes that this breakthrough was made possible by combining ocean research with expertise from atmospheric science, including contributions from Utrecht University scientist Dusân Materic.

27 Million Tons of Invisible Plastic

When the team scaled their measurements across the North Atlantic, the results were striking. They estimate that about 27 million tons of nanoplastics are floating in this region alone.

"A shocking amount," Ten Hietbrink says. The finding may finally explain a long-standing mystery. Scientists have struggled to account for all the plastic ever produced. Much of it appeared to be missing. This study suggests that a large share has broken down into tiny particles that are now suspended throughout the ocean.

Researchers develop biodegradable, plant‑based packaging from natural fibers – new research

The on-going search for a safe and practical plastic substitute

J. Carson Meredith, Georgia Institute of Technology

Jie Wu, an engineering graduate student, was studying a type of striking white beetle found in Southeast Asia and attempting to figure out how to mimic its brilliant color when an unexpected discovery upended the experiment.

Jie and I had been hoping to identify naturally occurring whitening pigments that could be used in paper and paints. The beetle’s white exoskeleton is made from a compound called chitin, which is a type of carbohydrate – one that is also commonly found in crab and lobster shells.

First, Jie extracted chitin nanofibers from crab shells obtained from food waste that are chemically the same as those found in the white beetles. But instead of creating a white material as intended, Jie produced dense, transparent films. The nanofibers more readily assembled in tightly packed films than in the porous structures Jie desired.

An attempt to mimic the striking white color
of Cyphochilus beetles led researchers to a
unique discovery. 
Olimpia1lli/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-ND

On a whim, Jie measured the rate at which oxygen passed through the film. The result was astonishing: The barrier allowed less oxygen through than many existing packaging plastics.

That serendipitous finding in 2014 shifted my team of engineering students’ focus from color to packaging. We asked whether natural materials could rival the performance of common plastics. In the years since, our team has used this discovery to create biodegradable films that offer a more sustainable and effective alternative to plastic packaging.

Challenges of plastic packaging

Plastic packaging is commonly used to protect food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. These plastics keep out moisture and oxygen from the air, so products stay fresh and safe.

Most packaging has several layers that work together to keep air out, but these layers hinder reuse and recycling efforts. As a result, most of this plastic barrier packaging is discarded to landfills as single-use materials.

Many researchers have sought alternatives that are renewable, biodegradable or recyclable, yet just as effective. At Georgia Tech, my team of students and post-docs has spent more than a decade tackling this problem. This journey began with that beetle.

Microplastics found in 90% of prostate cancer tumors

While this doesn't prove cause-and-effect, it adds to growing concern about human plastic consumption

NYU Langone Health / NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Researchers have detected microplastics in nearly all prostate cancer tumors examined in a new study. Tumor tissue contained about 2.5 times more plastic than nearby healthy prostate tissue. Scientists say this is the first Western study to directly measure plastic particles in prostate tumors. More research is needed, but the findings suggest microplastic exposure could play a role in cancer development.

A new study has found tiny plastic particles in nine out of 10 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Researchers also discovered that these microplastics were present at higher concentrations in cancerous tumors than in nearby noncancerous prostate tissue.

The investigation was carried out at NYU Langone Health, including its Perlmutter Cancer Center and Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards. The research team set out to explore whether exposure to microplastics could contribute to the development of prostate cancer, which the American Cancer Society identifies as the most common cancer among men in the United States.

Kids Exposed to “Forever Chemicals” May Grow Up With Weaker Bones

Yet another plastic surprise

By The Endocrine Society

New research published on March 17 in the Journal of the Endocrine Society suggests that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) early in life could play a role in how children’s bones form during adolescence.

PFAS are man-made chemicals commonly found in water, food, and a wide range of consumer products. Often called “forever chemicals,” many of these substances linger in the environment and accumulate in the human body. Scientists are increasingly concerned that they may disrupt normal growth processes, including the development of strong bones.

“Adolescence is a key period for building strong bones, and achieving optimal bone mass during this time can reduce lifelong risks of fractures and osteoporosis,” said Jessie P. Buckley, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health in Chapel Hill, N.C. “Our findings suggest reducing PFAS exposure during key developmental windows could support healthier bones throughout life.”

Common “forever chemicals” lurking in everyday products may be speeding up aging—particularly for men in midlife.

PFAS found in most Americans linked to rapid biological aging

Frontiers

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called 'forever chemicals', include thousands of manmade compounds used in non-stick cookware, water-resistant clothing, fire-fighting foams, food packaging, cleaning supplies, and plastics. Their chemical structure is built on extremely strong molecular bonds, allowing them to resist breaking down in the environment.

As a result, PFAS have spread widely. They are now routinely detected in water, soil, wildlife, and human tissue. Some of these compounds have been linked to serious health problems, including certain cancers, obesity, infertility, and hormone disruption.

Several older, so-called 'legacy' PFAS, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS), have been targeted for global phaseout under the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. However, newer PFAS have since entered the market, including uses tied to emerging technologies such as AI data centers.

"BPA-Free" doesn't mean safe

Scientists question the safety of BPA-free packaging

McGill University

“BPA-free” food packaging may be hiding new risks. A McGill University study found that several BPA substitutes used in grocery price labels can seep into food and interfere with vital processes in human ovarian cells. 

Some triggered unusual fat buildup and disrupted genes linked to cell repair and growth. The results raise concerns that BPA replacements may be just as troubling as the chemical they replaced.

Chemicals used as replacements for bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging may have concerning effects on human ovarian cells, according to researchers at McGill University.

In a new study, scientists analyzed several substances commonly found in price stickers attached to packaged meat, fish, cheese, and fresh produce. Their experiments revealed early warning signs of possible toxicity linked to these chemicals.

The results, published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, raise new questions about whether BPA-free packaging is truly safer and whether existing regulations provide enough protection for consumers.

Takeaway coffee cups release thousands of microplastic particles

Try using a stainless steel go-cup

Xiangyu Liu, Griffith University

It’s 7:45am. You grab a takeaway coffee from your local cafe, wrap your hands around the warm cup, take a sip, and head to the office.

To most of us, that cup feels harmless – just a convenient tool for caffeine delivery. However, if that cup is made of plastic, or has a thin plastic lining, there is a high chance it’s shedding thousands of tiny plastic fragments directly into your drink.

In Australia alone, we use a staggering 1.45 billion single-use hot beverage cups every year, along with roughly 890 million plastic lids. Globally, that number swells to an estimated 500 billion cups annually.

In new research I coauthored, published in Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics, we looked at how these cups behave when they get hot.

The message is clear: heat is a primary driver of microplastic release, and the material of your cup matters more than you might think.

What are microplastics?

No plastics

Microplastics are fragments of plastic ranging from about 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters in size – roughly from a speck of dust to the size of a sesame seed.

They can be created when larger plastic items break down, or they can be released directly from products during normal use. These particles end up in our environment, our food, and eventually, our bodies.

Currently, we don’t have conclusive evidence on just how much of that microplastic remains in our bodies. Studies on this subject are highly prone to contamination and it’s really difficult to accurately measure the levels of such tiny particles in human tissue.

Furthermore, scientists are still piecing together what microplastics might mean for human health in the long term. More research is urgently needed, but in the meantime, it’s good to be aware of potential microplastic sources in our daily lives.

Health impacts related to 'forever chemicals' linked to billions in economic losses

$8+ billion a year

By Nick Prevenas, University of Arizona

edited by Stephanie Baum, reviewed by Robert Egan

The negative health impacts from contamination by so-called forever chemicals in drinking water costs the contiguous U.S. at least $8 billion a year in social costs, a University of Arizona-led study has found.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, builds on previous research into how PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—can negatively impact health when the chemicals contaminate drinking water. 

The research team studied all births in New Hampshire from 2010–2019, focusing on mothers living near PFAS-contaminated sites.

Quonset firm reaped millions in state energy incentives.

Now it backs McKee’s plan to gut them.

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

“No more silent costs,” Gov. Dan McKee proclaimed Monday at an event in Warwick before signing an executive order to roll back state renewable and energy efficiency programs to save ratepayers money on their monthly bills.

Behind him stood leaders of the state’s top manufacturing companies. Each stepped up to the podium to bemoan rising energy costs during the 20-minute press conference. Except one.

John Ranieri, senior director for corporate engineering for Toray Plastics (America), stood silently in the background, smiling as McKee put pen to paper in a recording posted online by independent journalist Steve Ahlquist. 

Ranieri stood in at the last minute for the North Kingstown manufacturer’s CEO, Christopher Roy, who was originally scheduled to attend and deliver remarks alongside executives from igus Inc., Bullard Abrasives, and VIBCO, Laura Hart, a spokesperson for McKee’s office, confirmed in an email Tuesday.

But environmental advocates in the audience, holding signs and wearing green T-shirts, noticed the Toray executive’s silence. They were not invited to speak during the press conference but had plenty to say after about the millions of dollars in state incentives Toray has received through the very programs McKee now wants to weaken.

“It’s disappointing to hear from business leaders about high energy costs without acknowledgement of the ways that those businesses have taken advantage of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs,” Emily Koo, Rhode Island program director for Acadia Center, said in a phone interview Monday afternoon.

Emily Howe, state director for Clean Water Action Rhode Island, called the silence from Toray executives “hypocritical.”

Toray applied for and received a $15.9 million energy efficiency rebate from National Grid in 2013, along with a $1.8 million advanced gas technology incentive to upgrade its 70-acre campus in Quonset Business Park. 

McKee goes all in on fossil fuels with executive order [possibly] delaying renewable energy and plastic industry CEOs standing behind him

Looks like he's written off the Green vote

Steve Ahlquist

Update: Acadia Center, Climate Action RI, Clean Water Action & Green Energy Consumers Alliance respond:

“Governor McKee continues to pin the blame of escalating energy prices on the very tools that serve to protect Rhode Island ratepayers from volatile supply costs and rising delivery costs,” said Emily Koo, Rhode Island Program Director for Acadia Center. “It is a glaring omission to report the costs of clean energy while ignoring all of the cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the energy transition in the first place. I would be surprised if the local businesses featured at tomorrow/today’s event have not themselves leveraged energy efficiency and solar to lower their energy usage and stabilize their energy supply costs – these are best practices, and they benefit all ratepayers.”

Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee is responding to the climate denialism and dangerous energy policies of the Trump Administration not by pushing back against fossil fuels and championing renewable energy, but by embracing the logic coming out of D.C. and advancing policies that undermine Rhode Island’s historic 2021 Act on Climate legislation.

Rhode Islanders received a preview of Governor McKee’s new direction (which is not, truthfully, all that new) in his FY2027 Budget proposal. As Acadia Center [pointed out in a recent press release:

“At a moment when federal clean energy support is eroding, Rhode Island should be doubling down on the tools still firmly within the state’s control. Instead, Governor McKee’s FY 2027 budget sadly mirrors the short-sighted policies of the Trump Administration, cutting renewables and energy efficiency and delivering what would be a major blow to Rhode Island’s clean energy economy.”

Read Acadia Center’s analysis here: Acadia Center responds to severe clean energy rollbacks in Governor McKee’s proposed FY2027 budget

Pawcatuck polluted by PFAS from old textile mill "hotspots"

Can these sites be cleaned up?

By Mackensie duPont Crowley

Jarod Snook collected water samples from sites that were previously
 identified as PFAS “hotspots.” (Photos courtesy of Jarod Snook)

A study led by University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography alumnus Jarod Snook, Ph.D. ’25, identified a long-term source of PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” entering the Pawcatuck River from two historically contaminated textile mill waste retention ponds located in Bradford and Westerly, Rhode Island.

Published in the scientific journal Environmental Science & Technology Water, the study was co-authored by members of the Lohmann Lab at the Graduate School of Oceanography, including Assistant Professor Jitka Becanova, Marine Research Associate Simon Vojta, and Professor Rainer Lohmann.

Using a combination of environmental sampling techniques and modeling, the team characterized how PFAS stored in pond sediments continue to migrate into, and be deposited within, the river decades after textile operations ceased.

In fact, one of the study’s key findings is that sediment at one of the ponds could continue releasing PFAS into the Pawcatuck River for more than 100 years, highlighting the long-term nature of the contamination and a problem that will persist unless steps are taken to remediate.

Environmental and human impacts

PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s, do not readily break down and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time. They can persist for decades and travel long distances, moving from inland rivers like the Pawcatuck to coastal waters and the Atlantic Ocean.

When PFAS enter a river, they can contaminate water and sediments, accumulate in aquatic organisms, disrupt local ecosystems, and pose risks to humans and wildlife through drinking water and seafood consumption. The Pawcatuck River is widely used for recreation and fishing, creating potential exposure pathways for Rhode Island residents and raising concerns about long-term health impacts.

“Rhode Islanders value their aquatic environment,” said Snook. “Keeping it free from pollution is part of that value. We hope this study sheds light on the PFAS issue affecting the Pawcatuck River so that action can be taken to remediate contamination at its source.”

Microplastics Burrow Into Blood Vessels and Fuel Heart Disease

Appears to be worse in men

By University of California - Riverside

New research led by biomedical scientists at the University of California, Riverside suggests that routine contact with microplastics — tiny particles released from packaging, clothing, and many plastic products — may speed up atherosclerosis, a condition in which arteries become clogged and can lead to heart attacks and strokes. In this study, the harmful effects appeared only in male mice, offering fresh insight into how microplastics could influence heart health in humans.

“Our findings fit into a broader pattern seen in cardiovascular research, where males and females often respond differently,” said lead researcher Changcheng Zhou, a professor of biomedical sciences in the UCR School of Medicine. “Although the precise mechanism isn’t yet known, factors like sex chromosomes and hormones, particularly the protective effects of estrogen, may play a role.”

Microplastics Found Throughout the Body and Environment

Microplastics have become nearly impossible to avoid. They are present in food, drinking water, and the air, and have even been detected inside the human body. Recent studies involving people have found microplastics embedded in atherosclerotic plaques and have linked higher concentrations to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Until now, however, it was unclear whether these particles actively damage arteries or simply accompany disease.

“It’s nearly impossible to avoid microplastics completely,” Zhou said. “Still, the best strategy is to reduce exposure by limiting plastic use in food and water containers, reducing single-use plastics, and avoiding highly-processed foods. There are currently no effective ways to remove microplastics from the body, so minimizing exposure and maintaining overall cardiovascular health — through diet, exercise, and managing risk factors — remains essential.”