Connect with us

Science

Column: Two Rutgers professors are accused of poisoning the debate over COVID's origins. Here's why

Published

on

Column: Two Rutgers professors are accused of poisoning the debate over COVID's origins. Here's why

In a Dec. 2 tweet, Richard H. Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, stated that Anthony Fauci, the respected virologist and retired official of the National Institutes of Health, “is likely a murderer and provably a felon.”

In another tweet a few weeks earlier, he had compared Fauci to the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, who was responsible for the genocidal massacre of as many as 2 million people in the 1970s.

Referring to an event at Case Western Reserve University honoring Fauci, Ebright wrote: “You may have missed the chance to hobnob with Pol Pot, but, Case Western will give you the chance to hobnob with Fauci, whose policy violations … likely killed 20 million.”

Every time I speak publicly, I now have a thought that there might be someone who has ingested this steady stream of distortions who might shoot me while I’m speaking.

— Michael Worobey, University of Arizona

Advertisement

In a tweet Aug. 25, 2022, Ebright’s colleague Bryce Nickels, a professor in the Rutgers department of genetics, called the “coordination” among virology researchers including Angela Rasmussen of the University of Saskatchewan and Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona an example of “pure, unfiltered evil.”

He illustrated the tweet with a GIF from the 1976 movie “Marathon Man” showing Dustin Hoffman being tortured by a character played by Lawrence Olivier and plainly inspired by Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

This is the landscape on which a conflict over two theories about the origin of COVID-19 has been waged. One theory attributes the origin to unregulated trading in China of disease-susceptible wildlife, from which the virus that causes the disease is thought to have leaped to humans in a process known as a zoonotic spillover.

The other, the lab leak hypothesis, posits that the virus escaped from a virology lab in Wuhan, China, where it may have been deliberately concocted.

Let’s be clear: There is no evidence for a lab leak. No one has ever produced anything in its favor other than innuendo and conjecture. By contrast, evidence for a zoonotic transfer is almost overwhelming, has grown ever stronger over the years and is widely accepted by virologists and epidemiologists.

Advertisement

Ebright and Nickels are advocates of the lab-leak theory. For years they have been posting online insinuations or outright accusations of fraud, perjury, felonies and murder aimed at scientists who advocate for the zoonotic transfer theory.

Now a dozen scientists, some of whom have been direct targets of Ebright and Nickels, have called on Rutgers to open a formal investigation into whether its two faculty members have crossed the line distinguishing between responsible scientific debate and defamation, harassment, intimidation and threats.

Among the concerns the signatories aired in their March 14 complaint letter is that the professors’ actions and “inflammatory language,” such as “comparisons of working scientists to historical war criminals and mass murderers,” could “put some of us and … our colleagues in physical danger.”

Ebright’s and Nickels’ behavior, the complaint says, has unfolded in an atmosphere that had already produced “harassment including threats of death and/or violence because of our … scientific research.”

Ebright and Nickels say the complaint misrepresents their words and activities. “I never have compared any of the signatories to Josef Mengele or Pol Pot, and I never have characterized any of the signatories as murderers,” Ebright told me by email. He adds, “I also never have threatened or incited violence against any of the signatories.”

Advertisement

He did acknowledge calling four signatories “fraudsters,” based on their authorship of a 2020 scientific paper that favored zoonosis as the origin of COVID-19 and dismissed the lab-leak theory as implausible. “I stand by this characterization,” he wrote. He called the complaint “an effort to silence opponents and to prop up a collapsing narrative.”

Nickels told me by email, “the assertion that I have labeled any of the 12 signatories as murderers or endangered them or their colleagues is false and is defamatory with malice.” In his email, he accused the same four signatories mentioned by Ebright of fraud.

More on that shortly.

The complaint letter says that Ebright and Nickels have engaged in online harassment, intimidation and threats for years. According to Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at Scripps Research in La Jolla and the organizer of the complaint, a new element in their approach recently appeared: encouraging their followers to engage in physical contact with zoonosis advocates.

On March 12, Nickels tweeted a notice of a scientific conference in Washington at which Peter Daszak, the head of a research funding organization who has long been the target of vituperation by lab-leak advocates, would appear on a panel.

Advertisement

“Don’t miss your chance to meet Peter Daszak, author of the grant many consider the ‘Blueprint’ for SARS-CoV2!” he wrote. The reference was to a groundless accusation beloved by lab-leak advocates that a grant proposal sponsored by Daszak’s organization involved creating a virus in a Chinese lab that became SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Virologists say the grant proposal would not have produced such a virus. In any event, it was not funded.

“That was so far outside of what I would consider to be normal and ethical conduct in science that I said, we need to file a formal complaint,” Andersen told me. The scientists’ letter to Rutgers administrators doesn’t ask for any disciplinary action, but calls for “immediate and serious review by the administration” of public behavior by Ebright and Nickels.

The call by Ebright and Nickels for followers to show up at a talk by Daszak stepped up the anxiety many scientists feel about their own public appearances.

“Every time I speak publicly, I now have a thought that there might be someone who has ingested this steady stream of distortions who might shoot me while I’m speaking,” says Worobey, a signatory of the complaint whose research helped to establish a seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan, not a lab, as the likely site of the first zoonosis transfers. “With those escalations recently, I thought it was time to deal with it head-on.”

Vaccine science, immigration and elections are all battlegrounds for the war between information and disinformation today. The temperature of debates on these topics is only heightened by the tendency of social media platforms such as Twitter (now X) to encourage intemperate speech. But science and health seem to be areas especially vulnerable to efforts at falsification.

Advertisement

A brief primer on the lab-leak hypothesis may be useful here. During the earliest weeks of the COVID pandemic, many virologists examining the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including Andersen, spotted unfamiliar features, some so unusual that they conjectured the features might have been man-made.

Further research in the ensuing weeks revealed, however, that these features were not unusual, but common, and that they could develop in viruses such as SARS2 through natural processes. Andersen and others eventually concluded that a laboratory role in COVID’s emergence was implausible.

That conclusion was written into a seminal paper on the virus published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, and titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Its authors included Andersen, Robert F. Garry of Tulane University, Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh and Edward C. Holmes of the University of Sydney.

All four signed the complaint letter to Rutgers. They’re the four scientists Ebright and Nickels accused of fraud in their emails to me, based on the Rutgers scientists’ claim that the proximal origin paper was fashioned to serve what Ebright and Nickels assert was the authors’ and Fauci’s desire to downplay
Fauci’s role in funding virology research in China.

Ebright further accused Andersen and Garry of perjury, based on their denials at a congressional hearing in July that Fauci pressured them to advocate for the zoonosis theory in their paper.

Advertisement

After the paper’s publication, the lab-leak hypothesis moved into the partisan political realm. Republicans in Congress cherish the notion that Andersen and his colleagues deliberately minimized a laboratory role at Fauci’s behest.

There is not a scintilla of evidence for that assertion, as Andersen and Garry made clear by cogently explaining at the July hearing called by conspiracy-addled House Republicans how the normal process of scientific research led them to the paper’s conclusions.

Last March, FBI Director Christopher Wray stated in an interview with Fox News that the bureau had concluded with “moderate confidence” that the virus had escaped from the Chinese lab, but he cited no evidence and didn’t explain its grounds.

The FBI’s assessment had been part of a survey of all U.S. intelligence agencies that largely contradicted the FBI’s position. In June, it was further contradicted by a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which refuted claims that the Chinese lab had played a role in the pandemic.

That brings us back to Ebright and Nickels. Although insults and invective are hardly uncommon in exchanges over COVID’s origins, their contributions have often carried a remarkably noxious tone.

Advertisement

The defense by both that they never compared the complainants to Pol Pot or Mengele or characterized them as murderers may be true as far as it goes. But it’s too clever by half. The complainants didn’t say in their letter to Rutgers that they themselves were necessarily the targets of Ebright’s and Nickels’ odious comparisons. Their complaint says the pair had “made comparisons of working scientists” — i.e., other scientists — “to historical war criminals and mass murderers.”

So let’s look at the record.

Ebright has repeatedly intimated that Fauci is a murderer, based on his view that his agency funded dangerous virology research in the Chinese lab that produced the pandemic. There is no evidence that any research the U.S. government funded in China produced the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or even that any such research at that lab was scientifically possible.

On Nov. 13, Ebright wrote of Fauci, “any person whose violations of U.S. government policies … resulted in 20 million deaths is, by any rational standard, a murderer.” It’s unclear what “violations” he was referring to.

In a June 27 tweet, Ebright described Fauci as “an octogenarian serially misfeasant, serially malfeasant, serially perjurious, former bureaucrat likely to face criminal charges after Jan 2025” (i.e., presumably assuming that Donald Trump would then take office again).

Advertisement

On Dec. 23 he tweeted that the “only option” to “mitigate the negative effects” of the proximal origin paper was the referral of Andersen and his colleagues “for criminal prosecution.”

On July 10, 2021, Ebright responded with the following comment to a tweet that apparently had alluded to critics of the lab-leak theory: “Sociopaths will be sociopaths … See Mengele. See Ishii.” The latter reference is to Shirō Ishii, who headed Japan’s World War II bioweapons program, which has been blamed for the deaths of as many as 300,000 people.

On Sept. 5 and 6, 2022, Ebright summarized the case for the lab-leak hypothesis, which he tied to “labs conducting world’s largest research program on bat SARS-like coronaviruses.” He ended the thread with the phrase “The banality of evil” — philosopher Hannah Arendt’s description of the impression left on her by Adolph Eichmann, the architect of the Nazi program of Jewish genocide, whose trial in Israel she reported on.

Nickels, in addition to posting the Mengele-linked film clip, earlier this month tweeted “massive respect to … military veterans that have taken a stand” against scientists he asserted had lied about research “impacting national security.” He called the behavior of such scientists “treasonous” and he specifically named among those deserving respect, one Andrew G. Huff.

One day earlier, Huff, who labels the zoonosis theory a “lie,” tweeted a call for Fauci, Daszak and virologist Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina to be hauled before a military tribunal. Subsequently, he tweeted that his followers had voted in an online poll that if convicted, they should be hanged. He illustrated that tweet with a film clip of three people plunging to their deaths on a gallows.

Advertisement

The ball is now in Rutgers’ court. The university says the complaint “will be forwarded to the appropriate offices for review.” It didn’t say what issues would be considered. But certainly a determination would be warranted of whether its faculty members’ actions conform to the school’s policy on free expression, which frowns on actions or behaviors that “threaten individuals or cause an injury to someone” or “harass, threaten violence, or intimidate others.”

Whatever the outcome is of any such inquiry, the scientific community is right to be appalled by Ebright’s and Nickels’ activities. There’s vast latitude in science for disagreement and debate, but calling one’s adversaries or critics criminals or traitors, or placing them in the same category as Mengele, Eichmann and Pol Pot? That isn’t scientific debate.

In the world of science, the reputations of Andersen, Worobey, Garry, Holmes and Rambaut are secure; their finding that COVID most likely originated in the wildlife trade has not only held up over time but also been validated by subsequent studies. The same is true of the other eight signatories of the complaint letter, and Fauci and Daszak (who are not signatories).

Ebright and Nickels? They may be a different story.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

RFK Jr. announces a plan to ban certain food dyes, following California's lead

Published

on

RFK Jr. announces a plan to ban certain food dyes, following California's lead

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, on Tuesday announced a plan to ban synthetic food dyes that color everyday snack items such as Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and M&Ms.

The first step in the plan is for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to revoke authorization of citrus red No. 2 and orange B.

After that, the Department of Health and Human Services said, it will work with industry to eliminate six petroleum-based food dyes: blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6.

California passed a law banning those six dyes last year, citing developmental and behavioral harms in children. The state law is set to go into effect the end of 2027.

The FDA is instead encouraging the use of so-called natural food dyes such as gardenia blue and calcium phosphate. “Red dye? Try watermelon juice or beet juice,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said at the media event, holding up a jar of crimson liquid.

Advertisement

The announcement Tuesday is meant to spur the food dye industry to cooperate in eliminating those dyes by the end of next year, according to the department.

“Let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes,” Makary said. “They want to do it.”

Makary noted at the event that he worked with government officials in California to develop these proposed federal changes.

Food dyes have been under scrutiny for years, as consumer advocate groups have said they contain additives harmful to humans. In January, the FDA banned red dye no. 3 — used in such common items as fruit-cocktail cherries and Nesquik’s strawberry milk — after some studies showed that the additive raised the risk of cancer in some lab animals.

In keeping with Kennedy’s mission to eliminate synthetic food dyes as soon as possible, the department announcement also calls for food companies to get rid of red no. 3 in their products sooner than the previously agreed-upon deadline. (California banned the use of red 3 in 2023; that law is also set to go into effect in 2027.)

Advertisement

Kennedy has blamed food additives for myriad health issues. His supporters heralded the announcement Tuesday as a major step in the secretary’s movement to “Make America Healthy Again.” A Gallup poll last year found that 28% of respondents did not have much confidence in the federal government’s ability to ensure the food supply is safe. An additional 14% had no confidence at all.

“Industry is making money to keep us sick,” Kennedy said at the announcement.

Continue Reading

Science

Mexican child infected with H5N1 bird flu dies from respiratory complications

Published

on

Mexican child infected with H5N1 bird flu dies from respiratory complications

A 3-year-old girl in Mexico died this month after getting infected with H5N1 bird flu, according to a report issued by the World Health Organization this week.

Authorities say the strain of bird flu is one that has been circulating in wild birds throughout North America, known as D1.1. It is the same strain implicated in the death of a person in Louisiana earlier this year, and in the case of a 13-year-old Canadian who was placed on life-support for several weeks before recovering.

Two others, a person in Wyoming and a poultry worker in Ohio, were also reported to have severe disease after exposure to this strain of the virus.

The strain has been detected in dairy herds from Nevada and Arizona.

“The case in Mexico is another great reminder of how dangerous H5 viruses can be,” said Richard Webby, an infectious disease expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.

Advertisement

The D1.1 strain is widespread in the U.S. and Canada, but until this week’s WHO report it was unclear how far south the strain had traveled, he said.

“It has been a very active virus to date,” he said, and “further spread will undoubtedly lead to more infections, both in birds and humans. “

He said researchers are now awaiting publication of the genetic sequence, which will provide more information about whether there have been further changes that could make it more severe and/or transmissible.

According to the WHO, the young girl’s symptoms, which included fever, malaise and vomiting, began on March 7. She was admitted to a hospital in the state of Durango on March 13 due to respiratory failure. She was treated with oseltamivir, an antiviral drug, the following day. On March 16, she transferred to another hospital in the city of Torreón.

She died on April 8 from “respiratory complications.”

Advertisement

The girl did not have any underlying medical conditions, had not received a seasonal influenza vaccination, and had no history of travel, according to the WHO report.

The source of the child’s infection remains under investigation.

According to the report, 91 people were identified as contacts of the toddler, including 21 household contacts, 60 healthcare workers and 10 people from a childcare center. Each of these people was tested and all have tested negative for the virus.

Between 2022 and August 2024, there have been 75 reported H5N1 poultry outbreaks across Mexico, although none in Durango. At the end of January 2025, a sick vulture at the Sahuatoba Zoo, in Durango, was diagnosed with the virus. In addition, dozens of wild birds in the state were also reported, including a Canada goose.

The virus is still circulating in U.S. dairy herds, poultry, wild birds and wild mammals. Since April 1, there have been five new reports of infected dairy herds from California, 15 in Idaho and one from Arizona, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Advertisement

There have also been dozens of domestic cats infected with the virus, including three recent reports from California’s Orange and Alameda counties: two in Orange and one in Alameda.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 70 reported cases of H5N1 bird flu in the U.S. since March 2024, when the virus was first reported in dairy herds. There has been one death, a person older than 65 from Louisiana.

Health officials say the risk of H5N1 bird flu to the general public remains low and there has been no indication of person-to-person spread. Most cases have been associated with contact with infected livestock and poultry.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

A 'calamity waiting to unfold': Altadena residents with standing homes fear long-term health effects

Published

on

A 'calamity waiting to unfold': Altadena residents with standing homes fear long-term health effects

On Jan. 7, two residents on opposite sides of Altadena — Francois Tissot, a Caltech professor who studies the geology of ancient Earth and our solar system, living in the east side of town; and Jane Potelle, an environmental advocate living in the west side — fled the intensifying red glow of the devastating Eaton fire.

The inferno devoured home after home, unleashing what experts estimate to be tons of dangerous metals and compounds, from lead to asbestos to the carcinogen benzene. Carried through the vicious winds, the toxins embedded deep into the soil, seeped into the blood of first responders, and leaked into structures in the area that hadn’t burned down.

Within weeks, Altadena residents whose homes had withstood the fire began to return — yet few were testing for contaminants both Tissot and Potelle knew were almost certainly sitting in their still-standing houses.

Working independently, they both decided to create a comprehensive picture of the contamination lurking within surviving homes, both in the burn area and miles outside it.

They came to similar results: In the houses inside the burn zone, there was lead — a metal capable of dealing irreversible damage to the brain and nervous system — at levels far exceeding 100 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s allowable limits. Tissot’s group also found lead levels exceeding the limit over five miles from the fire’s perimeter.

Advertisement

“Children exposed to lead will have diminished cognitive development,” said Tissot, referencing studies that found exposure to leaded gasoline in though the 1990s was correlated with a drop in children’s IQ (an imperfect but useful metric for reasoning ability) by up to seven points.

“To me, what’s at stake is the future of a generation of zero- to 3-year-olds,” Tissot said. “If nothing is done, then these children will be exposed. But it’s totally avoidable.”

Activists and community leaders, along with residents who were force to evacuate when the Eaton fire swept through the city of Altadena, gather at an apartment complex where several residents are living with little to no utilities.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Potelle, frustrated with the lack of government response to contamination concerns, started a grassroots organization with other Altadena residents with standing homes to collect and publish tests conducted by certified specialists.

The organization, Eaton Fire Residents United, or EFRU, found lead in every single one of the 90 homes for which they’ve collected test results. Of those, 76% were above the EPA limits.

EFRU and Tissot’s team were distressed by these data, particularly seeing debris-removal and remediation contractors work without masks in the burn area and some residents even begin to return home.

In early April, Anita Ghazarian, co-lead of EFRU’s political advocacy team, went back to her standing home within the burn zone to pick up mail. She watched as a grandmother pushed a toddler in a stroller down the street.

“She has no idea … this area is toxic,” Ghazarian recalled thinking. The gravity of the situation sunk in. “To me, it’s just — unfortunately — a calamity waiting to unfold.”

Evidence mounted in the 1950s that even small amounts of lead exposure could harm children’s brains. But by the time the U.S. banned lead in paint in 1978, roughly 96% of the homes in Altadena that burned in the Eaton fire were already built. In the Palisades, that number was 78% — smaller, but still significant.

Advertisement
Jared Franz looks at the state of his kitchen.

Jared Franz looks at the state of his kitchen, which survived the Eaton Fire, but is inhabitable due to smoke damage.

(William Liang/For The Times)

Dust from the fire inside the Franz family's home.

Dust from the fire inside the Franz family’s home.

(William Liang/For The Times)

After the Eaton fire, Tissot did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to understand what his Altadena community might be dealing with: roughly 7,000 homes burnt with 100 liters of paint per house and 0.5% of that paint likely made of lead.

Advertisement

“That’s something like several tons of lead that have been released by the fire, and it’s been deposited where the fire plume went,” he said.

As the Eaton fire roared in the foothills of the Angeles National Forest the night of Jan. 7, Tissot fled with his two kids, along with the rest of east Altadena.

Meanwhile, Potelle sat awake in her living room on the west side of town, listening to the howling winds as the rest of her family slept.

When Potelle got the evacuation order on her phone around 3:30 a.m. Jan. 8, her family joined the exodus. As they raced to gather their belongings, Potelle grabbed protective goggles she had bought for her son’s upcoming Nerf-battle birthday party.

Even with them, the soot, smoke and ash made it impossible to see.

Advertisement

The family made it to a friend’s house in Glendale, but as the toxic smoke plume swelled, Potelle had to evacuate yet again, this time to a friend’s garage. Tissot, then in Eagle Rock, left for Santa Barbara the next day as the smoke’s incursion progressed southwest.

As Altadena turned into a ghost town on Jan. 9, some residents — including Potelle’s husband — crept back in to assess the damage. Potelle waited for her husband’s report and watched on social media from the safety of the garage.

“People are just videotaping themselves driving through Altadena, and it’s block after block after block of burnt-down homes. The reality of it started to strike me,” Potelle said. “This is not just carbon. This is like, refrigerators and dishwashers and laundry machines and dryers and cars.”

Fires like these, with smoke made of car batteries, paints, insulation and appliances — and not trees and shrubs — are becoming increasingly common in California. These fuels can contain a litany of toxic substances like lead and arsenic that are not present in vegetation, waiting to be unlocked by flame.

Potelle’s home sustained visible smoke damage. So, she made two trips to a disaster support center set up temporarily at Pasadena City College, hoping to get support from her insurance company and the government for soil and in-home contamination testing.

Advertisement

Officials directed Potelle back and forth between her insurance company, FEMA, the L.A. County Department of Public Health, and the California Department of Insurance. Potelle — who, at this point, had already started to develop a cough and chest pain, which she suspects came from her visits to the burn area — left with without clear answers, feeling dejected.

“I’m driving, going back to my friend’s garage … and I’m just realizing there’s no one looking out for us,” she said.

Potelle set out to find the answers herself.

“Here’s the thing, if you don’t know what’s in your home when you remediate, you could just be pushing those contaminants deeper into your walls, deeper into your personal items,” Potelle said.

Tissot, meanwhile, visited his home a week after the fires to find the windows exploded, melted or warped; the walls cracked; and ash and soot everywhere. He too decided that he ought to do his own testing for contamination.

Advertisement

In his day job, Tissot runs a lab with sophisticated machinery able to discern what metals are present in samples of material, usually comprised of rock and dirt, based on their atomic mass: Only lead has an atomic mass of 0.34 trillion billionths of a gram. He normally uses the machine to study rare elements and isotopes from space and eons ago.

He gathered his lab team together on the Caltech campus to use the equipment to test samples from their own backyard.

The team took 100 samples from windowsills, desks and stairwells in the Caltech geology and planetary science buildings. Some surfaces were untouched since the fire; others had been cleaned by Caltech’s trained custodians.

For the record:

5:56 p.m. April 16, 2025A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the Caltech team had tested samples from uncleaned surfaces, then cleaned those surfaces and took second samples. The Caltech team tested some samples from surfaces untouched since the fire, and some from surfaces that had been cleaned by Caltech’s trained custodians.

Advertisement

The team found multiple uncleaned surfaces with lead levels above the EPA’s limits. And while the cleaned surfaces had about 90% less lead, some still exceeded the limits.

Tissot quickly set up a webinar to announce the findings. The chat exploded with requests from homeowners in Altadena asking Tissot to test their houses.

Around the same time, Potelle noticed some folks on Facebook sharing the results of in-home contamination testing — which in many cases, they had paid for out of pocket.

Inspired, she advertised a Zoom meeting to discuss a strategy for mapping the test results. Sixty residents showed up; Potelle coordinated the group so that residents could submit results to EFRU’s Data Unification team for analysis.

Meanwhile, Tissot connected with residents who messaged him to set up a testing campaign. The researchers donned full hazmat suits in early February and entered the burn area to test homes and meet with homeowners.

ERFU posted its first dataset of 53 homes on March 24. Tissot’s group announced their results, which included data from 52 homes, just a week later, confirming what many had feared: There was lead everywhere.

Advertisement

“What was surprising to me is how far it went,” said Tissot. “We got very high levels of lead even miles away from the fire, and what’s difficult is that we still can’t really answer a simple question: How far is far enough to be safe?”

The two groups hope their data can help homeowners make better-informed decisions about their remediation and health — and apply pressure on leaders to take more action.

Tissot wants to see the government update its guidebooks and policy on fire recovery to reflect the contamination risks for intense urban fires, and to require testing companies to report their results to a public database.

Nicole Maccalla, a core member of EFRU’s Data Unification team, hopes to see officials enforce a common standard for insurance claims for testing and remediation so every resident doesn’t have to go through the same exact fight.

“You’ve got people stepping up to fill the void,” she said. “There should be an organized, systematic approach to this stuff, but it’s not happening.”

Advertisement

Times data journalist Sandhya Kambhampati contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending