Search

1. data injustice: the Cerda family did not have access to the data linking chlorpyrifos as a neurotoxin. 

2. economic injustice: the Cerda family are agricultural workers and are exposed to pesticides like chlorpyrifos on a regular basis. Rafael Cerda's developmental disabilities will present barriers in economic and overall well-being. 

3. epistemic injustice: Cerda family's complaints and allegations are not being considered by the pesticide manufacturers and sprayers 

4. health injustice: Rafael Cerda's disabilities are a direct result of his in-utero and natal chlorpyrifos exposure 

5. intergenerational injustice: Rafael Cerda's disabilities were caused in-utero as his mother was exposed to large amounts while she was pregnant with him. 

6. media injustice: inadequate attention to the extent of harm this pesticide can cause

7. procedural injustice: ongoing lawsuit, result not yet known

8. racial injustice: the affected are Latino/a agricultural workers 

9. reproductive injustice: exposure to Chlropyrifos in-utero

1. Scientists at Columbia university estbalished a link between exposure to chlorpyrifos and alterations in brain structure

2. California Gov. Gavin Newsom banned chlorpyrifos in the state in may 2019

3. EPA banned the chemical in 2015. Trump admin reversed the ban. 

4. Cerda family: chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos, suing for general damages, compensatory damages due to Cerda’s loss in earning capacity, medical costs, and “punitive damages for the willful, reckless, and recklessly indifferent conduct of the Defendants,” 

1. Seventeen-year-old Avenal resident Rafael Cerda Calderon: platiniff, impacted heavily by the pesticide Chlorpyrifos 

2. Corteva, Inc.: multi-billion dollar agribusiness company; 

3. pesticide applicators Woolf Farming Co. and Cottonwest, LLC

4. municipalities of Huron and Avenal

5. pesticide applicators Woolf Farming Co. and Cottonwest, LLC

6. attorney groups: Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC of Charleston, West Virginia, and Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint P.C. of San Diego, and Phoenix.

1. The agricultural region's dependence on the pesticide Chlorpyrifos to "control insects that can attack almond orchards, cotton fields, and apricot trees, among other popular crops". 

2. Deadly and insidous nature of the chemical: its effects are similar to sarin gas and "it gets everywhere... for a child living there, with every breath he takes, he’s getting a little dose. It’s very insidious"

3. Lack of protection for farmworkers: "His mother, Alba Luz Calderon de Cerda, handled citrus fruits and lettuce sprayed with chlorpyrifos as a packing house worker during her pregnancy. His father, Rafael Cerda Martinez, was a pesticide sprayer in agricultural fields, who often brought the chemical home, the lawsuit alleges.. The child and his parents were also exposed to the chemicals through the air in their home, the fields and packing houses where they worked, as well as in the water they drank, which was “loaded with chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon,” according to the lawsuit."

17-year old Avenal resident Rafael Cerda Calderon suffers from severe seizures, autism, and a developmental disability. He was exposed in-utero and during infancy to the pesticide Chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxin that has been compared to Sarin for the health hazard that it imposes. The pesticide was developed by Dow Chemicals, now Delware-based Corteva Inc., in the 1960s as a substitute for DDT, and has been banned for nationwide use since 2001. 

"the pesticide becomes a deadly neurotoxin when it comes into contact with water or sunshine or treated with chlorine, which is typically added to tap water. Chlorpyrifos oxon is 1,000 times more toxic than the original pesticide and was never registered with the EPA because it is so deadly."

“We found the stuff in cars; it gets in the dashboard, it goes anywhere the wind goes,” Calwell said. “We even sampled a teddy bear and even found it there. So for a child living there, with every breath he takes, he’s getting a little dose. It’s very insidious.”

The setting is the city of Avenal in the San Joaquin Valley in the Central Valley in California. 

This supplementary legal document describes recommendations for storm- and waste-water management improvements for the Formosa petrochemical plant in Calhoun County, Texas. The text is a fairly standard drainage assessment. The author describes non-trivial discharge of pollutants out of the plant’s outfalls, which drain into local waters, and the inability of the plant’s systems to prevent flooding from even small storms. For some context on this, it is pretty standard to design a stormwater system to be able to drain the 100-year storm (that is, the storm with a 1% or less chance of occurring in any given year). Formosa’s Texas plant demonstrated the inability to convey even the 2-year storm.

Emphases are mine:

“Problem areas were identified based on the results from the outfall drainage studies provided by Formosa. Thus, all the results in the OPCC rely on those studies, uncertainities associated with those studies, and the assumptions made for those studies, some of which may or may not be appropriate as I pointed out in Supplement #2 [Page 4]” (3)

“The proposed improvements assume that the conveyance capacity of the problem areas is increased 100%, which would be able to handle twice as much flow that it currently does. The results from the Drainage Study are not conclusive as to what storm event Formosa’s system currently is capable of conveying. The report does mention that the system is not capable of conveying the 2-year storm, and “sometimes” not even the 1-year storm event.” (3)

“A 45% contingency is applied to the OPCC due to the uncertainties associated with underground utilities, likelihood of existence of low road crossings and need to replace those, groundwater impacts, other unknowns, and additional costs associated with engineering, etc. 45% is reasonable and in line with industry practices in my experience, especially given the large amount of unknown information available.” (4) 

“My opinion from my July 9, 2018 report that “there have been and are still pellets and/or plastic materials discharges above trace amounts through Outfall 001” is further supported by the deposition testimony of Lisa Vitale, as representative for Freese & Nichols, Inc, that she and her colleagues have seen floating white pellets or small plastic pieces in Lavaca Bay and in the area near outfall 001 as part of her work on the receiving water monitoring program for Formosa’s TPDES permit...Ms. Vitale also testified that she told John Hyak of Formosa about these sightings as well as has sent him water samples with the pellets about five or six times, including at least one time prior to 2010. This, along with the June 2010 EPA Report I cited in my July Report, demonstrates to me that Formosa was aware of problems related to discharges of plastics from its facility since at least in 2010.” (6)

The study aimed to do large scale studies on disasters relating to the exposure of a portion of the population to a toxic agent, in order to learn how to better study the long-term medical effects.

The article was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a well regarded journal dedicated to publishing reliable studies concerning ecological damage and effects, as well as the medical effects due to ecological factors of both natural and human creation.