This episode is sponsored by 5 .11, a company
that I've used for well over a decade and continue
to use to this day. And 5 .11 is offering you
guys, the audience of the Behind the Shield podcast,
a discount on every purchase you make with them.
Before we get to that code, I want to highlight
a couple of products that again, I personally
use today. One of the most impressive products
they just released is their Rush Backpack 2 .0.
Now, for many of you, whether you're going to
the fire station, the police station, whether
you're traveling with your family, whether you're
taking training courses, we have to fly, we have
to drive, we have to take trains. And I have
to say, I own multiple backpacks, many of 5 .11's
different ones, but as far as a day pack, this
one was the most impressive. There are so many
different compartments. The way it sits on your
back is incredibly comfortable. If you are a
concealed carry person, there's also a spot for
a weapon. So they've thought of multiple, multiple
things that a man or woman would have to do on
a daily basis. That is in addition to all of
the products that I talk about a lot. Their uniforms
fit for men or fit for women in the first responder
professions. The footwear that they offer, whether
it's the Norris sneaker or the Atlas system that
is designed for foot health and therefore knees
and back and hips and shoulders and neck. As
a civilian, I live in a lot of their clothes
as well. Their jeans stretch. You can actually
squat down in them. We live in Florida here,
so I wear a lot of their shorts, which again,
very, very lightweight material. You can get
it wet and it will dry almost immediately. And
then moving to the fitness and tactical space,
I used to have just a regular weight vest. Recently,
I switched to a 5 .11 vest and actually bought
ballistic plates as well. My thinking was simply,
if I'm going to have a vest, why not have one
that protects me as well? And that Tac vest is
trusted by law enforcement all around the country.
So I mentioned they were going to offer you a
discount code. So if you go to 5 .11tactical
.com and enter the code SHIELD15, S -H -I -E
-L -D -1 -5, you'll get 15 % off, not just that
one purchase, but every time you visit their
store. And if you want to learn more about 5
.11, their mission, their products, then listen
to episode 338 of the Behind the Shield podcast
with the CEO and founder, Francisco Morales.
This episode is brought to you by Thorne and
I have some incredible news for any of you that
are in the military, first responder or medical
professions. In an effort to give back, Thorne
is now offering you an ongoing 35 % off each
and every one of your purchases of their incredible
nutritional solutions. Now Thorne is the official
supplement of CrossFit, the UFC, the Mayo Clinic,
the Human Performance Project. and multiple special
operations organizations. I myself have used
them for several years, and that is why I brought
them on as a sponsor. Some of my favorite products
they have are their Multivitamin Elite, their
Whey Protein, the Super EPA, and then most recently,
Cynaquil. As a firefighter, a stuntman, and a
martial artist, I've had my share of brain trauma
and sleep deprivation, and Cynaquil is their
latest brain health supplement. Now to qualify
for the 35 % off, go to thorne .com, T -H -O
-R -N -E .com. Click on sign in and then create
a new account. You will see the opportunity to
register as a first responder or member of military.
When you click on that, it will take you through
verification with GovX. You'll simply choose
a profession, provide one piece of documentation,
and then you are verified for life. From that
point onwards, you will continue to receive 35
% off through Thorn. Now, for those of you who
don't qualify, there is still the 10 % off using
the code BTS. 10 behind the shield 10 for a one
-time purchase now to learn more about thorn
go to episode 323 of the behind the shield podcast
with joel totoro and wes barnett welcome to the
behind the shield podcast as always my name is
james geering and this week it is my absolute
honor to welcome on the show rob belot Now, for
those of you that have seen the film Dark Waters
or the documentary The Devil We Know, you will
be somewhat familiar with Rob's story. In 1997,
after just making partner in his law firm, he
was approached by a farmer from West Virginia.
Now, this farmer was losing all of his cattle
to a host of diseases and was convinced that
the root cause was the landfill owned by DuPont
next to his farm. Rob initially took on the case
thinking it was going to be a quick win, but
it ended up taking over 14 years to find a resolution.
Now, what is terrifying, as you will hear on
this podcast, the chemicals in question are in
Teflon, they're in AFFF firefighting phone, and
even in our bunker gear. Now, before we get to
this incredible conversation, as I say every
week, please just take a moment, go to whichever
app you listen to this on, subscribe to the show.
leave feedback and leave a rating. Every single
five -star rating truly does elevate this podcast,
therefore making it easier for others to find.
And this is a free library of well over 600 episodes
now. So all I ask in return is that you help
share these incredible men and women's stories
so I can get them to every single person on planet
Earth who needs to hear them. So with that being
said, I introduce to you... Rob Belot. Enjoy.
Well, Rob, I want to start by saying firstly,
thank you to Jim. for connecting us jim bernica
and secondly to welcome you to the behind the
shield podcast today well thanks thanks so much
for having me so as we discussed right before
i hit record um i heard your interview with jim
i've watched um dark waters the dramatized version
of what we're going to talk about today the documentary
the devil we know and The relevance to the fire
service community as well, I think, is important.
But I mean, it's such a powerful story that needs
to be heard. So I'm very, very excited for this
conversation. So where on planet Earth are we
finding you today? I met you. I'm actually speaking
to you from my home in northern Kentucky, right
across the river from Cincinnati. Beautiful.
So I would love to start at the very beginning.
Obviously, you're known for this one chapter
of your life, but I kind of want to walk through
to how you got there in the first place. So tell
me where you were born and tell me a little bit
about your family dynamic, what your parents
did and how many siblings. Sure. You know, my
dad was in the Air Force, so I was born actually
in. Latham, New York, right outside of Albany,
where my dad was stationed there at the time,
right before he had to go off to Vietnam for
a year or two. We moved around a bit as a kid,
but grew up. We kind of came back and forth a
lot to Wright -Patterson Air Force Base, right
outside of Dayton, Ohio. So I went to high school
there, graduated there, and ended up going to
a small college down in Florida. New College
in Sarasota, Florida, and then on to law school
at Ohio State. And then after graduating there
in 1990, went to the Taft Law Firm, Taft, Stettinius
& Hollister in Cincinnati. And that's where I've
been, gosh, it's going to be 32 years in September.
Amazing. Well, it's a hell of a journey from
being a new partner all the way to where you
are now. Obviously, we'll weave through that
in a little bit. Going all the way back to your
father for a second, though, the Vietnam generation,
sadly, when we look back now, were not very well
taken care of. These men and women, some enlisted,
some obviously were conscripted, did not get
the ticker tape parades when they came home.
As an older man now looking back, did you observe
any of the kind of mental health impacts of that
deployment on your father? You know, it was interesting.
Growing up, you know, with a parent in the military,
you know, we lived outside military bases. And
we were living in communities where, gosh, it
seemed like everybody, I just assumed as a kid,
everybody's dad. you know, put a uniform on in
the morning before they went to work. And really,
he didn't talk about it. I didn't really hear
much about it until many years later, really,
when I was in high school. Just never mentioned
it, never came up, you know, didn't even realize
until later that. But he had been gone almost
two years right after I had been born. So something
he really didn't talk about much. You know, I
think it was, as you can imagine, not a pleasant
time. But he actually was a navigator on B -52s
and fighter jets and then was an engineer and
spent a lot of time in the. sort of the intelligence
side of the Air Force Foreign Technology Division.
And unfortunately, we lost him just last year
and passed away, but just had a fascinating career.
He spent over 20 years in the Air Force and actually
was when I was in high school. He decided he
was going to start a new career, go to law school.
So that's what kind of got me motivated to look
into law. He was graduating from law school about
the time I was getting out of college and trying
to decide what I was going to do with my career.
Beautiful. Yeah, I think that's the problem we
saw with that generation. And I think that's
a lot of the statistics that we're seeing now
with the suicides. You had the Vietnam generation.
They weren't able to process what. What they
went through, what they did for this country,
they jumped into a career of some sort. And now,
from what I understand, that generation is now
retiring. And now they're away from the distractions.
They're away from that purpose. And now I think
a lot of those things are starting to come back.
Yeah. Yeah. It's a difficult situation to deal
with. That's for sure. Absolutely. Well, going
back to your childhood as well, because this
is obviously a pertinent part of the story as
we get into it. Talk to me about. um spending
time with your grandmother and being in west
virginia yeah you know we would we would move
around a bit but we would always end up in parkersburg
as when i was a kid in west virginia my mom and
her whole family was from there and so on holidays
birthdays and such we would we would drive to
parkersburg and spend time there. And my grandmother
and my great -grandmother and grandfather, great
-grandfather lived, they had a house that looked
over the Ohio River. You know, you could see
kind of the smokestacks of the factories along
the river there and really spent a lot of time
as a kid in that neighborhood, in that community.
kind of saw it as sort of a hometown. So it was
a place I knew well and a place that had changed
a lot over the years. But, you know, I still
remember folks referring to it even then when
I was a kid as Cancer Alley, you know, and people
having to go get their car washed when they would
get a coupon from one of the local companies
that was apparently it had some sort of. incident
you know where stuff had gone into the air so
they were going to have to go get their car washed
those were the kinds of things that were just
taken as normal you know and that that's that's
the way it was in that community so when you
look back at your childhood as we're going to
get into you became you know a warrior for for
good basically you know aside from many of the
other people in your firm many other people in
your profession You took on a fight that probably
was career -wise maybe not the most wise initially.
When you look at your upbringing, your mother,
your father, where do you kind of attribute some
of that altruism and some of that protector mentality
that you had to lean into as you got older? Well,
I think we were just taught there were things
that you did and things that you did that were
the right thing to do. And this particular case
fit right in to that mold. These were people
from what I kind of viewed as my hometown that
were looking for help, that were coming to me
asking, can't I help them? And I thought I could.
And to me, it really wasn't. a hard decision
you know to know what needed to be done and particularly
as we kind of delved into this whole story and
started to figure out that what we were dealing
with went far beyond just one family in that
community this was something that was impacting
the entire area and then to realize It wasn't
just that. This was something that could be impacting
the whole country, if not the whole world. So
it really, to me, was something that, at least
the way I was brought up, this is something I
needed to do, needed to help on. Beautiful. Well,
starting on your journey into law then, I know
initially you were defending corporations. So
what brought you into the law firm and what made
you choose that particular area of law? Well,
you know, as I mentioned, my dad was just starting
his legal career and he actually started with
the attorney general's office in Ohio, then the
city of Dayton as a prosecutor. And so he really
hadn't had any experience at a law firm. And
nobody in my family had ever been a lawyer working
at a law firm. So I really didn't know what that
involved. So graduating from law school, I started
interviewing. And one of the firms that I met
with was the TAF firm in Cincinnati. And they
extended me an offer. And I noticed that they
had a group that they called the Environmental
Practice Group. And really not knowing what that
meant, other than it triggered a memory I had
of a course that I had taken in law school that
I thought was interesting, environmental law.
Something I thought was really kind of real world
concrete, as opposed to tax or something like
that. So, you know, I decided to join that group,
really not knowing what that would entail. And
that was in 1990. And at that point in time.
A lot of what that group was doing was working
with big companies, a lot of big chemical companies
and other big corporate clients, really trying
to help them navigate the kind of complex world
of federal and state environmental rules and
regulations. What are you allowed to emit into
the air or into the water? How do you get permits
to operate landfills? I spent eight years really
kind of learning that system from scratch, trying
to understand how all that fit together. And
I thought I understood it fairly well, that we
had this very comprehensive, complex system that
identified the toxic, nasty stuff in our world
and told us how much was safe and how much was
not safe. And as long as we were abiding by those
rules and we were doing what we needed to do.
to protect the environment. And what we were
also doing at the time was a lot of what they
call superfund cleanup. In the 80s and early
90s, there were a lot of these sites, hazardous
waste, abandoned dump sites and hazardous waste
sites all over the country. And we were working
with our clients, negotiating with other big
chemical companies. Who pays how much to clean
these things up? So I had spent a lot of time
meeting a lot of lawyers at the big chemical
companies and working with these other companies
and meeting their lawyers and really felt like
I understood that world pretty well. And that
all changed in 1998 when I got the call from
Mr. Tenet in West Virginia. Well, just prior
to that, when you think of corporations, usually
it's kind of, again, a very black and white lens
that we get. Either there's the capitalist mentality,
well, it's a necessary evil, you know, you've
got to forge ahead, you know, we're the superpower
in the world. And so it's a very pro -corporate,
you know, monopoly chasing mentality. Conversely,
corporations are the boogeyman and they can do
no right. When you boil it down, I actually heard
a guru on Joe Rogan's podcast a while ago kind
of call him out on that, calling them the bad
guys. And he was implying basically that even
people in there, there's a mental health element
that makes you maybe deviate from what one would
call ethics in pursuit of happiness maybe. So
in those first eight or nine years, what was
your view as far as the ethics of some of the
corporations that you were working with at that
point? I don't agree that you can necessarily
say that everybody in the corporate world is
one way, everybody on the other side is. I just
really don't agree with that mindset. You're
talking about folks that are trying to do the
right thing. Most of the folks we were dealing
with, our clients. These were people that were
trying to understand the rules and the law, that
were trying to do what they were required to
do. You know, you may see every now and then
somebody that was trying to get around it or
trying to find a clever way to do this or that,
but that was tended to be the exception. And,
you know, that's why, you know, when I first
started getting into this story and starting
to see what I was seeing, I had such a hard time
actually believing. that what was happening was
actually happening because that didn't track
with the kind of mindset of the folks I had been
dealing with. It wasn't the kind of behavior
that I had seen. And, you know, this really was
an aberration. You know, it wasn't the norm,
what we were seeing here going on in West Virginia.
So, you know, I think when you talk about companies
or corporations, you're talking about lots of
people. These companies are made up of lots of
individuals and lots of people. So it's really,
I think, dangerous to paint them with one brush.
Yeah, well, I agree completely. I think that's
what you find in so many areas, whether it's
the mask conversation we had recently or whatever
it is. If you create a boogeyman and create two
extreme sides, nothing ever... you know, is fixed.
But if you humanize it and realize maybe within
an organization, there are a handful of people
who are very unscrupulous. But overall, like
you said, most people are going to work trying
to, you know, make some money so they can feed
their family and put a roof over their head.
I think that's a very important kind of perspective
that we need. And then, as you said, amongst
that. you know, environment, if there are some
bad apples, as there are in the fire service
and law enforcement and the legal system, then
we can identify them and laser point, you know,
hone in on those individuals. Yeah. You know,
in this case, I think is a dramatic example of
that. This was a situation where we saw some
pretty egregious. bad actors and things that
were being done that were not the norm. And in
fact, it's one of the reasons why our law firm,
which traditionally represented big companies
and big business type interests, agreed to take
on this particular case. You see this kind of,
I think, demonstrated in the scene in Dark Waters,
where we're talking about why this is the right
thing to do. I mean, because this was. bad behavior.
And it wasn't the kind of thing that our clients
would do or engage in. And, you know, why we
felt so compelled that we needed to bring this
story out and to get this fixed. Well, in true
Hollywood fashion, even though this is real life,
you are made a partner of the firm and almost,
you know, synchronistically, a farmer walks into
your legal office. So I'd love to kind of hear
the backstory of that. And then we'll walk through
from there. It was in 1998 where I got a call
one day from a gentleman who started rattling
on about the fact that I needed to help him figure
out what was killing his cows. And this was a
call I was about to hang up. You know, it's not
the kind of thing that I was doing at the time.
But that's when he blurted out that he had gotten
my name from my grandmother. in Parkersburg.
And that's when I paused and paid a little closer
attention. And he started explaining how he had
these animals that he was raising on a farm in
West Virginia. And he was seeing white foam coming
out of a landfill next to his property. And he
was convinced there was something in that foam,
you know, that was killing his animals, making
him sick, but nobody would talk to him. Nobody
would take that, take his calls. He had called
the state. officials. He had called the federal
officials. He had called the company that owned
the landfill. He wasn't getting any answers and
I needed to help him. So it's when I heard this
story and I heard the connection with my grandmother,
I thought, you know what? I help companies get
permits to run landfills like this. And particularly
when he mentioned who owned the landfill, DuPont.
I knew that company. DuPont was one of those
companies I mentioned that we would typically,
run into their lawyers at these Superfund cleanup
sites all over the country. We weren't representing
that company, but I knew their lawyers. We would
be in the same room negotiating over who paid
how much to clean up these sites. And I felt
pretty confident that this was a company that
understood how these rules and laws worked. There
was a landfill that was emitting something above
their permit limits. They would probably be able
to get to the bottom of it pretty quickly. So
when I'm hearing this story and that it involved
DuPont and it was a landfill, I thought, you
know what? I bet I can help him. This is what
I do. I help companies get these types of permits.
I know DuPont. So I invited him to come on up
to our office and bring whatever he had. And
he and his wife drove up the three hours from
West Virginia to Cincinnati. And they were armed
with videotapes and photographs and came into
our offices. And it just so happened that Tom
Terp, who was the head of our environmental group
at the time, was walking down the hall. So I
invited him to come in and look at these videotapes
as well. And, you know, we sat down and watched
that and looked at those photographs and listened
to the story. And it was pretty compelling. You
know, you saw videotape of white foam coming
out of the landfill marked EI DuPont de Nemours
outfall. And you could see these animals standing
in the foam. And he was zooming in. You could
see deformities on these animals. You could see
tumors. You could see they were wasting away.
that there were animals that had died that he
had cut into. In fact, if you see the film Dark
Waters or the documentary The Devil We Know,
those actual videotapes are incorporated into
those films that he shot. And you could see these
deformed organs and blackened teeth. So to us,
it was pretty compelling. There was something
in that film. There was something in that water.
And we should be able to help him. But, you know,
this was a case that was obviously not like something
we had handled before. And, you know, we talked
about it and agreed, well, it should be a fairly
straightforward, simple matter. You know, this
was, after all, a landfill. It's just one farm
in West Virginia. And so we agreed to take that
on. And that was October of 98. And it definitely
did not turn out to be as simple and straightforward
and narrow, just involving one farm that we thought.
So the cows, obviously, you know, the actual
farm itself was being affected as you kind of
go down this journey. Talk to me about what you
were discovering as far as the impact of the
humans in the town as well. Well, you know, at
this point, the only folks we were really talking
to were the Tennant family, Mr. Tennant and his
wife and his daughters. And, you know, they were
convinced that whatever was in this foam and
in this landfill wasn't just affecting the cattle.
And it was affecting, first of all, other wildlife.
There were deer in the area that were getting
sick and dropping dead and the fish and the birds
and the other animals in the area. But he also
was convinced that. His family was getting sick.
There would be vapor clouds that would rise up
out of this landfill and blow across their property.
And they were having trouble breathing and coughing
and feeling sick. And so they were really concerned
about their own health as well. So when we first
took this on. We were concerned that there was
something there that was not only affecting the
animals, but was possibly also affecting the
people as well. So when you approach DuPont,
obviously there's a manifest of what should be
in that landfill. So what was it that you discovered?
Well, you know, I approached it as I as I thought
you would do with any kind of regulated landfill.
We started asking for the permits and we got
those from the state and from also from DuPont.
DuPont was more than happy to give us the documents
relating to the regulated materials in that landfill
and started pouring through all of that stuff.
And, you know, there were materials. that were
listed on the permit, you know, you had certain
limits. And yeah, there were some things that
were a little above the permit, but nothing really
that would explain the white foam, nothing that
would explain the types of impacts we were seeing
in these animals. So we really weren't finding
anything in those permitting materials that would
explain what was going on at the landfill. It
seemed to be sort of a dead end. So talk to me
about the next step. You realize there's more
to this. You have a hunch that something is missing.
What were the next steps? And then what kind
of information was then sent to your office?
I started thinking about what was going on here
with this landfill. And it was around the same
time that we ended up getting a report from DuPont,
where DuPont had early on told us, hey, no need
to really get into a bunch of discovery and all
of these documents, because after all, we've
reached out to the US EPA, and we've put together
a team of experts that are going to look at these
cows and try to figure out what's really causing
the problems here. And so we got this report
that came in. It was in early 2000. And it essentially
said, we can't find any issues that as far as
chemicals coming out of that landfill that are
affecting these animals must just be these people
don't know how to raise cattle. And, you know,
it was at that point I started getting a little
suspicious and I started starting to think back,
you know, about what Mr. Tennant was saying,
that something was being covered up, you know,
and the company was working with the state regulators
and they were all in this together. And I, you
know, I had a hard time. really believing any
of that at first. But then when I saw this report
that deviated so dramatically from what was actually
happening, you know, I'd been at that farm. I
had seen the way these folks raised their animals.
They knew how to raise cattle. They weren't abusing
these animals. So I really started to wonder
what was happening here? What was really going
on? What's really getting into this landfill?
And so I decided to reach out to DuPont and say,
look, I don't want just what's regulated in your
permit. I want to know everything that you're
sending to that landfill, whether it's in the
permit or not. Everything, because what we found
out was that landfill was accepting waste from
a massive manufacturing plant right down the
road, right along the Ohio River. So we told
them, we want to know everything you're making
at that plant and what's going into this. landfill,
whether it's permitted or not. And then we got
a big pushback. Suddenly, the cooperative attitude
we had with DuPont evaporated. No, no, no, no.
This is a fishing expedition. We're not getting
into all this. We had to go to court, get an
order to require them to turn over. The documents.
And when we started getting these documents and
those, you know, keep in mind, this is back in
early 2000. And, you know, back then, it's kind
of really right before people started putting
everything on computers and emails and disks.
So it was paper. You know, in the films, you
see all these boxes. We did. We got all these
boxes that came in. So I started to pour through
those. And I'm the kind of person I don't want
somebody else to just. Go look at that. Give
me a memo. I need to see this myself. So I started
pouring through these documents myself, trying
to organize them, putting them in chronological
order, reading through to try to piece together
what was going on here. And it was a ton of information.
It took a long time. But what we started to piece
together was there was something in that landfill.
that was creating foam. It was incredibly toxic.
And it wasn't on the permit. It wasn't regulated.
Yet it could have devastating impacts, not only
on cows and wildlife, but also on human health.
And so what we discovered was something that
led us down a path where we now realize this
same chemical is unfortunately now impacting
the entire globe. What was the chemical that
you discovered? What we found was there was a
chemical that DuPont had been using in the manufacture
of Teflon. This manufacturing plant I mentioned
along the Ohio River just happened to be the
world's largest Teflon manufacturing facility.
In the manufacture of Teflon, DuPont had been
purchasing a chemical. called PFOA, perfluorooctanoic
acid, a chemical that has eight carbons attached
to fluorine. So they also called it C8. DuPont
had been buying this stuff from the 3M company
up in Minnesota since as early as 1951 and using
massive quantities of this chemical as a manufacturing
aid in the process for making Teflon. And in
that process, this chemical was emitted into
the air it was discharged into into the ohio
river and liquid sludges were dumped into unlined
pits all around the property and keep in mind
you know this is beginning in the early 1950s
1960s in massive quantities it's decades before
the uscpa even existed you know uscpa wasn't
formed until 1970. some of the first laws rules
regulations about evaluating toxicity of chemicals
rolled out in the late 70s. So this stuff starts
rolling down to Parkersburg decades before in
massive quantities going into the air, into the
water, into these unlined landfills. And what
we saw when we started getting into these documents
was, even though it predated the EPA and the
regulations, DuPont itself in 3M. had been studying
this chemical because of its unique chemical
structure. This stuff never existed on the planet
prior to being invented by 3M, right around the
time of World War II. And it had this unique
chemical structure of carbons attached to fluorine,
which made it really useful in manufacturing
processes like DuPont's Teflon process, but it
also made it incredibly strong. and resistant
to breaking down. The companies understood early
on that if it got out into the environment, it
wouldn't break down. This stuff wouldn't biodegrade.
In fact, in later years, we even had scientists
tell us, they talk about the life of these chemicals
in geologic timescales. It would take thousands,
if not millions, of years for this chemical to
start to break down on its own. So the company's
realizing this stuff, when it gets out there,
is going to stay almost forever. That's why you
hear me refer to now as forever chemicals. They
started evaluating the toxicity of it in the
60s. And they started finding this stuff was
incredibly toxic. It had all kinds of toxic effects
and multiple different animal species that were
being tested. And by the 1980s, they'd even found
that it caused cancer. They actually had done
rat studies and found that the chemical caused
testicular tumors in the rats. This is in the
1980s. By the early 90s, they had done a second
study confirming the testicular tumors and also
liver and pancreatic tumors. DuPont had internally
classified the chemical as a confirmed animal
carcinogen, possible human carcinogen in the
80s. And so they had actually gone out and started
looking for this stuff because they knew they
were emitting it into the air and into the water.
They knew they had public water well supply fields
right downstream in West Virginia, on the West
Virginia side, and right across the river the
way the air flowed. In Ohio, there were public
water well fields. So they went out and collected
drinking water samples secretly in the 80s and
found that the chemical was in drinking water
in Ohio and West Virginia. but didn't tell anybody
because it was not regulated. Because by the
time they were doing this, these laws and rules
had rolled out, but those laws and rules really
focused on new chemicals being made from that
point going forward. For things that were already
out there, like PFOA, the laws essentially said
it was up to the companies making or using those
to alert the EPA if there was some substantial
risk to human health or the environment. that
required them to go back and look at. Well, what
we were seeing in these documents, they were
doing all these studies, finding all these toxic
effects, carcinogenic effects, but the companies
were deciding not to tell the EPA, even after
they found it in the drinking water. Then the
company actually came up with its own internal
drinking water standard for the stuff, no more
than 0 .6 parts per billion, which they rounded
up to one. which was essentially the lowest you
could detect it in the water at the time. And
they go out and the sampling, what they're finding
in the water supplies is four to five times that.
So what we saw in this whole story as we're piecing
it together, I'm reading all these documents,
is that's how this stuff ended up in the landfill
next to Mr. Tennant in Parkersburg. Because DuPont
thought this stuff was leaking. into the ground
from the sludge they had dumped into these unlined
pits at their property. So they went out and
dug up all this sludge, 7 ,000 tons of PFOA -soaked
sludge. And because it was still technically
unregulated, they took it and dumped it into
an unlined, non -hazardous waste landfill, the
landfill right next to Mr. Tennant's property.
And it started seeping out into the creek. And
sure enough, when it hits, you know, when the
rain hits it and it hits the water, it foams.
DuPont went out and actually tested the water
in the creek in 1990, eight years before Mr.
Tennant came to me. And they had found levels
in the creek. Remember, their internal guideline
was one part per billion. They found a thousand
parts per billion in the creek. And even speculated,
what would this do to cows? So they hadn't told
Mr. Tenet, but they knew what was going on. So
needless to say, by the time we pieced this together,
I was able to make a phone call to the folks
at DuPont and we settled Mr. Tenet's case. But
at that point, we realized we were dealing with
a much bigger problem. And Mr. Tenet was very
worried because what we were seeing was this
stuff. was in the public's drinking water in
Ohio and West Virginia at levels above what the
company itself said was appropriate. No one had
been told. The regulators didn't know. The public
didn't know. So at that point, we realized we
had a huge public health threat on our hands
that had gone unrecognized, and we might be the
only ones who knew this outside of DuPont. I
mean, firstly, thank you for bringing us up to
that point. I mean, there's so much to digest
just there. But then I think in the film and
certainly in the documentary, you hear about
3M. doing research and finding that there was
an effect on the fetuses in the rat experiments
where it was deforming the eyes. So you meet
a young man, Bucky Bailey. So talk to me again
about what you started to see as the actual ill
health of the residents of that town in West
Virginia. Yeah, excuse me. What was particularly
disturbing, you know, going through these documents
was to see what, not only what the companies
had known, you know, about the health effects
of this stuff in all these laboratory animals,
but to see what had been known about its impacts
on humans. You know, as you mentioned, one of
the very first studies. that had come down actually
from 3M was finding birth defects in the eyes
of baby rats who were exposed to this chemical.
And when they notified their customer, DuPont,
who had been purchasing this stuff, DuPont set
up a study to look at the children. born to women
who were exposed to this chemical on the Teflon
mines in West Virginia. And actually, what they
found was there had been seven children born.
Two of them, two of the seven had eye defects.
One of those was Bucky Bailey, a young man who
you see in the films, in the documentary, and
in Dark Waters. He was gracious enough to come
and do a cameo in the film as well. But These
were real people, real children being exposed
to these chemicals. The fact that the company
had this data showing this was happening, not
just in rats, but that two out of seven women,
human babies, had been experiencing the same
issue. That study was never finalized, never
published, never sent to the government agencies.
And the people were never told this. It didn't
come out until years later. So that was the kind
of information that we felt was necessary to
get out to the public, get out to the regulators.
Most importantly, get out to the people who are
exposed, the people at the plant, the people
in that community. who were breathing this, drinking
this, being exposed to it on a daily basis and
had no idea. We're just circling around to the
ethics if we don't already need to underline
the lack of in this conversation so far. Talk
to me about the experiment they did with some
of the workers and the cigarettes with the PFAS
and the other chemicals. Well, one of the early
studies that we uncovered was a document that
was indicating that at one point, this is in
the early 60s, and you have to remember that
it was around 1961, 1962, that DuPont starts
commercializing Teflon. It starts going out on
pans, starts going out into the consumer market.
And it was around that period of time that there
was a study indicating that workers were given.
cigarettes that had teflon um you know the actual
material on the ends of the cigarettes um and
you know they were asked to report what happened
you know when this was heated up and what you
see is basically what's called teflon flu or
the polymer fume fever that when you heat this
material It creates this gas, this off -gassing
that creates flu -like symptoms. And in fact,
for years, if you had gone on the DuPont website,
there would be disclosures, you know, about do
not overheat your Teflon pan. Don't keep birds
in the kitchen near your pan. You know how you
always hear the story of canaries in the coal
mine, you know, because they have such sensitive
lungs. Well, you have, unfortunately. well -documented
cases where birds that were in kitchens where
this Teflon material was overheated would be
seriously impacted by these fumes. So you even
had situations at the DuPont plant where they
even had bird crews where birds flying over the
smokestacks would drop out of the sky as this
stuff was heated and got into the air. So it
was unfortunately, a well -documented phenomenon,
you know, that this stuff could have these effects
on people. So there's a scene in the film as
well when you're trying to bring this to court
and that one part per billion is suddenly changed
by an expert in that courtroom. So if you wouldn't
mind kind of walk me through that and then let's
talk about, you know, obviously there was that
one settlement, but how this became a multifaceted
approach. And there was a point in time where,
you know, I mentioned that DuPont had its own
internal drinking water guidelines that they
had developed in the 1980s. You know, no more
than 0 .6 parts per billion, which they rounded
up to one part per billion. And when we finally
figured out what was happening here and we had
made the decision to try to bring claims on behalf
of the whole community through a class action
lawsuit to get people clean water and medical
testing. We really based that lawsuit on the
fact that this stuff was in the water above DuPont's
own guideline. Because remember, there were no
state or federal guidelines for this chemical
since the regulators didn't even know about it.
So as soon as we filed that, DuPont, realizing
this whole case hinged on their own internal
one part per billion guideline. tried to create
a way to come up with a higher number, one that
was a, quote, government -approved standard.
So they entered into a deal. They negotiated
a deal with the state of West Virginia's EPA
to create another team, kind of like what they
had done with the cattle team before with US
EPA. They would set up this team. And of course,
DuPont's own scientists would be on the team.
And they would come up with this new number.
And it was quite amazing. The science didn't
change. There was no new data. All that happened
was a new process was set up where the DuPont
folks, DuPont consultants, and then people brought
in from the state were to announce a new number.
And they did that. In May of 2002, they made
this announcement. As if it was a government
number, they came out and said the new number
was 150 parts per billion, which was outrageous.
And years later, of course, everybody rejected.
But that was the announcement that was made to
try to reassure the public everything is fine
here. And DuPont never changed its own internal
number. Their own scientists didn't even accept
that. Yeah, it's crazy. So with that, you know,
obviously move forward with the case as we kind
of follow through in the film or documentary,
you start learning of, you know, the dental impacts
on the community, tumors, cancers, deaths. So
as this slowly unfold and your kind of perspective
gets wider and wider, what were you starting
to see as far as the impact on the residents
of that town and especially the people that were
working in the plant? Well, you know, as we learned
more about the chemical and what was known internally,
as we got more documents, more studies, more
history of what the companies knew, not only
were we seeing that there had been a number of
studies of the workers, you know, and those studies
among the workers were showing increased cancer
rates, liver enzyme impacts, other issues that
were being investigated. What we also then were
learning, of course, were people were coming
forward from the community. with stories of cancers
and other health impacts and teeth issues. And
it wasn't just the people, it was the pets. There
were stories of an incredible amount of tumors
and cancers among cats and dogs in the area.
So it really became pretty powerful evidence
coming forward that something was going on in
this community that was not normal. that the
health impacts here seem to be pretty severe.
So it was something we really wanted to make
sure we understood, which was exactly what can
this chemical do to people, you know, and how
much of what we were hearing was related to this
chemical. Now another, you know, one of the through
lines in the story is that dichotomy between
wanting to fight this kind of, you know, this
cancer -causing element, but also DuPont being
the primary employer in the town. So what was
your observation of that tension? I mean, I know
it seems like from the films that some of the
people that stuck their neck out to, I hate the
word whistleblower, but to advocate for everyone
else also got demonized in their own community.
Yeah, it's an incredibly difficult situation
to be in. You're in a community where This particular
company is revered as a great employer, a great
patron of the local community and the community
groups and helping with funding. A lot of folks
either work there themselves or they have family
that work there or they know somebody that works
there. It's an integral part of that community.
To suggest that something this bad could be happening,
a lot of people just don't want to hear it. They
don't want to believe it. They don't want to
think that something like that can be happening.
They want to hope that it's wrong. In fact, when
we finally got to the point where we were setting
up these big health studies, we ended up getting
69 ,000 people within a community estimated to
be 70 ,000 who came forward and provided blood
and provided health data. A lot of those people
who came forward came forward hoping it would
help prove that there wasn't a problem, that
this hadn't really been as bad as people were
saying, that there weren't health effects associated
with this. It's understandable. It was a very
difficult thing for the folks that stood up.
And we're wanting to make sure this was pushed
forward. You see some of that depicted in the
films, you know, the pushback that these people,
unfortunately, the folks like the Tennant family
or the Kigers, you know, had to endure. as this
story was unfolding. It continues to this day,
by the way. There's still great loyalty to the
company. You're dealing with a situation where
it's difficult to find employment and you've
got good -paying jobs. And you've got a lot of
folks, I still remember when a researcher came
out to the community and asked folks, this is
after all of this story finally came out, people
finally realized what had really happened here,
that this did happen, that this poisoning occurred
for decades. And you still had people saying,
well, you know, you got to die of something.
So what's cancer? At least I had a good job.
That type of mindset and attitude, unfortunately,
still prevails in a lot of folks who honestly
believe that that's the trade -off, that that's
fair for them to accept that they might get cancer
in order to get a good job. It's a really difficult
situation in communities like this. When I think
of West Virginia, sadly, one of the things that
pops in my mind is the opioid crisis. When you
take away mines, when you take away steel mills,
whatever the industry is that goes overseas,
you are left with a giant void. Do you think
there was an element of watching surrounding
towns and cities go through that kind of crisis
that kept people clinging on to DuPont so loyally?
I'm sure it's a combination of all kinds of things
like that. Again, you're in a community that...
You know, these are some of the best paying jobs,
some of the most stable jobs and really, you
know, gives the community identity. If you drive
through this area, you'll see signs that say,
you know, welcome to the polymer alliance zone,
you know, or the chemical alliance. I mean, this
is a matter of pride that these companies are
there and that these products are being manufactured
there. And, you know, people want to keep them
there. And, you know, you see that tension building
up again now as DuPont, you know, has spun off
this whole Teflon business into a new company
called Chemours. And what was left of DuPont
merged with Dow and a split into other companies
and plants are closing and workers are being
laid off. There's a real concern, you know, that
what's going to happen to these jobs now. You
know, and it's a continuing issue. And one, I
think it's going to continue for a long time.
Now, again, another through line that's evident
in the film is the stress on you and your family.
So you're fighting this battle. There seems to
be no end in sight. Talk to me about, you know,
your mental health journey as you are trying
to fight this behemoth that is DuPont. You know,
it was definitely a stressful. uh situation and
you see that in the film and i talk about it
in in a lot of detail in the book exposure you
know just um what that was like during those
periods of time you know because it's um you
have to remember we didn't know what the outcome
was going to be we didn't know how these processes
would work. You know, we didn't know whether
this class action lawsuit would prevail. I mean,
these were sort of innovative issues we were
pursuing at the time. When we set up these big
health studies, you know, with tens of thousands
of people, nobody had really ever done that before.
We had no idea how long this would take. You
know, and as it ended up, it stretched out six,
seven years. And in the meantime, you know, people
are continuing to get sick. People are being
diagnosed. People are dying. And you're hearing
those stories. I'm getting those phone calls.
You see a little bit of that in the film. You
know, I'm getting calls from folks, you know,
that's what's going on. Why is this taking so
long? You know, and at the same time, you have
to remember. what period of time this was occurring.
This was happening during 2008, 2011. The economy
was imploding back then. We were in a massive
economic meltdown. People were losing their jobs.
To be working on something like this where we
didn't know what the outcome was going to be.
so many people depending on you and realizing
this was something that could impact not just
all the people in this community, but worldwide.
At this point, we realized this chemical was
a part of a family of chemicals we now call PFAS,
P -F -A -S. PFOA was just one of hundreds, if
not thousands, of these chemicals, these man
-made toxins that were now, we realized, in products
all over the place, not just Teflon, but stain
-resistant waterproof clothing, carpeting, fast
food wrappers and packaging, firefighter foam,
computer chips, cosmetics. And they weren't just
used with DuPont. It was in other places all
over. And this stuff, we were realizing, because
sampling had been going on, was being found in
drinking water all over the United States and
in other places of the world. And most importantly,
The chemicals were being found in the blood of
almost every person on the planet. It was being
found in 99 % of the humans that were being tested.
So we realized how important this science was
going to be, how important the outcome of this
process was. And to kind of have the weight of
that, knowing we've got to make sure that this...
is seen through to its conclusion that the scientists
aren't compromised, that this process, you know,
isn't derailed, that we get to the end point
because, you know, there's public health issues
riding on it. So that was a lot of stress, a
lot of, you know, a lot of things to be juggling.
And we were fortunate that it turned out that
the science. did come out that these these health
effects were able to be confirmed uh it took
a long time uh but you know it's we've learned
a lot from that process but um you know i don't
know how we could have done it frankly any different
at this point so it seems to be clear from again
from the story i know sadly mr tennant and his
wife both came to cancer but it didn't seem like
he was chasing the money, he was chasing justice.
So talk to me about what was finally, you know,
the judgment, the result, and then what should
have happened, the perfect world, what, as far
as accountability, should have happened to the
company and the people responsible for this particular
element? Yeah, you know, as you mentioned, unfortunately,
Mr. Tennant and his wife passed away before the
scientific findings were confirmed. The scientific
process we've been talking about that lasted
all these years and involved tens of thousands
of people, it finally wrapped up in 2012. And
at the end of that process, we were able to confirm
that PFOA, just one of these PFOS chemicals,
was linked with six different diseases. Testicular
cancer was one of them. Now remember, we saw
that in the rats in the 80s. But DuPont and 3M
had been denying that that was related to humans.
So we had to go through all of this to finally
confirm what had already been in those documents
for decades. But anyway, we were able to confirm
that the PFOA was linked with causing testicular
cancer, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid
disease, preeclampsia, and high cholesterol.
And once those findings were confirmed, again,
with these independent scientists, That triggered
a huge cascade of events. That finally prompted
the US EPA to go out and start looking for this
chemical and the related chemical PFOS in drinking
water across the country. You know, PFOA, as
I mentioned, was a C8 that 3M had made. 3M had
also been making this very closely related chemical
called PFOS, famously used in things like Scotchgard
or firefighting foams. So when the data came
out on PFOA, US EPA, realizing these two chemicals
were very closely related, started going out
and saying, let's see if this chemical is a nationally
occurring drinking water issue. Because if so,
we'll start the process to regulate it. So they
started going out and sampling. And sure enough,
these chemicals were starting to be found all
over the country. Because one of the things that
happened was people started realizing. These
chemicals, particularly PFOS, have been used
in firefighting foam. And the firefighting foam,
AFFF, aqueous film forming foam, this type of
foam had been used to combat petroleum fires.
Well, that stuff had been sprayed for decades
outside of airports, military bases, fire stations,
all over the country. So the Department of Defense,
realizing this, put together a list of different
places where this stuff might have been used
and went out and started sampling. Other places
started sampling. What we saw beginning a couple
of years after that was this stuff was everywhere.
And so as that information came out, it triggered
EPA to finally start the process to look at,
should we regulate this stuff? But what it also
did is it said under our settlement, anybody
in that community of 70 ,000 people that had
one of these six diseases, they were now allowed
to move forward and get compensation in trials.
to go after DuPont. DuPont could not dispute
that these chemicals could cause these diseases
under our settlement. We had 3 ,500 people just
in this one community come forward with one of
these diseases. We started taking those cases
to trial in 2015. And the first one went to trial,
six weeks of trial, where we laid out all this
evidence. DuPont was found liable for having
caused cancer in a lady whose drinking water
is contaminated. Three more trials, more verdicts
against DuPont, punitive damages, including that
the company acted with conscious disregard. So
these trials are occurring. They're being found
liable. But really, nobody else around the country
knows about this. Nobody realizes this isn't
just West Virginia. All this sampling that's
going on, nobody really knows that's happening.
That data is going into EPA, but nobody else
really knows about it. Things all changed dramatically
in 2016, in January, when Nathaniel Rich published
an article in the New York Times Magazine. And
it summarized this whole story, talked about
these trials. And for the first time, people
across the country started realizing, wait a
minute. So this chemical might, because what
Nathaniel also pointed out was the chemical was
being found in other places across the U .S.
So that prompted people to start calling state
regulators, governor's office, representatives.
Hey, what's this chemical and what's the safe
level for it? Now, those of you who've seen the
movie or the film realize, remember, I sent the
letter to the US EPA back in 2001, alerting them.
This stuff is out there. We need to look into
it. Nothing had really nothing had happened.
But once this article came out in 2016, people
started demanding. What is the safe level? Four
months later, May of 2016, US EPA came out with
its first drinking water guideline for these
chemicals, PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. No
more than 70 parts per trillion. That prompted
more testing. And suddenly, from that point forward,
almost every day in this country and now worldwide,
people are finding these chemicals in their water
above those levels or lower than that. And so
it's led to massive testing. But still, there
wasn't much understanding outside these places
where this stuff was found that these chemicals
even existed. And one day, I got a call from
Mark Ruffalo, who said, hey, how is this happening?
I just read this article in the New York Times
Magazine. How is something like this happening
in the United States? And nobody's talking about
this. Nobody knows. This chemical could be all
over the country. Why are we not getting this
story out? Why is it on the front page of the
New York Times magazine, not the New York Times
newspaper? Why is it not on the front pages?
And how do we get this story out? And that led
to him being able to put together an incredible
team that then were able to bring the film Dark
Waters out. documentary, The Double We Know,
was put together as well. I sat down and wrote
the book, Exposure, all trying to find ways to
get the story out to the broader population.
That finally started to happen. We finally start
to see this information seep out. And then really
what started happening in the last couple of
years as the story has come out, people have
started to ask, where are these chemicals coming
from? What products have they been used in? And
as we already had identified firefighting foam,
one of the more recent things we've also started
to realize is you've got groups within the country
that are particularly exposed. Like, think about
it. Who's spraying that firefighting foam? It's
the firefighters. And then we start to realize
the firefighting community not only didn't know
about the foam, But they didn't realize that
their turnout gear, the gear that they've been
wearing, historically was coated with certain
types of treatments that were made using some
of these chemicals. And that that stuff might
actually be on the turnout gear. And that gear,
as it breaks down over time, and as it's worn
and used in the firehouse and the dust comes
out, that that gear might be a source of exposure
to these chemicals as well. So over the last
year or so, that information started to come
out. And then people realize it's not just firefighters,
but it's what about people that are buying waterproof
cosmetics, computer chips, fast food wrappers
and packaging? This stuff is everywhere. So it's
been incredible to see how much power there is
behind getting a story out like this through
having these films, the book, the documentary.
that raising people's awareness is leading to
people finally knowing, hey, this stuff's out
there. How can I start to minimize my exposure?
And that's finally beginning because we're finally
starting to realize which products these things
have been used in. And people are finally starting
to be able to make a choice to say, I don't want
those in those products. I want that taken out.
And we're seeing that that's having incredible
power. Companies are starting to come forward
and say, based on market demand, we will remove
these now from these products going forward.
It's taken a long time to get there, but it's
starting to happen. Really, when you look at
this story, I'm hoping people realize it's an
optimistic story because it's showing people
standing up and demanding things change. It can
work. It might take a long time to get there,
but ultimately… that truth comes out, things
can change, and it can be fixed. Well, first,
it's amazing when you think this all stemmed
from a farmer picking up a phone. And here we
are now with this huge element. The second thing,
and something I talk about a lot here, because
my community, the fire service, I've written
one book. I'm about to start a fiction. Because
I want, again, a different lens. And then, you
know, who knows if it's ever made into a TV series
or a film or there's another medium that you
can share this message. But there's no better
time, I think, than the last few years, both
administrations, where you realize that you can't
just expect people in government buildings to
fix things for you, that you have to band together
and be part of the solution yourself. And with
the fire community specifically. You know, I've
buried so many people. That's why I started this
podcast, because I was sick of going to funerals.
It's that simple. And you look at the fact that
we were exposed to AFFF. I mean, I've lost count
how many times I was, you know, flowing that
foam. And we're wearing the gear. And even if
we clean the gear, we're working out in the gear.
A lot of us sort of take our job seriously. So
now your sweat is now absorbing. Even if it's
brand new and clean, it might be absorbing some
of the PFAS. And then you add sleep deprivation,
which is a huge thing that I discuss on here.
So you're breaking down the immune system so
the people that are being exposed to more carcinogens
than the average person has some of the most
diminished immune systems as well. So, you know,
it's such a powerful perspective. And I thank
you so much because the average person is now
at risk and has a higher risk now of some of
these diseases. But then the people that have
used these in their careers. There's a real understanding
now because we hear this PFAS being thrown around.
I don't think many of us, myself included, really
understand it. And now, you know, you spent an
hour to really explain it and educate us, not
only, you know, if you were in the uniform, how
exposed we are, but that your unborn child or
your grandmother in another state might equally
be as exposed through their drinking water. Yeah,
it's very concerning when you step back and look
at just the scope and scale of this. I don't
know if we've seen something that's got such
global impacts as this stuff. Because keep in
mind, it's in the blood of almost every person.
Babies are born pre -polluted with this. I mean,
it moves through the placenta from mother to
unborn child. So babies are born with these chemicals
already in their blood. And it's in all these
products. It's in our air, our water, our soil.
Stuff's being found in polar bears. I mean, it
moves globally through the air, through the rain.
So it's a massive issue. And when you stop and
think about it, you mentioned the immune impacts.
One of the most disturbing aspects of these chemicals
is, I mentioned the six diseases that were linked
back in 2012. Well, science. has continued to
roll on and additional studies have been done.
And some of the most troubling studies are those
that are finding that these chemicals can impair
our immune function. And you think about the
cascade of things that flow from that, you know,
from having an impaired immune system. And one
of the other aspects people are looking into,
in fact, the ATSDR CDC is looking at this right
now is. the potential ability of these chemicals
to not only impair our immune system, but decrease
the effectiveness of vaccines. And think about
that. Well, we're in a global pandemic. Chemicals
that have that potential impact that are in our
blood, in our air, in our water, in our soil.
Why aren't we talking about this? Why isn't this
a bigger issue? And so raising awareness is critically
important, that people understand what these
things are, what their impacts are, what the
scale and scope of it is, so that we can start
demanding that things be changed. And we're seeing
that impact. And again, as the firefighting community
is becoming aware of this and is demanding change
among suppliers. as community groups and others
are coming forward, we're seeing things finally
start to change. In fact, we saw a dramatic reflection
of that just last week when at the National PFAS
Conference in Wilmington, North Carolina, the
US EPA made their announcement dropping the drinking
water guidelines from 70 parts per trillion to
levels for PFOA and PFOS. that are right now
below the levels you can even detect in most
labs. So they're sending a very strong message
that looking at the science, there's a concern
about even detectable levels of these chemicals
in drinking water nationwide. So it's just really,
I think, a powerful indication of how serious
we should be taking the potential health impacts
from these chemicals at fairly low levels. You
know, so it's something that we really ought
to be talking about. And I'm very happy that,
you know, you've to be in a forum like this,
you know, reaching out, particularly with firefighting
community, because it's really distressing when
you learn about how many folks still really aren't
aware of this and still really don't understand.
why this is a concern and the types of things
that can be done, you know, to fairly easily
to at least minimize some of this exposure. You
know, I've heard some of the representatives
from the fire fighting. community talk about
not wearing this stuff, the gear, for example,
unless you're actually in the fire and not working
out in it or taking steps to clean in the firehouse
to get rid of this dust. Dr. Peasley at Notre
Dame has done some groundbreaking work to confirm
and analyze you know how much of this stuff might
be coming off in firehouses so anything that
we can do to help raise understanding and awareness
the better now as far as a deterrent you know
when when you look at for example the withdrawal
from afghanistan you know a lot of lives were
lost you know i mean probably billions i'm assuming
if not you know hundreds and hundreds of millions
of dollars worth of equipment was left there
and no accountability whatsoever. So there's
no deterrent for that happening again. With DuPont,
you hear so many times with these large organizations,
a financial hit may not even really register
because the profits far outweigh the fine that
they were given. How do we hold these people
accountable to truly set a precedent so it doesn't
happen again, so that there is some sort of justice
outside of a financial amount? Well, yeah, it's
a question I often hear, you know, how does this
happen? And why aren't we doing more to make
sure that the folks that did this are held responsible?
You know, in the one community where DuPont entered
into this settlement, the one where we had the
health studies and, you know, there have been
settlements there, you know, over 600, 700 million
for the folks impacted in that community. But
in other places across the country and across
the world where these chemicals are also in the
drinking water, we've now found them in these
other places or in people's blood. You know,
these companies are continuing to deny responsibility.
And unfortunately, it's the costs of dealing
with all this. Putting in water filtration systems,
trying to clean this out of the water, the health
impacts on people, that's being pushed onto all
of us. The innocent, exposed populations are
the ones being told, we have to prove that these
things are harmful. Unless and until we do, these
companies are denying responsibility. We saw
even the president get up recently and And it
notes that PFAS was a national issue that we
need to be addressing and allocating $10 billion
under the infrastructure bill to deal with PFAS,
which really, I think, emphasizes the national
significance and importance of this issue. But
the concern is that $10 billion, that's taxpayer
money. That's the money from us. Why are the
companies who did this not? paying for these
costs. That's where we ought to be getting the
money. We're involved in litigation all over
the country right now on behalf of people who
have been impacted by this, trying to make sure
that those costs are borne by the folks who did
this. Remember, these are not naturally occurring.
If you find this stuff in the water, in the soil,
in your blood, we know where it came from. We
know who created them. They're like fingerprints
back to these companies. And it'd be pretty easy
to know who's responsible here. But that's a
battle that wages, unfortunately, across the
country and across the world at present to make
sure that the people who actually caused this
problem and knew about this decades ago are the
ones who pay for it, not us. Absolutely. Well,
I want to get some closing questions, but one
more area just before we do. You mentioned a
new lawsuit that is literally looking far wider
than that West Virginian community and is kind
of spearheaded by a firefighter this time. So
talk to me about that case. Yeah, well, you know,
as we started to realize that as PFOA and PFOS
were being phased out. We saw all these additional
PFAS coming out into the world, things like with
a couple fewer carbons, C6s like Gen X or C4,
or we saw things with more carbons, C9s, C10s.
As those came out and as some of those start
getting found in the water, like Gen X in the
water of hundreds of thousands of people in North
Carolina, what we heard the company say was,
all the science, that was all done on PFOA. That
science panel you set up, that was on PFOA. You
don't have any evidence showing these other ones
cause harm. And now you, the exposed people,
it's your burden to show that they're harmful.
Meanwhile, the companies that are making them,
pumping them out, aren't doing those studies,
and they're not providing the funding necessary
to do those studies. And they're saying, well,
it takes tens of thousands of people to do a
study big enough to show cancer. And unless you've
done that, you don't have enough. The study's
not big enough. You can't draw conclusions. So
what we tried to do is come up with a way to
say, look, the science is in on PFOA at a minimum,
showing serious health impacts. But we also know
that PFOA in our blood is mixing with these other
PFAS now. And if you, if the companies making
those are going to say that there's not enough
data out there to tell us what they're doing
when they mix in our blood, you should be paying
the independent scientists. to do whatever studies
are necessary, not tell us we have to do it and
pay for it. So I've filed a case where we are
seeking to have a court essentially empower a
new scientific panel to look at this mix of PFOA
and other PFAS in our blood. And we're seeking
to bring it on behalf of anyone who's got these
chemicals in their blood across the United States
and to have the court empower. these scientists
to do whatever studies testing are necessary
to tell us what they're doing to us and to have
the companies have to fund those studies. And
so we were fortunate to have the court allow
us to proceed as a class action at this point
on behalf of everybody subject to Ohio laws.
And it's going to be subject to further briefing
to figure out exactly how many millions of people
are in that class. We're hoping that that will
allow us to move forward and get the science
confirmed on these other PFAS as well. And as
you indicated, our lead plaintiff is an Ohio
firefighter. So just circling around. The ethical
side, you started your career working with these
corporations. And as we discussed, black and
white, there was a gray area of mainly well -intentioned
people trying to move forward in industry. What
is so different about the business culture in
DuPont that created this complete lack of ethics
when you work with companies that are seemingly
polar opposite to this? That's a great question,
but one that I think has a very complicated answer.
There are so many different factors that led
to how we got here and why these decisions were
made, who made those decisions. Some of it depends
on, frankly, the way the company was structured,
how their corporate office… interacted with their
different business units and the flow of information
and the chain of command and how the scientists
and lawyers were separate from the business people.
In fact, there have been papers that have been
written recently, one in particular by Zingales
that looked at how does a decision like this
happen? What makes it, quote, economically rational
for a company to do what DuPont did? Because
of the fact that even once they're caught and
even after they have to pay penalties and settlements
and hundreds of millions, does that still end
up being an economically rational decision based
on the amount of profit that was made in the
meantime? And what can be done to change that?
So those types of decisions aren't made going
forward. So it's an incredibly complex problem
that led to this outcome. Well, I thank you so
much for your perspective and kind of walking
us through this. If I could just throw a few
closing questions at you before I let you go.
The first thing I want to make sure everyone
knows, so your book is Exposure. So firstly,
tell everyone where they can find that. It's
published by Simon & Schuster, Atria Books. It's
available on Amazon, most major booksellers online.
So yeah, it's a hard copy and paperback. And
there's an audio version where Mark Ruffalo reads
the first chapter and then Jeremy Bob does the
narration for the rest. Beautiful. So the first
of the closing questions, are there any other
books that you love to recommend? It can be related
to our discussion or completely unrelated. Oh,
you know, there's, I'm trying to remember the
name now, but there was a book, an earlier book
by Callie Lyons back in the early 2000s. I think
the titled C8, I don't remember what the subtitle
is, but kind of looks at some of this history
as well. Gosh, I'm drawing a blank. There are
a couple of other books as well. It'll come to
me. I'm just not remembering the names right
now. No problem at all. So the same question
with the film. So again, Dark Waters was the
dramatized version with Mark Ruffalo. The documentary
was The Devil We Know. I think those two complement
each other so well. So what about other films
and or documentaries that you love personally?
Yeah. There was an early documentary that was
actually done by Swedish filmmakers back in 2012
called The Toxic Compromise that you may still
be able to find maybe on YouTube. It's an English
subtitle. So you can, you know, it's looking
at basically from the perspective of finding
these chemicals in a newborn baby in Sweden,
you know, and trying to explain where they came
from and how that happened. There are, I think,
some other documentaries that are in the works
as we speak. So hopefully there'll be even more
stories like what, you know, you'll be able to
see what's really happening in these communities.
I think that was the really powerful part of
what you see in The Devil We Know and in Dark
Waters is you get to see how something like this
impacts real people in real communities. And
so there are other efforts underway, I know,
to document similar things in other communities
that are experiencing the same problem and to
see what really happens, what happens to real
families and real communities dealing with this.
Yeah, I think that's what I really got from it.
When it is in print, for example, then you're
looking at statistics, you're looking at numbers,
you're looking at court cases. But what really
jumps out from the films is the human pain and
suffering. And I'm sure if you looked at a documentary
on Chernobyl and the surrounding areas, you'd
probably see a similar kind of thing. But the
impact on Bucky, for example, and his family
and being a child growing up initially homeschooled
and then having to go to school for the first
time. And you've got your facial symmetry is
different than the children that you share in
a classroom. with and there's the you know the
bullying element and some of the the pain from
the procedures he's goes through this is one
child one unborn child and the ripple effect
of you know some of these economic decisions
on so much pain suffering physically and mentally
of the entire community that is a story i think
that's told so well in both of the two films
that you were a part of Yeah. And it was really
an honor to be able to participate in those and
to be able to help bring those stories out. Because
I think it's been powerful for people to see
that, wait a minute, this isn't just happening
to these people in West Virginia. And to realize
this is in all of us. These things are impacting
all of us. We share a common problem here absolutely
all right well then the next question is there
a person that you recommend to come on this podcast
as a guest to speak to the first responders military
and associated professions of the world oh and
unless you've already had them i would highly
recommend Dr. Graham Peasley at Notre Dame, who's
been doing some of the research on looking at
these materials from different like turnout gear
and that kind of, there's so many folks within
the fire community. I can provide you a list.
Beautiful. Thank you so much. Yeah, obviously,
Jim himself is a huge advocate and I've had him
on the show and I've been on his as well. But
as a firefighter that's gone through cancer and
survived, I mean, it's obviously something he's
very passionate about. But yeah, I mean, he sounds
amazing as well. Yeah, Diane Cotter and her husband,
Paul, have been very outspoken advocates on helping
raise awareness of these issues within the firefighting
community. If you haven't spoken to them, they
have a powerful story. Brilliant. Thank you.
Yeah, I haven't had either of them yet, so I
will work on both of those. I appreciate the
recommendation. So the last question before I
make sure everyone knows where to find you if
they want to reach out, what do you do to decompress?
Well, I've got my three boys. We like to watch
movies. We like to just basically, I even mentioned
this in the book, watching cartoons is visually
sort of tune out and be outside doing anything
outside in the yard, going for walks, anything
like that, just to tune the brain off for a while.
In the film, you have that scene where you have
the TIA. Again, I'm assuming that stress was
a huge element. Once you got that decision, were
you able, you personally, to step back a little
bit and disconnect after having that fight and
that pressure of seven years with no results?
I wish I could say that was the case, but I mean,
I've... Never really, never really kind of figured
out what was going on there. You know, we've
been able to keep things under control. But just
I've tried not to let that, you know, distract
from what needs to be done and moved forward.
Just there are things you can't control and things
you can. And that's one of the things I just,
you know, figuring out what was going on. Not
something I could control at that point. Brilliant.
Well, I'm glad that you're doing well now. Well,
I just want to thank you so much. For people
listening, I'm sure there's a lot that want to
reach out. Where are the best places online to
learn more about you or reach out to you? You
can always reach me through all my contact information
is posted on my law firm website. taftlaw .com,
T -A -F -T -L -A -W .com. You know, my phone,
email, all of that, and happy to chat with folks.
So, looking forward to it. Well, Rob, I just
want to say thank you. I mean, Jim told me about
you a long time ago. We went back and forth for
a bit. Having, like I said, watched the film,
watched the documentary, listened to interviews
that you've been on with other people. I was
so moved by the story. I mean, as I mentioned,
the pain and suffering element. I mean, how can
you not be moved by that? But to hear someone
who picked up the torch and against all odds
kept fighting, I mean, it's such an inspirational
story. And as you mentioned, it literally, you
know. microorganismly, if that's a word and it's
not, you know, affects every single one of us
listening at the moment. So I just want to thank
you so much for the work that you've done and
for being so generous and coming on the podcast
today. Well, thanks so much. It was a pleasure
being here. Thank you.