AFFF firms have been supplying major airports nationwide with firefighting foam for decades. But these substances were not without a secret threat.
A new study explicitly links the startling surge in liver cancer cases to exposure to contaminated water around airports. The contamination is attributed to PFAS chemicals found in AFFF foam.
A class action lawsuit claims that corporations either knew or should have known about these carcinogenic hazards. Despite this, they allegedly chose not to notify the public. Furthermore, they failed to switch to safer alternatives. These businesses now face a huge liability that could reach billions as the science develops.
We will look at the most recent research on the effects of AFFF exposure on health in this article.
History of AFFF
Aqueous film-forming foam was developed in the 1960s by United States Naval Research Laboratory researchers as an effective method for extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Due to its low viscosity and rapid spreading properties, AFFF proved highly effective during testing.
As a result, the U.S. government began adopting AFFF more widely in the 1970s. They started using this foam at Department of Defense facilities, military bases, and installations where liquid fuel fires posed a risk.
Shortly after, its use expanded to airports across the United States. Local fire departments also began using AFFF due to its effectiveness. Its performance in suppressing petroleum and aviation fuel fires made it a preferred choice in these areas.
As per NFSA, today, the U.S. military remains the largest consumer of firefighting foams, estimated to comprise around 75% of the market. The remaining portion of the market consists of municipal fire departments and petroleum refineries.
In military applications, AFFF demonstrated great value for the U.S. Navy in particular. Onboard aircraft carriers and ships, where liquid fuel or crashes could ignite fires, AFFF allowed emergency responders to suppress blazes quickly. Its ability to rapidly form an aqueous film over spilled fuel and vapors helped extinguish fires quickly. This allowed medical crews faster access to aid injured personnel.
Health Concerns Associated with AFFF Exposure
The likelihood of developing health problems from PFAS exposure varies based on frequency, duration, and intensity of exposure. Individuals with prolonged exposure face the highest risk, though not everyone exposed will experience adverse effects.
Various organizations, including research institutions, the EPA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, have associated AFFF chemicals with various health conditions.
As per Consumer Notice, these include respiratory issues, developmental changes in fetuses and children, immune system alterations, cholesterol abnormalities, and reproductive challenges. Additionally, there is an increased cancer risk (particularly testicular and kidney), liver dysfunction, pregnancy complications, thyroid disorders, and inflammatory bowel conditions.
A 2023 study involving over 1,000 Air Force personnel suggests a potential link between exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
It indicates an elevated risk of testicular cancer among those exposed. This research, conducted by National Institutes of Health scientists, contributes to the growing body of evidence examining PFAS exposure and its potential health consequences. The study specifically focused on PFAS in AFFF used at military installations. It analyzed long-term PFAS exposure among Air Force personnel who regularly worked with this chemical.
These research findings may lend additional support to the growing number of legal actions brought by military veterans. These lawsuits claim that exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam caused health issues and allege that manufacturers concealed known health risks.
Currently, numerous lawsuits are pending against major PFAS manufacturers such as 3M and DuPont, as well as other companies. The plaintiffs allege that these companies distributed harmful PFAS throughout the environment despite being aware of potential health hazards.
Both civilian and military firefighters face the highest risk of developing health complications from AFFF and PFAS exposure. This risk is particularly elevated in cases where workplaces fail to provide the PPE recommended by the United States Fire Administration for firefighters. Many of these claims are now part of the broader firefighter foam lawsuit. This lawsuit focuses on the dangers linked to exposure to firefighting foams. Specifically, it addresses the harmful effects of foams containing PFAS.
Regarding MDL 2873, the introductory information on its webpage states that these cases involve various claims related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to TorHoerman Law, plaintiffs generally assert that AFFF containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) contaminated groundwater. These chemicals, which are types of PFAS, were used in fire suppression at certain locations. These sites include military bases, airports, and other industrial areas where AFFFs were employed to extinguish liquid fuel fires.
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuit Filed over Liver Cancer
A California couple has filed a product liability lawsuit against manufacturers of AFFF. The couple allege that the husband’s liver cancer was caused by drinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals from the foam.
Their complaint alleges that PFAS used extensively on nearby military bases and airports polluted their local water supply. As per AboutLawsuits.com, scientific research links various health issues to PFAS exposure, including various cancers.
The husband was diagnosed with liver cancer in 2016 after years of consuming local tap water. Neither he nor his doctors were aware of substantial PFAS contamination levels despite undergoing chemotherapy and a liver transplant. The lawsuit claims the husband still faces ongoing health risks due to past exposure to contaminated drinking water.
The complaint cites defective product design, failure to warn, negligence, and other claims. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages. This case will be consolidated with thousands of similar AFFF injury and contamination lawsuits before a federal multidistrict litigation court.
Early bellwether trials in these consolidated cases are scheduled for 2025 and aim to help quantify liability and damages. While a previous $12.5 billion AFFF settlement addressed water providers’ claims, individual injury lawsuits have yet to be resolved through trial or settlement.
As science continues clarifying health risks, these legal proceedings could significantly impact victims and accountability for PFAS pollution. Continued monitoring is warranted as justice is pursued for communities affected by this contaminant of emerging concern.
FAQs
1. What cancers are potentially associated with firefighting?
A: Research shows firefighters may have an elevated risk of certain cancers compared to the general population. Studies have found higher risks of esophageal cancer (62% increase in risk and 39% higher risk of death) and leukemia (14% increased risk). Cancer is a serious occupational hazard firefighters face.
2.How frequently should firefighters undergo cancer screening?
A: Annual cancer screening is recommended for firefighters to support early detection. Non-invasive tests like fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) examine stool samples for hidden blood, which can be an early indicator of certain types of cancer. These tests allow for screening without significant risk or inconvenience. Finding potential cancers early increases the chances of successful treatment. Many departments provide no-cost annual screenings to support firefighter health and safety.
3.What is the process for filing an AFFF lawsuit?
A: The first step involves consulting a lawyer experienced in product liability cases involving firefighting foams. They can advise on gathering evidence like medical records and details of toxicant exposures. The lawyer then works to identify responsible manufacturers and form a legal claim. Negotiations may follow to achieve an acceptable settlement without going to trial.
This troubling case highlights the human toll of profiting from harmful products without adequate responsibility or transparency. While chemicals enable important technologies, justice demands that risks are minimized, not concealed.
As scientific scrutiny grows around PFAS, we must ensure victims receive due support – and that protective policies prioritize people over profits going forward. Ultimately, this story challenges us to reflect on whose health we truly value in an economy that so often disregards externalized costs. Meaningful change will require placing humanity above hollow wealth and short-term gains.
