December, 09 2024, 11:43am EDT

EPA finalizes ban on all uses of notorious cancer-causing solvent TCE
The Biden Environmental Protection Agency today prohibited all uses of the toxic solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE. The rule is a crucial victory in efforts to tackle health harms, like cancer, that TCE exposure can cause.
The agency also banned all consumer uses of the chemical perchloroethylene, or perc, which is used for dry cleaning and automotive care products. Perc has been linked to health harms, including damage to the kidneys, liver and the immune system.
“U.S. communities large and small have tap water with potentially harmful levels of TCE, and they may not be aware of this risk,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group.
TCE is a volatile organic compound primarily used in commercial and industrial processes, including as a solvent for industrial cleaning and degreasing. More than 80 percent of TCE is used to manufacture refrigerants. The widespread industrial use of TCE has resulted in significant environmental releases, contaminating drinking water supplies.
“People can be exposed to this toxic solvent at home not just by drinking TCE-contaminated water but also by inhaling it when bathing and washing dishes. The EPA’s final rule will help to finally end most uses of this dangerous chemical,” added Stoiber.
In addition to being linked to cancer, TCE can cause developmental and reproductive harms. These risks are particularly high for workers in settings where the chemical is used. But people can be exposed at TCE-contaminated sites, as well as through drinking water and other water uses at home.
TCE contamination is a problem affecting community water systems serving at least 19 million people across the U.S., EWG has found.
“The Biden EPA should be applauded for taking another important step forward in protecting the health of workers and consumers from the risks of TCE,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.
In 2023, the agency released its proposed version of the ban and invited public feedback on it. In July the EPA then sent the final version of the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for mandatory pre-publication review. Completing this review cleared the way for the final rule.
TCE’s toxic history
TCE has a notorious reputation and an infamous history. Many people learned about the risks of exposure to this chemical following the release of the 1995 blockbuster book and film “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. Together they tell the true story of a legal fight over companies contaminating an aquifer with TCE, harming the health of people living nearby.
The chemical is found in air, groundwater and soil near industrial facilities, hazardous waste sites and other locations where it was once used. People are exposed to TCE by breathing in its vapors or skin contact with it or with contaminated soil or water.
Americans concerned about the possibility of the chemical in their own drinking water can review EWG’s interactive map of TCE contamination, which is based on data from state drinking water agencies’ water system tests between 2017 and 2019. Or they can simply enter their ZIP code in EWG’s Tap Water Database.
People with TCE-contaminated drinking water can use a carbon-based filter to eliminate it, but costs vary, and some homes may need an expensive whole-house filter. Households relying on private well water should consider testing the water for contaminants to see whether it must be treated.
“Filtering water can often be a way for concerned families to reduce or remove TCE in their drinking water,” said Stoiber. “But people should not have to take on the costs of addressing years of pollution caused by industry.”
Pregnant people, infants and young children are among those most at risk from the dangers of TCE, especially decreased immune function. But the chemical has harmed people throughout the U.S., including servicemembers and their families who drank contaminated water at the military bases where they lived and worked. Former Marines have seen family members battle cancer – in some cases fatal – due to TCE exposure.
Camp Lejeune crisis
One of the worst TCE contamination cases on record in the U.S. is at North Carolina’s Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The solvent, and other chemicals, contaminated the base’s drinking water for decades, increasing cancer risks for civilian and military personnel. The pollution wrecked lives with health harms and even deaths.
Retired Marine Corps Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger, who was stationed for many years at the base, lost his daughter Janey, in 1985, at the age of nine from leukemia after she was exposed to toxic chemicals while living there.
Ensminger since then has been an outspoken critic of the federal government’s slow response to contamination of drinking water sources with industrial chemicals, including TCE and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS.
His campaigning resulted in Congress passing the Janey Ensminger Act, which former President Barack Obama signed in 2012. The law offers affected veterans and family members extended health care and medical services for disorders that may have been caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in Camp Lejeune drinking water.
Mike Partain, a son and grandson of Marine officers, was born at Camp Lejeune. He was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 at the age of 39. Along with Ensminger, he has for years strongly criticized the federal government’s response to the TCE crisis at the base. He has also condemned its inadequate support for servicemembers and their families harmed by exposure to the chemical and other substances throughout the U.S.
In a statement, Ensminger said, “Mike and I welcome this ban on TCE by the EPA. This is proof that our fight for justice at Camp Lejeune was not in vain.”
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


