Pat Elder addresses an international conference in Dublin
on NATO’s contamination of Europe’s rivers in 2019.
Pat Elder is internationally recognized for his work on per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances, (PFAS). He has written more than 300 articles on this issue. See www.militarypoisons.org Pat has been focused on the understudied role of PFAS exposure from food since 2018. Pat believes there is too much emphasis on PFAS levels in drinking water, with too limited a focus on PFAS exposure from food, particularly seafood.
Pat's frightening argument is summed up in this piece about the fish in the Potomac River that are poisoned by the Joint Base Andrews.
Elder and his associates with Military Poisons have tested surface waters flowing from 40 military bases and have reported dangerous levels of the toxins in the rivers. Pat has tested river water, seawater, crabs, oysters, and fish and found levels of the cancer-causing compounds that are millions of times greater than levels allowed in drinking water.
Pat argues that the DOD dictates environmental policy in the United States to avert staggering financial liability for its environmental crimes.
During his presentation to the Ecology Network Pat will address the history of PFAS and identify the ways the military and industry use and discard the deadly carcinogens while legislative, executive, and judicial routes of redress are largely shut down.
For instance, see this article from Michigan in 2019: Air Force refuses to follow Michigan PFAS law.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/01/air-force-refuses-to-follow-michigan-pfas-law.html
The Air Force reserves the right to poison us in the name of national security.
We must understand the "Catch-22" inherent in the government’s logic and actions:
US military says it is immune to dozens of PFAS lawsuits
February 27, 2024
“The government said it was immune to the lawsuits under a provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act that protects it from tort liability for the discretionary acts of government employees. That law allows plaintiffs to sue the U.S. government for damages only if the government violates specific, mandatory policies.
In its motions to dismiss, the government said the plaintiffs have not identified specific PFAS handling regulations or restrictions that were violated, and that military policy actually encouraged the use of the firefighting foams that contained PFAS for decades since it is very effective at extinguishing jet fuel fires.”
Do you like this page?