There’s been a lot written about the wildfires that devastated Los Angeles earlier this year, from the way that locals are rebuilding in their wake to the effect of tariffs on that process. But there’s another big question looming over the proceedings, and it’s something that could affect both people building new construction and anyone whose job or recreational activities take them to places affected by the fires: namely, were there any adverse environmental effects?
Writing at the Los Angeles Times, Tony Briscoe, Noah Haggerty and Hayley Smith chronicled the results of soil testing that the Times paid for in the absence of state or federal funding for the same process. The process involved collecting soil samples from locations across the city and then bringing them to BSK Associates, a company that handled similar tests for governmental agencies in the wake of previous wildfires.
The results? In two locations, the soil samples turned up “toxic heavy metals in excess of California standards for residential properties.” One of those locations also had alarming high levels of lead on the premises as well. Even more alarming is that those two homes had been treated after the fires by the Army Corps of Engineers. Toxic substances such as arsenic also showed up in samples from homes that lacked governmental intervention.
Experts Warn of Toxic Plant’s Return After Wildfires
The poodle-dog bush can irritate your skinOne elected representative, Rep. Laura Friedman, stressed the consequences of these findings. “It’s going to be really hard for a lot of these folks to rebuild” Friedman told the Times. “We’ve got a lot of folks, particularly near the Eaton fire, who were underinsured or uninsured.” And as the Times‘ reporting pointed out, with wildfires becoming more prevalent across the country, the issues raised by this investigation are unlikely to go away.
More Like This
This article was featured in the InsideHook newsletter. Sign up now.
