L.A. County soil testing near Eaton, Palisades fires shows significant contamination

Los Angeles Times - Apr 11th, 2025

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has disclosed preliminary soil test results following the Eaton and Palisades fires, revealing concerning lead levels in areas downwind of the Eaton burn zone. Roux Associates conducted tests on 780 properties, finding that up to 80% of samples in certain areas exceeded the state health lead standard. Meanwhile, the Palisades area showed isolated "hot spots" of contamination, including arsenic. The findings were discussed in a virtual community meeting, providing the first insights into the environmental impact of the January firestorm.

The context of these findings is significant as they highlight potential health risks for returning residents and construction workers, particularly concerning lead, which poses severe health threats. The results underscore a broader concern about the absence of federal testing, as the Federal Emergency Management Agency has opted not to conduct the typical soil testing protocols post-fire. This decision has drawn criticism from local and state officials, who stress the importance of identifying and addressing contaminants to protect public health and the environment. The county is offering free lead blood-level screenings for those affected and encourages consulting environmental professionals for property evaluations.

Eaton Fire Palisades Fire Federal Emergency Management Agency Los Angeles County Department Of Public Health Soil Contamination Lead Levels Roux Associates Toxic Substances

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a thorough and timely examination of soil contamination in areas affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires, focusing on the health risks associated with elevated lead levels. It effectively uses expert quotes and detailed findings to convey the seriousness of the situation, making it highly relevant to public health and safety concerns. However, the article could enhance its accuracy and transparency by including more specific data and diverse perspectives, such as those from affected residents or independent experts. While the article maintains a neutral tone and presents a balanced view of the issues, it could further engage readers by incorporating personal stories and exploring differing viewpoints on the federal response. Overall, the article is a well-structured and informative piece that raises important questions about environmental safety and disaster response, with the potential to influence public opinion and policy.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed report on the preliminary results of soil testing in areas affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires, with a focus on lead contamination. The factual claims regarding the levels of lead and other contaminants like arsenic are consistent with the figures typically released in environmental health reports. The statement that up to 80% of soil samples downwind of the Eaton fire exceeded the state health standard for lead is a precise figure that aligns with typical environmental assessments. However, the article could improve by providing more specific data points or referencing the exact sources of these figures for enhanced verifiability. Additionally, while the article mentions federal and state responses, it lacks direct quotes or data from official reports, which would strengthen its accuracy.

Balance

The article presents a fairly balanced view of the situation by discussing both the elevated lead levels in the Eaton fire area and the isolated contamination spots in the Palisades. It includes perspectives from both the testing firm and public health officials, which provides a comprehensive view of the issue. However, the article could benefit from including more perspectives, such as those from affected residents or environmental advocacy groups, to provide a fuller picture of the community impact and response.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the findings of the soil testing and the potential health risks associated with lead contamination. The use of quotes from experts such as Adam Love and Nichole Quick helps to clarify complex scientific information. However, the article could improve by providing a clearer explanation of technical terms, such as 'exceedance of screening levels,' to ensure that all readers can fully understand the implications of the findings.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources such as Roux Associates, a private testing firm, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, which are authoritative sources for environmental health data. However, the article does not provide direct links to the original reports or data, which would enhance the credibility and allow readers to verify the information independently. Including more diverse sources, such as independent environmental scientists or local government officials, could also improve the depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article explains the methodology of the soil testing, including the number of samples and the timeframe of the study. However, it lacks detailed information on the specific locations of the samples and the exact levels of contaminants found, which would provide greater transparency. Additionally, while the article mentions the involvement of federal and state agencies, it does not fully disclose the reasons behind FEMA's decision not to conduct thorough soil testing, which could be a significant factor in understanding the overall situation.