This op-ed is for a sub-section of the general readership.

Some of you are well aware addiction is the most consuming disease that there is. It effects the body, mind and spirit of the person suffering from the addiction. That said, it goes beyond that as well. It impacts family members, close friends and even communities of those struck by it. 

There’s no question the person smoking, snorting, injecting or otherwise consuming is doing harm to themselves –– but imagine being a person who must watch this happen. This is not a pretty thing to witness. Seeing a functional, independent and spirited person “voluntarily” give away their vitality is heartbreaking in a way that, say a stroke or cancer –– while also quite sad, falls short of. 

This is not a quick process either, addicted persons can take years off their lives, but it also takes years to do so. If you have ever seen the website, Faces of Meth (I won’t endorse it here, since it is quite graphic), you know the damage done is pervasive. 

Again, imagine being a front row witness to this. Seeing it happen over time can leave you feeling depleted. That is to say nothing if you are the one who has to argue with them to stop, or the person who’s possessions they’ve stolen to sell. 

Even at college age, most of you have probably heard about Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. These are 12 step, free support groups that meet in various community settings, basically daily across any given major city. I personally believe in the power of these groups because I have seen people get better through this support network. Remember: isolation is the poison that allows this disease to keep raging. 

That word – isolation – brings me to my next point.

What about those friends and family who are deeply impacted by an addicted person?

Isn’t it also quite psychologically and emotionally draining to witness and have conflict with someone you love?

You can see the addicted person act out of a sense of being possessed, as if it’s someone other than them operating their words and bodies. This experience is alien, hopefully, to most of you. However, I know there is a sub-population among University of Minnesota students who have had this experience and may not even know how to share it. Imagine a parent, a sibling or best friend in this situation, and you feel totally helpless.

You can’t – unless you’ve gone through it. 

So again, what about these caretakers? Luckily, for almost as long as there has been AA and NA, there have been sister organizations that focus on the close loved ones of these addicted persons. They are called Al-Anon and Nar-Anon, respectively.

For the most part, they look and feel like AA/NA meetings, but the focus is on ‘How do I help myself, so I can help the affected person?’ 

These ‘-Anon’ members are often overlooked because they are not the ones consuming the substance and/or directly causing the physical or social damage that comes with consuming. They can almost more easily feel isolated than the addicted loved one because that other person has the blatant attention on them, while they are left on the side to pick up the pieces time and again. 

Thankfully, Boynton Health has been proactive about this, launching their Recovery on Campus service for those affected directly or indirectly by Substance Use Disorder.

John Watson famously said, “Be kind, everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

I say all this to tell the Al-Anon/Nar-Anon persons on campus what I hope you already know: you’re not alone. Most people with social circles not impacted (as far as they may think) by addiction should know that those around you impacted are impacted more deeply than they could feasibly explain in just one conversation. 

It’s a little early, but September will be National Recovery Month. I encourage anyone who is directly or indirectly impacted by addiction to stand tall and celebrate this year and those of you who are not to be an ally. I shared my opinion at the beginning of this piece, this is the worst disease that society has to deal with, but I think fighting it will bring out the best in us.

Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health. 

It has been over a month since some of Minnesota’s best and brightest graduated from our institution. Some of them have already found jobs and are transitioning to life after college. Others are getting there by securing internships, and others still are doing important services on campus while they take summer coursework.

I’d like to talk about something that is often overlooked about “the real world” and how it might impact your working life. Substance Use Disorder, the official diagnosis by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for any form of substance addiction, has been in the news quite a bit over the past half-decade or so.

I won’t list off how many people a year are injured or die, from opioids, cocaine, heroin or any number of new synthetic drugs.

I won’t get into legislation that is changing the landscape of what is legal or not.

I’m sure better writers, journalists and scientists than I, have informed you already. However, the workplace can be a good place to help with treatment.

Incidentally, all of this applies to a college setting too. If you replace “workplace” with “fraternity/sorority,” “intramural/D1 sports club” or “club” you can start practicing identifying and intervening, which is a valuable life skill that doesn’t get taught enough. 

Occupational health hazards include substance-associated risks that need to be detected and prevented as early as possible.

As occupational and environmental physicians, we routinely screen persons for drug use. We recognize the importance of behavioral health when it comes to workplace satisfaction and growth.

Even those who are not struggling with issues of addiction can have a myriad of health problems that could be associated with their workplace. This is especially true with young people such as yourselves, many of whom are going to be in your first career workplace. 

The particular population of SUD employees is especially vulnerable to workplace injuries. These patients and workers are present in great amounts in our society. As physicians, we need to treat these individuals based on their symptoms as well as their social determinants of health.

In my field, we do not view the workplace as entirely distinct from the clinic. The blurring of that line offers a unique avenue for the addressing and treatment of issues surrounding dependence. Addiction is often not cured, but must be continuously managed.

It would be a mistake to not utilize the workplace to attempt structured interventions. In the context of routine, purpose and life satisfaction, where someone works is a great place to monitor their well being.

The sense of community vital to treating problems of dependence usually includes family and friends. Occupation is another such facet as it provides a sense of belonging as well as a means to focus energy and interest. There is an element of identity too, that should not be overlooked.

This ought to be addressed when treating substance use disorder at the individual level. Furthermore, it should be addressed when it comes to health policy. 

Legislative efforts in regards to providing resources for addicted individuals would improve efficiency if workplace measures were taken.

Consider those ravaged by the most devastating illness in our society. The workplace is an oft-overlooked setting to identify and possibly treat substance use disorder and its associated conditions.

Since I’m quickly approaching my word count for this piece, I’ll just leave you something to Google on your own, and you can probably do it faster than me, you dang Gen-Zers.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has already come up with such an idea, they call it Total Worker Health® (TWH). TWH aims to identify programs, policies and practices that will protect US workers on the job and make work a healthful place, that could then reverse directions and make the rest of their lives healthier, and hopefully better.

I say this just to say, this is a potential treatment/management option that people close to the problem of addiction have thought about already. It’s my hope that by sharing it with you, it might have more awareness and momentum in society.

Addiction is a large and frightening problem in America and it’s something you’ll inherit as you enter the workforce. We do not have the solution, but there are pieces that look promising.

If you take nothing else away from my writing, it’s that utilizing the workplace as a place to screen, intervene and send for treatment, those affected by addiction should be considered.   

 Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health.

Cadmium is…. 

Much can be said in that blank space. Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that cadmium is serious. It is a highly toxic, highly used industrial chemical that has been strongly associated with the development of lung cancer in humans.

Additionally, it has been more weakly associated with a number of other cancers, including kidney, breast, pancreas and prostate. It is believed to be so potent because of its long half-life (25-30 years)

Cadmium is a natural element found in the earth’s crust, that is flammable, odorless and acutely, as well as chronically, toxic. The greatest concern with cadmium, in addition to its ability to cause disease, is its widespread use. The primary exposure route is inhalation and is usually occupational, via smelting, electroplating, alloy synthesis and fertilizer production, as well as smoking. 

It is rated as International Agency for Research on Cancer Group 1, meaning it is definitively carcinogenic in humans. That said, it seems to be a necessary evil in our 21st century world.

Cadmium has been found to lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary fibrosis. Local accumulation of cadmium in the lungs via inhalation is thought to be important in the development of eventual lung cancer, though also shorter term lung disease as well, such as pneumonia and emphysema. Immune cell dysregulation has been thought to contribute to cadmium associated lung disease, too.

Some degree of cadmium adaptation is believed to be possible, with acute higher doses of exposure leading to swift cellular death, while adaptation to lower, chronic doses may allow the cell sufficient mutation without cell death to propagate malignant processes.

Ironically, this dual action can help explain both cadmium’s non-neoplastic disease profile, as well as the malignant.

One 2015 meta-analysis of over 20,000 people found a significant correlation between life time lung cancer risk and urinary cadmium levels. Kidneys are particularly vulnerable organs to cadmium, and accumulation over time is a critical issue. Urinary cadmium can be reliably used as a proxy biomarker for long term exposure due to relatively slow clearance. This can be further complicated by renal pathology, or even sub-optimal glomerular filtration rate that accompanies aging.

Since renal disease is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, it can be assumed that a sizeable portion of any research, or occupational, cohort will have a renal system not suited for healthy cadmium clearance.

As technology advances and research tools follow, differing perspectives on the same problem can be made apparent or reinforced. A 2014 study exposed mice to cadmium oxide nanoparticles. This led to the same sort of lung inflammation seen previously in less refined ways.

OSHA has a permissible exposure limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter for an eight hour time weighted exposure, for cadmium. NIOSH set a recommended exposure limit for 9 micrograms/cubic meter for a 10 hour workday (for up to a 40 hour workweek). Alternatively, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), set its own threshold value limit on cadmium, both as a respirable fraction (2 micrograms/cubic meter) as well as total particular mixture (10 micrograms/cubic meter).

All this to say the government is trying to keep us safe from cadmium’s risks and we should embrace that!

Cadmium possesses a foundational mechanism of action that allows it to detrimentally impact a variety of human and animal organs. In a context of an abnormally long half life, cadmium is uniquely toxic.

Without proper elimination or substitution measures to control for cadmium use, administrative controls are the most valuable means by which to reduce total exposure by occupationally vulnerable persons. Partnering with government agencies will be key in promoting a fairer and safer world in which we must accept and embrace cadmium’s role. 

Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health.

Have you ever heard of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry? If not, the name tells you a lot. It is the government agency that determines the health risks of being exposed to harmful substances. They have a National Priority List that actually ranks the most harmful substances. Any guess what number one is?

If you read the title, you know, Arsenic! We’ve all seen movies or heard jokes about someone slipping this nasty stuff into someone’s food to get them “out of the picture,” but what exactly is it and what does it do?

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element whose name comes from the Latin word arsenicium, meaning masculine. Mining by the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese made knowledge of its poisonous form well known, even thousands of years ago. Typically obtained from the mineral arsenopyrite, it’s used in bronzing, fires, bullet making, transistors and other electronics. PubChem classifies arsenic as an acute toxicant and an environmental hazard, and the International Agency for Cancer Research labels it as Group 1, or carcinogenic to humans. Even before something long term like cancer happens, it can be acutely problematic by causing gastrointestinal symptoms, skin discoloration, neurological dysfunction and even developmental problems in kids.

Arsenic is specifically concerning to humans because it has been associated with lung, bladder and kidney cancers. A not-so-fun fact that I have to know for my medical boards: What is the number one cause of squamous cell skin cancer over areas that were NOT sun exposed? The title once again tells us the answer!

What is important to remember is that everything harmful I have just said about arsenic is from it inorganic forms, such as arsenate and arsenite. Organic arsenics are found naturally in seafood and the soil, and while they don’t cause any harm, they also have no nutritional value.

Without getting into too many nitty gritty details, inorganic arsenic poisons people by binding to sulfhydryl and thiol groups on proteins throughout the body. This makes the proteins stop working, and important processes such as cellular respiration (energy production and metabolism) can’t be done. It can also lead to hemolysis (red blood cells bursting).

Inorganic arsenic can be ingested, and while drinking water contamination has been reported in Bangladesh, India, Taiwan and Mexico, we don’t have to look far from home to see some of its effects on populations.

The Strong Heart Family Study, which is “the largest epidemiologic study of cardiovascular disease in American Indians” has produced several publications suggesting that arsenic in Indigenous communities has been linked to greater rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overall cardiovascular mortality, overall cancer mortality and all-cause mortality.

This is especially concerning when you pair this with the fact that the U.S. government has, at times, performed poorly in monitoring for arsenic. For example, in Arizona, a state where the average drinking water level of arsenic is above the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level (10 parts per billion), one study found that all GIS maps had incomplete arsenic water sampling data in tribal areas belonging to the Navajo and Hopi tribes. This means a comprehensive picture of drinking water arsenic levels could not be made in tribal lands in Arizona. With deficient information, this problem has the potential to become exponentially worse over time.

I gave you all the information and bad news up front, so I could finish with something a bit more positive. Regulatory efforts have been made to ensure lower arsenic levels are present in occupational settings.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, sets an eight-hour permissible exposure limit of 10 micrograms per cubic meter for inhalational arsenic, with an action level of five micrograms per cubic meter. This was based on research done by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which has a recommended exposure limit of two micrograms per cubic meter during any 15 minute period. In conjunction with this, the American Council for Government Industrial Hygienists proposed a similar threshold limit value of 0.1 micrograms per cubic meter for an eight-hour work day.

General human health is highly vulnerable to arsenic exposure, but Indigenous tribes in particular have demonstrated deleterious effects from arsenic exposure. What complicates the matter is due to either errors of commission or omission, incomplete data about arsenic levels exists on tribal lands. The future will require greater efforts for a healthy and just world, but the story of arsenic can become historical rather than contemporary.

Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health. 

Some portion of the people reading this piece may have heard of a chemical called toluene. For those of you who have not, I have a quick summary of what it is and what it can do. Also known as methylbenzene, it is a colorless liquid at room temperature and smells rather strongly. Toluene has a low flash point, which means it easily gives off vapors. This is where it starts to become practically important for most people.

Some of you may have heard of toluene as a drug of abuse. When people “huff,” it is toluene that gets them high. Toluene can be found in paints and paint thinners as well as cosmetics and adhesives. Since it’s readily available in common household products, it can easily be taken advantage of by all members of a household. It’s also the cheapest way to get high. When you pair these facts about toluene together, it should start to make sense that this drug has the youngest demographic of abusers, with many abusers starting at 10-12 years old.

What exactly does toluene do to people? After it is inhaled, it goes from the lungs to the heart to the circulatory system. From there, it crosses the blood-brain barrier and produces a constellation of effects that are most lazily described as “central nervous system dysfunction.” These include things like drowsiness, fatigue, headache, nausea, confusion, memory loss, etc. One way of thinking about it is it’s like getting drunk. Toluene is toxic to neurons, so it can kill your brain cells. To make it very simplistic, huffing paint can literally make you dumber.

Unfortunately, this pattern gets worse the longer you are exposed. Being exposed regularly for months or years can lead to difficulty thinking, eye and airway irritation and even organ dysfunction. It’s even more concerning for children, who might have developmental delays as a result of continued abuse, which as I mentioned before, is the biggest population of abusers.

Finally, some people that can be more vulnerable to toluene’s effects include smokers, people with asthma and people with heart conduction problems (arrhythmias). This piece is not meant to be a call to action; it is just meant to educate about a topic that can be a bit dry, but that college-educated people should know a thing or two about.

Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health. 

The issue of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) has been mounting for decades. The convergence of knowledge and technology is such that we are equipped to address the problem with systemic changes. Effective policy decisions can be tricky.

AMR develops as new medicines in that class are proliferated in clinical use, giving microbes the time to familiarize themselves with how the drugs work. Through a variety of mutations, microbes develop new genes designed to get around how new drugs work. The presence of impurities in the environment can multiply the consequences of this.

The spreading of resistant microbes traces an intricate web involving humans. Water or air can serve as an intermediate that leads to these microbes spreading to other animals. Further mutations to these superbugs can take place as they land on new living targets. Other intermediates include crops, wastewater, livestock, landfills and human activities such as farming or commercial fishing. This mixing of microbes and genetic material across species and places has resulted in a perfect storm of transmissibility where boundaries are becoming increasingly theoretical.

With the increasing migration of people, expanded relationships with animals and a shifting global climate, mean variables affecting AMR have been amplified. The catastrophic spread of superbugs could go from being a rare possibility to an everyday occurrence in just a matter of years if left unchecked.

In a word, the stakeholders involved in this wave of AMR is: everyone. It is truly difficult to find anyone not directly or indirectly impacted by this problem. Anyone who can acquire an infection, anyone who works with animals and anyone who works or utilizes health care or environmental services, is potentially at risk.

By extension, governments presiding over such people are also impacted. Some well thought out measures have already been proposed regarding the total impact of AMR. Considerations need to be made to protect agricultural enterprises from the risk of infection, for both animals and workers.

Intensive funding for drug development research also needs to be a top priority, specifically, new classes of drugs that aren’t already partially resistant to these superbugs. This might be a bit of science fiction, but we’ve done it before.

Perhaps the most impactful, and potentially the most affordable recommendation, is education. This would not be a typical public health intervention but would need to be far more all-encompassing, reaching as many subsets of society as possible, tailored to their education levels and lived experiences.

In summary, despite good intentions when antimicrobial drugs were developed, an unforeseen proportion of microbes have taken on resistance and have led to more dangerous disease transmission than ever. It is debatable as to whether anyone on earth is not vulnerable or at the very least affected by this alarming public health problem. Preventative interventions for agricultural locations, a larger research and development push for new drugs than has ever been seen and an ever larger emphasis on public health education are three routes that are recommended, but, really, they are mandatory if we can hope to solve this problem.

Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and a student at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

On Feb. 2, I had the pleasure of serving as a medical testimony on the Minnesota House of Representatives floor for Bill 92. Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Minneapolis) proposed the bill, which would lower the threshold for the concentration of lead in the blood necessary to notify the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Currently, Minnesota follows a 10 microgram/deciliter blood lead level threshold for this trigger. While this was at one time appropriate, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently follows a reference value of 3.5 micrograms/deciliter. Bill 92 would bring Minnesota’s level down to 3.5.

Why is this relevant? So what if Minnesota’s threshold for this random metal, which most of us don’t think about, is a few numbers higher or lower? The reason is that lead, at any concentration, is harmful. Lead can cause a variety of cancers, kidney damage and even reduce fertility, and that’s just for adults.

Children are particularly at risk for lead exposure. Lead is neurotoxic! This means that as kids exposed to lead grow, their brain growth lags. They can have hearing and speaking problems, an inability to pay attention in school and at home and worst of all, a lower IQ (there is much more, but I have a word count).

What Bill 92 would specifically do is mobilize MDH to intervene in a situation where children have suspiciously high lead levels, earlier. MDH is great about contacting the child’s home, doing an analysis of the likely lead exposure sources and educating the family about what is happening in their residence that could literally be stunting their child’s growth. If need be, they can make further interventions.

Before my testimony, MDH Assistant Commissioner Dan Huff gave a beautiful, 15-minute talk about the dangers of lead, where it can be found, previous efforts and a moving personal anecdote about why all of this matters. I mention this to say that MDH really cares about this issue and is in full support of this measure to improve the public health of the Gopher State.

Bill 92 was originally presented in early 2022 and was voted forward by the House. Unfortunately, the Senate did not vote on it, and since we (rightfully) have a bicameral legislature here, it did not become law. As a medical voice, I am in full support of Jordan and Huff and the important work they do. This bill is one of the most cost-effective measures to improve the health of our children (and adults).

It passed the House this year, but I don’t want it to suffer the same fate again in the Senate. I’m not asking anyone to picket at the St. Paul Capitol building, but I think everyone reading this ought to know there is something major at stake here. We are already behind the federal standard the CDC recommends, which is backed by some of the best public health research you could expect, and we only stand to lose more and gain nothing by not passing Bill 92.

Consider this a public plea to Minnesota’s lawmakers. Please listen to the science and the countless stories of lives compromised. Bill 92 shouldn’t be a privilege; it’s the most important law you COULD pass this year.

Dominik Dabrowski is a student at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and an Occupational Medicine Physician at HealthPartners.

Have you ever had a biopsy or surgery? Did the doctor take a piece of your flesh out and tell you that they would have to “run some tests on it?” Chances are, that little piece of you went to a pathologist, a doctor who specializes in microscopic medicine. They looked at a slice of you on a slide and decided if you were healthy, and if not, what the diagnosis was.

The first step in processing your sample is to put the tissue in a chemical called formalin, which is a derivative of formaldehyde. Formalin is a toxic chemical that can irritate your eyes, nose, throat and skin. Imagine the worst kind of sterile laboratory smell, extremely strong and unnatural.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has given formaldehyde the highest rating for carcinogenicity in humans. It is a serious concern, as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has found those exposed to formaldehyde (formalin) are at increased risk of cancers of the nasal passages, blood, bone marrow and brain.

If formalin is so dangerous, why are pathologists and other hospital laboratory employees using it every day? It’s because formalin is very good at “fixing” the tissue sample. In other words, it preserves the structure of the tissue, so it doesn’t rot like a piece of chicken left out for a few days (flesh is flesh, after all). With formalin holding all the structures of the cell in place, the hospital lab can then add special dyes to more easily visualize the sample under the microscope and come to a diagnosis. Many times, the tissue is taken out because there is a concern about cancer. Ironic, no? To diagnose cancer, hospital workers have to expose themselves to a liquid that can cause cancer.

The other big factor is cost. Hospitals don’t just need a Costco-sized shampoo bottle full of formalin to process all their pathology samples in a day, they need many gallons, and formalin is inexpensive to produce or buy in large volumes.

So, what is the solution here? Well, as someone who used to be a pathologist, I can tell you no one is skinny dipping in a vat of formalin, thankfully. To check this dangerous substance so we can get the most use out of it without causing unnecessary harm, there are safety measures in place.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets limits to how much formaldehyde a worker is allowed to be exposed to in a given time period. If you work with formalin, and you are exposed to more than 0.75 parts per million (ppm) over an 8-hour shift, your employer is not following the law. Alternatively, you are allowed to be exposed to up to 2 ppm in a 15-minute period (sometimes, there might be flexibility needed in a workplace, and the government tries to be understanding).

Additionally, there’s also a concept in workplace safety called the hierarchy of controls. These are measures taken, in decreasing order of effectiveness, to make sure workers aren’t being abused. At the top, there’s elimination (can’t hurt you if you’re not around it), substitution (unfortunately, there’s not a realistic option here for formalin), engineering (can you build something to protect people), administrative (those would be the OSHA standards above) or personal protective equipment (PPE) (put on protection to soften the impact).

Stephen Wiesner, an associate professor of Medical Laboratory Sciences at the University of Minnesota Cities, said formalin safety rests on good engineering controls. Examples of this are employees working in fume hoods, keeping the formalin’s source closed off when not using it and disposing of it in a place that is not nearby. There are also air monitors for formaldehyde levels that employees can wear to measure if levels in the air around workplaces are inappropriate. Finally, for PPE, there are gloves, double gloves, goggles, masks and fully body lab suits to avoid clothing contact.

Formalin/Formaldehyde is a dangerous chemical that can cause serious harm in the short and long term. That said, it plays an important role in health care that many patients would be grateful for if they knew about its use. The only way to balance the risk is to make sure these lab workers have all the protections possible in place to stay safe. Since most patients have never seen lab workers, I just want to say thank you for taking on this risk and caring for all of those patients.

Dominik Dabrowski is a student at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

Dear Sydney Jordan, Kari Dziedzic, and Ilhan Omar,

First of all, I would like to congratulate each of you ladies on a successful re-election! Now that you have had several weeks to reflect on your achievements, I want to be one of the first to call you all into action. While the Northeast is facing many issues, like social justice, high rent and an ever-changing business landscape, it’s easy to forget about environmental issues as they tend to fall on the back burner.

Your district has one of the newest Superfund sites in America, having only been declared this past March: Southeast Hennepin Groundwater and Vapor. I’ve gotten to know some of the people at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and it’s clear they are working hard on environmental mediation. They need your support! Not only that, they need your active participation as well. These operations tend to take years to have appreciable benefits, which would be greatly aided by your momentum. Volatile organic compounds like Trichloroethylene are no joke!

Now that your term is secure for a couple of years, it is the perfect time to focus on something that is vitally important and doesn’t improve fast enough to make for a good campaign platform. I’m relatively new to the Twin Cities, so forgive me if I am being overly direct, but this issue should not wait and needs all the attention it can get.

Dr. Dominik Dabrowski is an Occupational and Environmental Medicine Physician at HealthPartners, and a current student at the UMN School of Public Health.

On Nov. 7, the EPA concluded a 60-day public comment period on a new proposed rule to add two Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the hazardous substances list known as ‘Superfund.’ Made infamous around these parts by 3M, PFAS, or “forever chemicals” as the scientific media has dubbed them, are a group of more than 10,000 man-made chemicals that are very strong, thus making them very durable for things like firefighter protective gear and non-stick pans. This also happens to make them very hard to get out of your body if exposed, which FYI, they are nearly anywhere.

According to two officials from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the expansion of this policy would be much needed in adding power to government agencies to seek out violators and offer remediation efforts. Since these substances are class 2B under the International Agency for Cancer Research (Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans), we should seek all efforts to make environmental cleanup as easy as possible.

We happen to live in a very health and environmentally conscious state. The Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act often times exceeds the minimum federal standards when it comes to environmental protection. I’m confident that once these measures are put into place, not only will we adhere to national standards, but we’ll go the extra mile to make sure we are leaders in the country.

Dr. Dominik Dabrowski is an occupational and environmental medicine physician at HealthPartners and is a current student at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.