Groups advocating for an end to the use of Perfluorinated and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS), known as "forever chemicals," ranked various retail and apparel brands on their commitments to keeping PFAS out of their products.

PFAS have been used since the 1970s to make products waterproof or stain-resistant, from nonstick pans to raincoats, but they do not break down in the environment, and they build up in fish and wildlife.

Levi Strauss and Co. got the highest marks, while Walmart, Costco, Tapestry and GIII Apparel Group received the lowest.

Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said she hopes to see more companies ban PFAS or provide up-to-date information on ongoing efforts to do so.

"Exposure to PFAS has been linked to a wide range of serious health effects, including kidney and liver disease, immune system suppression and even cancer," Cummings outlined. "The presence of PFAS in our lives is incredibly worrying."

Cummings pointed out Massachusetts-based New Balance earned a C-minus; she noted they make exceptions for use of PFAS in certain products.

She contended manufacturing PFAS puts workers at risk, and can lead to groundwater contamination from production waste.

In 2019, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection adopted a maximum containment level for PFAS chemicals in drinking water, and began testing communities' water supplies.

Cummings explained they found levels higher than the legal limit in 77 cities and towns from Cape Cod to the Berkshires.

"It means that people in those communities are having to use bottled water," Cummings observed. "Those communities are having to build new infiltration systems to mitigate the damage, which is incredibly costly, and just more and more people are exposed to this toxic chemical."

Cummings hopes in addition to pushing more companies to adopt stricter PFAS standards, the scorecard showed it is possible to have a profitable apparel brand without using these chemicals.

Groups ranging from Clean Water Action to the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts have joined the call for state reforms to speed up the process. Firefighters are regularly exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam and turnout gear.

Included in the Inflation Reduction Act is a provision aimed at cutting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, but it remains to be seen whether it will have a broad effect on the industry.

The bill would levy a fine on oil and gas producers whose wells emit methane above a certain threshold.

But Kassie Siegel - director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity - said methane emissions are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the fines will only be as effective as the EPA's oversight requires.

"Polluters have a choice when it comes to the fee," said Siegel. "They can comply with the regulation or they can pay the fee, but they don't have to do both - it's one or the other."

The Inflation Reduction Act, approved by the Senate and House is headed to the president's desk for a signature. It's the biggest clean-energy package in the country's history.

Erandi Treviño, Texas state coordinator with Moms Clean Air Force, said methane in an invisible super-pollutant that is detrimental to the health of those who live near the wells where it's emitted. She said high-tech companies that sell detection equipment could profit from the new climate provisions.

"Because we can't see them, we can't capture them, our ability to even measure the quality of the air at any given time is limited," said Treviño. "I think the more different technologies that come out, I think that's very beneficial."

This month, the EPA conducted flyovers of the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico using infrared cameras to survey oil and gas operations, looking for "super-emitters" of methane gas. The agency says it plans to identify facilities releasing excess emissions and contact those companies.

Siegel said that's a good start, but compliance is only as effective as the EPA's rules.

"I'm not aware of any instance of EPA enforcing its current oil and gas methane rules, and that has to change," said Siegel. "This is a dirty and dangerous industry and oversight's critical."

Despite an agreement to rein in methane emissions, climate action provisions in the new federal legislation require the government to auction millions of acres of oil and gas leases before it can auction acreage for wind and solar farms.

A New Mexico group seeking financial compensation for those suffering negative health effects from the 1945 Trinity atomic bomb tests has two more years to make its case.

The federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), now extended two years, provides money to people harmed, either from uranium mining or the atomic tests.

The government currently only recognizes "downwinders" who live in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, said if expanded by Congress, it could benefit those who suffer from cancer-related illnesses traced to the radioactive fallout.

"Plutonium that was used in the bomb, overused in the bomb at Trinity -- they didn't know how much was going to be necessary -- has a half-life 24,000 years or 7,000 generations," Cordova pointed out.

The two-year extension of RECA by President Joe Biden last month will allow the consortium more time to seek eligibility for New Mexicans whose lives were affected. Tomorrow, the Downwinders Consortium holds its 13th annual candlelight vigil, and a town hall where some will share their stories.

In 1945, the Department of Energy called the Trinity nuclear test site "remote," but thousands of people lived within 50 miles and were exposed to the first-ever nuclear blast.

Cordova noted it has also been revealed government agencies only conducted tests when the wind was blowing east, to avoid contaminating Las Vegas or Los Angeles. She feels in some ways, New Mexico was targeted, and it was not just a one-time event.

"We've been so overexposed to radiation because of all of this, and New Mexico truly is a sacrifice zone," Cordova asserted. "We have the cradle-to-grave process taking place here. They open up the earth and take out the uranium. We have over 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and mill sites in Navajo, Laguna and Acoma Pueblo."

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working with federal, state and tribal partners to address abandoned uranium mines and identify the parties responsible for cleanup, including on the Navajo Nation and New Mexico's Grants Mining District.

Starting this month, chemical companies will resume being taxed for cleanup of areas with a lot of leftover toxic waste, also known as Superfund sites. It follows a slowdown in getting sites removed from the federal list.

The tax was reinstated last Friday after it was allowed to expire in the mid-1990s. The recent changes were authorized under the bipartisan infrastructure law signed by President Joe Biden.

For a quarter century, said Emily Rogers, Zero Out Toxics campaign advocate for the Public Interest Research Group, the program languished by leaning on taxpayers as opposed to having the industry foot the bill.

"The funds that were used to clean up Superfund sites dropped precipitously," she said, "and with that drop, also the number of sites that were cleaned each year dropped precipitously."

Annual completion of Superfund projects has fallen to single digits in recent years. Iowa has 11 sites on the National Priorities List. Supporters have said the tax will provide $14 billion over the next decade to accelerate this work. Industry groups lobbied against the move, and PIRG has estimated similar opposition amid efforts to reinstate a tax for petroleum companies.

Beyond Iowa, Rogers sai Superfund sites can be found all over the country, especially in marginalized communities. She said one in six Americans lives within three miles of these hazardous sites.

"The waste at these sites can cause some really serious human health effects," she said, "so that's one reason we've been working so hard to get funding reinstated."

Under the growing threat of climate change, PIRG noted that many of these sites are at greater risk of flooding, potentially spreading contamination into nearby communities. The program's funding is used whenever the party at fault for the pollution can't be located or lacks the money to pay for the cleanup.