AFFF firefighter claims

Serious AFFF exposure risks - Qualifying diseases

International studies on firefighters confirmed that they are at increased risk of testicular cancer, which can even be considered an occupational disease for firefighters.

Besides accumulating in the blood of exposed individuals, PFAS accumulate throughout life especially in the liver and kidneys, increasing the risk of developing cancer and other serious diseases.

Firefighters were never told about the health consequences of AFFF and no one made much effort to stop it from escaping into the environment.

The following are the diseases qualifying for filing a claim with the manufacturers of AFFF:

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Ulcerative colitis
• Thyroid disease
• Bladder cancer
• Leukemia
• Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
• Hogkin's lymphoma
• Male breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Liver cancer
• Thyroid cancer

Health organizations such as The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Cancer Society (ACS), and U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) have found that certain PFAS may affect the immune system and increase the risk of cancer.

The EPA has classified the chemicals in the foam products as "emerging contaminants", meaning that the health hazards and environmental risks associated with AFFF are significant. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as a "possible carcinogenic to humans", based on evidence of bladder cancer from studies in factory workers exposed to PFOA.

Exposure to AFFF any time as a firefighter after 1960 might be sufficient to become eligible. Obviously, the better cases will have more exposure, but the toxicity of the chemicals is such that even minimal direct exposure on a semi-regular basis can cause harm.

Who can be harmed by the fire suppressant AFFF?

The most studied toxic chemicals in AFFF are perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Originally produced by 3M, these compounds have been used in manufacturing all kinds of chemical products.

Although efficient, PFAS have unique properties that cause them to persist, accumulate in the blood and body of people exposed to them, are also extremely persistent in the environment, and likely have toxic effects on human health.

Those most affected by exposure to AFFF are firefighters who worked in:

• Firefighting training areas
• Aircraft crash sites
• Military airport hangars

The U.S. military used AFFF during firefighter training and during emergencies. AFFF containing PFAS has also been used in various ways by the U.S. Navy, and other branches of the military, since 1960.

Therefore, individuals at the greatest risk of harm from AFFF are the firefighters who use it, Air Force personnel who were directly exposed to it, those who manufacture the foam, and people living near military bases where AFFF was used.

Firefighting foam and toxic exposure on military bases

What is most concerning about AFFF-impacted sites is the fact that PFASs have contaminated military sites and surrounding communities. In Alabama for example, people are familiar with the Dupont litigation regarding the environmental pollution from the facility manufacturing PFAS.

Recently, more than 40 classes of PFAS were identified at essentially every AFFF-impacted military site that was investigated.

Pending claims allege that the liable companies have each designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF containing PFAS in such a way as to cause the contamination and the resultant bioaccumulation of PFAS in the blood and body of many individuals. AFFFs containing PFAS have contaminated the soil at various military bases, airports, and other sites where the foams were used, eventually causing a wide range of health risks, property damage, and/or other economic losses.

Holding manufacturers responsible for harm caused by their products

When a product is designed and marketed as a safe one, the last thing it should do is harm you.

But when a manufacturer misrepresents the safety of its products, this raises the question of whether the manufacturer tested the product appropriately or knowingly released it to the public with a defect.

Regarding AFFF foam products, it seems that chemical manufacturers deliberately ignored evidence of the harmful effects resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals on the health of military personnel, firefighters, private citizens, and the environment.

Common AFFF products

The underlying chemical, PFOA, was developed in the 1950s. AFFF was commercially used beginning in the early 1970s. Some manufacturers began to phase it out in the early 2000s, but it seems the replacement foam has similar problems. The AFFF products were designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by one or more of the following companies named as defendants in current legal processes:

• 3M Company
• Tyco Fire Products
• Buckeye Fire Equipment
• Chemguard
• Du Pont de Nemours
• The Chemours Company
• Chubb Fire
• Corteva

• National Foam
• Kidde Fire Fighting
• Enterra Corp.
• Williams Holdings
• Dynax Corporation
• UTC Fire & Security America’s Corp.

3M and the other chemical companies are currently facing a growing number of personal injury claims over chemical-based firefighting foam sold for more than 50 years and used extensively at U.S. military bases, airports, and other industrial sites around the country. In order to protect our environment and ensure the restoration of damaged natural resources, we must hold responsible the manufacturers who knew of the dangers of these products.