Last year, scientists confirmed the presence of coal dust around homes in Curtis Bay. This was not exactly shocking given the long-time presence of an open-air coal terminal in the community, but it was alarming nonetheless. Coal dust is associated with a range of lung illnesses including, most famously, black lung and is believed to carry more risk of emphysema, a progressive lung disease, than smoking. Yet what is also concerning, but not really addressed by what scientists found in dust samples, is this: What other airborne toxic substances might folks living in Curtis Bay be breathing in on a regular basis and what has been the impact over years?

That is a timely question given the recently published study by researchers from Johns Hopkins University that looked at how Americans in disadvantaged communities are routinely exposed not to a single pollutant but to a multitude. It’s one thing to study coal dust, for example, but what happens when you are exposed to it along with various other chemicals over a long period of time? Might this cumulative impact be far greater? And are we adequately monitoring and regulating this threat?

In the case of the Hopkins study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the conclusion is that measuring individual pollutants is an inadequate assessment. People often live in a veritable stew of toxins. In this case, researchers looked at southeastern Pennsylvania near petrochemical facilities. And they discovered benzene and formaldehyde, carcinogens often linked to leukemia, as well as vinyl chloride which has been associated with liver cancer. The longer people are exposed to such a toxic stew, the higher the risk to their health.

What’s especially worrisome about these findings is that they come at a time with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reducing its workforce and rolling back efforts to curb such pollution. Under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the agency has promised to provide exemptions of up to two years to polluters who do not wish to comply with certain national hazardous air pollutant emission standards. Easing Clean Air Act pollution standards through cautious review is one thing, tossing around free passes is another.

Is there any form of pollution the EPA will get tough about? So far, the only example Americans have seen involves offshore wind. The agency last month revoked a permit for Atlantic Shores, an offshore wind project in New Jersey.

Thanks to Hopkins and others we have a good idea the price many Americans will pay for EPA downsizing (perhaps as much as 65% of its budget) and ignoring the life-shortening pollutants around them: Worsened health and shortened lives.