Wildfire Smoke Infiltration:
A New Love Canal?

Our understanding of the dangers of smoke has evolved over the years, but it might be worse than we thought. New reporting from the recent New York Times article, Unsafe to Inhabit: The Toxic Homes of L.A., reveals a troubling pattern of the homes left behind in the aftermath of the LA Wildfires, and the facts that are emerging echo the environmental disaster of Love Canal—the disaster that unfolded when a community in upstate New York was unknowingly poisoned by industrial waste for years, silently suffering devastating consequences to their health.

The aftermath of Love Canal led to the creation of the Superfund Act to clean up toxic waste, but there’s no corresponding reserve to help with the toxic substances left behind by a wildfire. We’ve written before about the dangers of wildfire smoke and the poisons they often carry, and this NYT article expounds on them:

Everyday items become poisons when they are set on fire. A plastic shower rod releases formaldehyde. Burning rubber, whether from a garden hose or a car tire, emits benzene. Polyester, found in fleece jackets and upholstered chairs, unleashes carcinogenic gases. Printers, plasma TVs and LED lights melt into a cloud of cyanide.

These toxins can be deadly and have been documented to cause cancer at high exposure, such as that experienced by American soldiers near burn pits on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even those who are further from toxic smoke sources (up to 1.5 miles away, as shown by elevated rates of respiratory illnesses and cancers after 9/11) can be harmed. This is true for wildfire smoke as well. The article continues:

In the aftermath of the 2021 Marshall Fire in Colorado, the most destructive in the state’s history, a study found that residents in homes that were as far as two miles from the burn zone reported symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic smoke, including recurring headaches, itchy and runny eyes, a metallic taste in their mouths and a dry cough.

Some of these symptoms persisted up to a year or longer after the fire. Given the longstanding danger present in these homes, it’s reasonable to expect insurance companies to take action, but the reality shows a different story:

Insurance companies often do not test for toxic substances, according to insurance industry experts, whistle-blowers, and homeowners. When they do, they check for a few harmful substances and omit over two dozen others that researchers say can cause lasting harm.

This was true for over half the 500 families the Times surveyed. When testing is performed, as in the case of the Morrow family profiled in the article, the results can be inadequate, indicating little more than char, soot, and ash, with remediation reduced to a thorough clean and some insulation replacement. Their insurance company refused to cover the cost of comprehensive testing.

This didn’t sit right with the Morrow family, who suspected the damage was more extensive. The family hired their own certified industrial hygienist for comprehensive testing, revealing “alarming levels of carcinogens like formaldehyde, and poisons like lead and cyanide.” A 177-page report concluded their home was unsafe to inhabit. The report recommended that:

The Morrows wear full-face respirators attached to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear filters, nitrile gloves, shoe covers and disposable coveralls just to step inside their home…[They] would need to remove all the drywall, flooring, insulating and exterior stucco, and replace the cabinetry, the HVAC system and most of the appliances – a gut renovation. They also were urged to throw away all their furniture, bedding, carpeting, clothes and toys.

With the smoke damage done, it may seem like a Superfund-sized task to make a home and a community of homes healthy again, but we can also work to mitigate the potential harm by making our homes smoke-tight. The steps forward are clear: we make the building enclosure airtight, with a continuous air barrier, triple-gasketed windows and doors with fresh air ventilation openings that filter the air and can be shut down. Many building codes today require some level of airtightness, and some jurisdictions mandate blower door testing to verify it.

Perhaps surprisingly, the added cost of providing airtightness to a home is affordable and minimal in new construction. Yet many states, including California, don’t require an airtight enclosure or blower door testing.

The Passive House standard adopts a significantly more rigorous approach to airtightness, often achieving 5 to 10 times greater airtightness than code mandates, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the building enclosure. Airtightness not only protects the health of occupants by minimizing smoke infiltration but also provides numerous additional benefits, including improved energy efficiency, quietness, enhanced thermal comfort, and, importantly, increased fire resilience.

As families in LA reckon with their new reality that their homes, previously thought to be safe, may not be habitable after all, it can be challenging to determine the next steps. For the Morrows, the fight with their insurance company continues as they seek the estimated $1 million in repairs recommended by the independent report.

While there is no guarantee that Passive House–or any other building standard–can prevent your home from being damaged in a wildfire, the Passive House standard supports wildfire resilience in a number of ways. We encourage you to learn more about how Passive House supports fire resilience here. If you have questions about rebuilding with Passive House, we encourage you to contact us at info@passivehousenetwork.org.

—

The Passive House Network and Passive House California are holding a design competition to address the shortcomings of current building codes and inspire and inform rebuilding efforts with better, more resilient buildings. Submissions are open until September 30th. Learn more here.