Trump has begun another trade war. Here's a timeline of how we got here
Canada's leader laments lost friendship with US in town that sheltered stranded Americans after 9/11
Chinese EV giant BYD's fourth-quarter profit leaps 73%
You're an American in another land? Prepare to talk about the why and how of Trump 2.0
Chalk talk: Star power, top teams and No. 5 seeds headline the women's March Madness Sweet 16
Purdue returns to Sweet 16 with 76-62 win over McNeese in March Madness
As wildfires increasingly disrupt Southern California, researchers and insurers warn that homes spared from flames may harbor invisible toxic hazards, prompting health concerns and legal scrutiny.
At first glance, many residents whose houses survived the January blazes considered themselves lucky. Public safety maps showed fire stopping short of their blocks; front doors opened to undisturbed living spaces. However, independent environmental tests soon revealed toxic residues, including benzene, formaldehyde, cyanide, and heavy metals that can cling to carpets, drywall, and HVAC systems.
Harvard researchers, including Parham Azimi and Joseph Allen of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began sampling air and water in homes in Pasadena, downwind of the burn zones. Allen said wildfire smoke carries a complex toxic mix — not just particulate pollution, but also compounds from burned plastics and electronics — that continue to off-gas for weeks to months.
Long‑term exposure to toxic wildfire smoke has mounting evidence of harm. A 2021 study of the Marshall Fire in Colorado found elevated volatile organic compounds — including benzene and formaldehyde — in house samples. Six months later, 55% of returning residents reported persistent symptoms, including headaches, dry cough, itchy eyes, and sore throat.
Health experts note that these exposures link to respiratory and cardiovascular disease and increased cancer risk, with PM₂.₅ and hazardous chemicals entering deeply into the lungs and bloodstream.
Data scientist Nicole Maccalla reported that embers destroyed over half of her roof, damaged several windows and eaves, and left her Altadena home covered in soot, ash, debris, and broken appliances. She claimed that although her insurance adjuster had stated that USAA would cover the cost of contamination testing, her claim was denied after she selected a company and provided the results. According to the adjuster, the company only paid for testing in houses that had significant damage.
“Every single item is a battle,” said Maccalla. “It’s denials and appeals and denials and appeals, and you wait weeks and weeks and weeks for responses.”
Yet homeowners face a challenge: many insurance companies limit testing to visible soot or ash and often decline to fund in‑depth environmental investigations. After the Eaton fire, 81 homes tested through a community group — Eaton Fire Residents United — showed increased lead levels. Yet insurers reportedly denied coverage when homeowners requested toxin testing.
Dave Jones, former California insurance commissioner and current Climate Risk Initiative director at UC Berkeley, stressed testing should be covered under the policy: “It’s perfectly reasonable for people to have some kind of environmental test done so that their home is safe and their property is safe,” Jones said. “We’re talking about very catastrophically high-temperature fires where all sorts of materials are melted, and some of them become toxic.” Yet, insurers like State Farm and Mercury report that claim evaluations “vary” by policy and the type of damage assessed.
Insurance regulators in California are taking action. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara issued a March bulletin requiring insurers — including the FAIR Plan — to investigate smoke damage, covering testing costs if warranted thoroughly. Lara said the lack of statewide protocol had left families “forced to return to unsafe homes.” He also formed a Smoke Claims & Remediation Task Force to set standards for inspecting, testing, and cleanup.
Still, insurers of last resort face scrutiny. The California FAIR Plan, originally designed to cover visible physical damage, has faced lawsuits after policyholders alleged that it denied testing for invisible contamination. An L.A. judge recently ruled the FAIR Plan’s smoke‑damage policy illegal for failing to cover lab‑detected damage even inside intact homes. FAIR Plan spokesman Hilary McLean said they are reviewing the decision and updating policy language.
Industrial hygienists such as Dawn Bolstad‑Johnson have contrasted insurer reports — often limited to char, soot, and ash — with exhaustive lab results revealing carcinogens, heavy metals, and toxic gases. In one Palisades home, independent testing called it “Unsafe to inhabit” and recommended full gutting, citing cyanide, benzene, lead, and chromium. Insurers typically offer cleaning services rather than replacing contaminated building materials.
Methods differ widely: insurer‑mandated hygiene assessments may include few surface swabs and air samples, often avoiding walls, insulation, or ducts. In contrast, private firms collect hundreds of data points and deep-material samples from drywall, furniture, and HVAC systems.
For homeowners seeking assurance, experts say certified industrial hygienists use advanced techniques — including Gasmet FTIR spectrometry, surface wipes, and targeted samples from porous materials — to identify a broad panel of contaminants. Insurance-funded tests often use at-home kits that check for asbestos or mold, but these kits omit dozens of volatile or semi-volatile toxic chemicals.
Health authorities also caution that smoke ash can enter soil and waterways, posing risks to the community. The Harvard study team is now measuring long‑term air and water contamination in homes up to two miles from wildfire sources.
