I’m an independent journalist with an uncertain road ahead. To support my work telling the story of the Eaton Fire and its aftermath, please consider a paid monthly subscription to my Patreon page. Thank you!

---

Nobody knows who first coined the term “safety is an illusion,” though there are a number of internet memes attributing it to various people. It’s also one of those things that people don’t actually want to believe is true. We want to be safe, and we do everything we can to put ourselves and our families into situations that maximize safety. If safety is an illusion, then we’re wasting our effort and should be prepared for the worst thing to happen at any time.

Obviously, losing your home in a fast-moving wildfire featuring embers blown like missiles at 90 miles per hour is pretty good proof that safety is an illusion. We believed our house was south enough of the fire danger line in Altadena to be safe – and that was pretty clearly an illusion.

But the illusion of safety extends well past the fire itself and into the cleanup and recovery.

Remember the first days of COVID lockdown, when nobody knew what was safe or not? We weren’t sure whether we had to wipe our groceries down, if masks were necessary or useful, and how transmittable the disease was. Nobody knew anything, and it was madness. Cleanup after the Eaton Fire is like that. We don’t know how safe the soil is, how breathable the air is, what remediation efforts will work and won’t work, and how much of the toxic crap in the air we can take in before it starts to be detrimental to our health.

And it’s madness.

Right now, there’s a remediation company working across the street from our temporary housing. A guy in a white hazmat suit is power washing the roof, trying to get what’s likely toxic ash from the fire off it. That’s great – except does that work? If it does make life in the house safer, was it not safe before? What actually happens to the particles of ash that are sprayed off the roof? Do they go on someone else’s roof?

In the early days of cleanup, the LA County Public Health department issued “a Public Health Advisory for individuals residing within 250 yards of a burned structure or parcel within or near the Palisades and Eaton burn areas.”

Residents in these areas may face an increased risk of exposure to hazardous substances from ash, soot, and fire debris before the completion of Phase 1 (hazardous materials removal) and Phase 2 (fire debris removal). Exposure to these materials may lead to physical health symptoms (American Chemical Society, EST Air, 2025, 2, 13-23) and may pose long-term health impacts.

Okay, that’s great. Except why 250 yards? Why not 200 or 300? According to the Altadena Town Council, “The 250-yard perimeter determined for the Eaton Fire was initially based on prior wildfire contamination studies and CalFire mapping, which factored in historical data and the likely settling of fire ash and toxins.” The Eaton Fire had a much smaller footprint than major wildfires like the Camp Fire of 2018, and destroyed fewer structures than that blaze – but Eaton burned one tenth of the acreage, but half of the number of homes. This means the land burned by the Eaton Fire was much more densely packed, not to mention the ash from the burned homes was thrown for miles in every direction by the high winds.

So the 250 yard perimeter sounds a lot like an illusion of safety. A well-intentioned one, for sure. But guesswork. What are we supposed to actually do about this advisory, given that many of us are actively going to our properties, driving in the burn zones, or just live near them? Plenty of surviving homes in Altadena are near burned out structures, but not right next to them. Are they safe? Can they be remediated? There’s just no long-term data about what happens to people when they are regularly exposed to a mix of burned plastic, wood, copper, lead, PVC, lithium-ion batteries, insulation, etc.

As far as outside the burn zone, there’s already evidence from past fires that 250 yards isn’t enough to protect people from exposure to toxic debris, and that physical effects can still be felt far downwind, and that homes can act like sponges for this material, even after they’ve been cleaned. A study of homes after the Marshall Fire in Colorado in 2021 found that hazardous chemicals lingered in homes for weeks after the blaze, and lingered longer than expected.

And there’s some concern that the particles of toxic ash are so fine that they can’t effectively be filtered out by N95 masks. A particularly troubling New York Times article said researchers found that chemical contamination was fairly low outside the burn zone, but referred to residents in the burn zone coming home to a “toxic soup” of chemicals and compounds when they return. So that’s not great.

For folks rebuilding in the burn zone, safe debris removal is paramount, and the Army Corps is doing a good job so far of safely taking out burned debris, wrapping it in plastic, disposing of it, and wetting the ground down while the removal is happening. But is this a guarantee of safety? How can it be?

We’re facing innumerable questions that nobody has an answer to, and where there might not be one for years. The Army Corps is removing six inches of topsoil underneath the foundations of burned homes, but is that a safe enough amount? We don’t know, and unfortunately, the Army Corps isn’t doing soil testing – because FEMA stopped authorizing post-fire soil testing after the Camp Fire, due to it being “tedious and inefficient.” The EPA isn’t doing it either, believing that removing six inches of topsoil is enough to abate any danger.

So is the land we want to build houses on safe? Is the soil where we want to grow trees safe? Will our bedrooms and playgrounds and schools be safe? What about the water pipes that survived the fires? Are the sewer pipes safe? Will the debris removal kick up more ash that lands in places that aren’t easily accessible? The answers are basically between probably and maybe.

To find an instructive example for how safe prolonged exposure to toxic dust and debris is in the immediate area outside a burn zone is or isn’t, I looked not at another wildfire, but at 9/11. The toll that the toxic slop of the destroyed World Trade Center took on first responders is horrific, but the attacks sent toxic ash and dust miles in every direction, covering Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn as well.

Even a year after the attack, there was limited data on what the exposure would do to the hundreds of thousands of people who lived and worked in those areas, many of whom were breathing at least trace amounts of compounds that had never even existed before they were created in the heat and intensity of the explosions. After a few years, more New Yorkers who lived and worked in the area near the WTC were coming forward with signs of respiratory illness – to the point where Congress finally authorized a compensation fund for health effects due to the attacks, though it took years of political wrangling and pointless arguing.

As of 2024, there are about 124,000 people registered for the WTC Health Program, but only about a third are residents of Lower Manhattan or the surrounding area. The rest are first responders, volunteers who went to the site, or workers from the immediate area around the WTC complex. About 400,000 people likely were exposed to the toxic aftermath of the collapses, and many did suffer from headaches, congestion, COPD, and long-term illnesses. But how much of that is directly from the debris, and how much of it is from just living in New York City? What would have happened anyway? Nobody really knows. And cancer can take decades to develop, meaning we likely still don’t know the full toll of the ash and dust of 9/11.

Certainly, the Eaton Fire didn’t arrive with the sudden violence of the Towers collapsing – there weren’t tens of thousands of workers covered in toxic debris and jet fuel residue. But the large scale dispersal of debris is a decent enough analogue, particularly in a situation when there are so many unknowns at work. So while we fret over the choices we make as we rebuild homes, we should also know that what we’re getting into doesn’t have a lot of precedent in American history, and many of the questions we have won’t be answered for years, if they’re ever answered in our lifetimes.

So yeah, safety is an illusion. Which doesn’t mean we can’t make safer choices and do the best we can to ensure positive outcomes. We can do as much abatement and cleanup as possible, pay out of pocket for testing, hold public officials and agencies accountable, keep vulnerable children away from burn zones as much as possible, and err on the side of caution.

We have to live our lives, and many of us want to rebuild our homes and communities. Nothing is risk-free, and the tradeoff is worth it. But it is a tradeoff – and at some point, that trade might be called in.