Radioactive Road Controversy: Enviro Group Battles Completion, Citing Cancer Risks
Introduction: The Road to Ruin?
Imagine driving down a newly paved road, unaware that the very foundation beneath you is composed of radioactive waste. This isn’t a scene from a dystopian movie; it’s a looming reality in some parts of the United States, sparking fierce opposition from environmental groups. The long-tail SEO keyword, “Radioactive Road Controversy: Enviro Group Battles Completion, Citing Cancer Risks,” encapsulates the heart of the issue: a contentious battle over the safety and ethics of using radioactive materials in road construction. With over 1 billion tons of phosphogypsum already stored in stacks across Florida, the stakes are incredibly high.
What is Phosphogypsum and Why is it Controversial?
Phosphogypsum (PG) is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, five tons of this radioactive waste are created. It contains radium-226, which has a radioactive decay half-life of 1,600 years. As the radium decays, it produces radon gas, a known carcinogen. Besides radioactive materials, PG can contain heavy metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, fluoride, sulfur, barium, and zinc.
For decades, the EPA has mandated that phosphogypsum be stored in mountainous piles called “gypstacks” due to the unreasonable public health threat from radon gas emissions. These stacks, some hundreds of acres wide and hundreds of feet tall, pose their own environmental risks, especially in areas prone to storms and flooding, like Florida.
The EPA’s Shifting Stance
The EPA’s stance on using phosphogypsum in road construction has been inconsistent. In 1992, the agency determined that such use presented an unacceptable risk to public health. However, under the Trump administration in October 2020, the EPA reversed course, approving its use in roads. This decision was quickly challenged, and the approval was withdrawn in 2021 following a lawsuit from environmental groups.
Despite past concerns, the EPA recently approved a pilot project allowing Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, to construct a test road using phosphogypsum at its New Wales facility in Mulberry, Florida. The agency argues that the project includes conditions to ensure it remains within the scope of the application and that the potential radiological risks meet regulatory requirements. The EPA believes that using phosphogypsum in this road would offer the same level of protection to human health as storing the material in stacks.
Environmental Groups Mount a Legal Challenge
The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February 2025 for approving the use of radioactive phosphogypsum in road construction at Mosaic’s New Wales facility in Mulberry, Florida. The advocacy group says the federal agency has prohibited the use of phosphogypsum, a radioactive, carcinogenic, and toxic waste generated by the fertilizer industry, in road construction since 1992, citing an “unacceptable level of risk to public health.”
Ragan Whitlock, a Florida-based attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated that the EPA is directly contradicting its own science and regulations by tripling the permitted cancer risk to the public and ignoring key radiation pathways. The group fears the project could lead to more roadways built with the toxic waste.
The Health Risks: A Clear and Present Danger?
The primary health risk associated with phosphogypsum is exposure to radon gas, which can cause lung cancer. The EPA estimates that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, responsible for about 21,000 deaths each year.
Critics argue that even with a layer of asphalt, cracks and wear over time could compromise the safety of the encapsulation, leading to the release of radon gas and direct exposure to radiation. Construction workers are particularly vulnerable, as they would be in direct contact with the material during road building.
Economic Considerations vs. Public Health
The fertilizer industry views using phosphogypsum in road construction as a way to reduce the expense and liability of maintaining existing gypstacks. They argue that it’s a win-win situation: reducing environmental waste while providing a cost-effective road-building material.
However, environmental groups contend that these economic benefits come at the cost of public health and environmental safety. They argue that the long-term health consequences and potential environmental damage far outweigh any short-term economic gains.
International Perspectives: Are Other Countries Paving the Way?
The Fertilizer Institute claims that phosphogypsum is safely used in roads and concrete in other countries, including those in South America, Asia, Europe, Africa, and Canada. However, environmentalists argue that the U.S. has stricter environmental and health regulations, and the potential risks associated with phosphogypsum outweigh any potential benefits.
The “No Radioactive Roads Act”
Recognizing the potential dangers, Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) and Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) reintroduced the No Radioactive Roads Act. This legislation aims to prevent the use of phosphogypsum in road construction, ensuring that public health is prioritized over corporate profits.
The Role of State and Local Governments
Even with federal regulations in place, state and local governments play a crucial role in determining whether phosphogypsum is used in road construction. Florida, for example, has been at the center of this controversy, with Governor Ron DeSantis signing a bill into law allowing the use of the material in road construction.
What Can You Do?
The controversy surrounding radioactive roads highlights the importance of public awareness and engagement. Here are some steps you can take:
- Contact your state and federal representatives: Let them know that you oppose the use of phosphogypsum in road construction and that you prioritize public health and environmental safety.
- Stay informed: Follow the latest developments in this issue and share information with your friends and family.
- Support environmental organizations: Donate to or volunteer with organizations that are working to protect our environment and public health.
Conclusion: A Fork in the Road
The radioactive road controversy presents a critical decision point. Will we prioritize short-term economic gains over the long-term health and safety of our communities? Or will we choose a path that protects our environment and ensures a healthy future for all? The answer depends on informed citizens, engaged communities, and responsible leaders who are willing to put public health above corporate profits.