Hidden Smoke: Why Roseland Still Feels Uncertain

The blast at Smitty’s Supply in August left the Roseland community breathing heavy fumes and feeling unsure about what lay behind the soot that settled on their roofs. The fire was followed by a long period of cleanup and repeated assurances from officials that there was no immediate danger, but the people who live nearby still do not know what chemicals were released or how they might affect their health. The initial response was to evacuate the neighborhood and then let residents return while the site was cleared. However, the air that people inhaled after the fire contained high levels of fine particulate matter—tiny bits of soot created when oil and other industrial materials burn. This type of pollution can travel deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream, carrying toxic compounds that are not easily identified as single chemicals. Regulators used a threshold of 300 micrograms per cubic meter to decide when action is needed, which is higher than the standard set by the EPA (250 micrograms per cubic meter). Because of this, air that was actually hazardous was described as “below action level. ” The language used in official statements gave the impression that nothing was wrong, but it masked the fact that a higher standard had been applied.At the same time, tests for specific chemicals were reported as “below detection limit. ” The limits themselves were never shared with the public. Saying that a chemical is below detection does not mean it isn’t there; it only means it is lower than the level that the equipment can reliably measure. Without knowing these limits, residents cannot judge whether the chemicals present might still be harmful. The timeline of events shows that air monitoring began soon after the fire, yet the public was told there were no risks before federal and state inspectors documented serious hazardous‑waste violations. In October, the cleanup responsibility shifted to Smitty’s and state regulators, and by January, the EPA issued an order citing failures in waste management. These enforcement actions came after residents had already been reassured about air quality, illustrating a gap between what officials knew and what they communicated. Other incidents in the state have handled similar situations differently, providing detailed monitoring results and clear explanations of detection limits before issuing evacuation orders. In Roseland, however, the data seemed to be used more as a way to prove that no action was needed rather than to warn people about possible dangers. The result is a lingering sense of mistrust, as the community feels that truth has been reshaped to protect institutions rather than their own well‑being.