Public Forum
Default group for all members. Biological family sometimes get you down? Come join your logical family!
Organizers:
- Organized by
-
-
People Are Starting to Ask What AI Data Centers Mean for Human Health
-
People Are Starting to Ask What AI Data Centers Mean for Human Health
Erin Brockovich has launched a new interactive map and website, tracking data centers across the United States.
Within the first week alone, the platform received 1,690 resident complaints, with more than 1,800 reports submitted from 47 states soon after going live.
People are raising concerns about the local resources and noise but beyond that the health issues that concern them are:
✅Potential pollution tied to e-waste and PFAS chemicals
✅Constant low-frequency noise from cooling systems and generators
✅Sleep disruption
✅Stress and anxiety
✅Increased light pollution
✅Air pollution from diesel backup systems
This is the same Erin Brockovich they made a film about, she helped secure a historic $333 million settlement against PG&E after contaminated drinking water devastated a California community in the 1990s, so should be one to watch.
Would you want a AI data center built near your home?
-
9 Replies
-
The website from Erin Brockovich https://brockovichdatacenter.com/
-
No, thank you. Definitely not a healthy prospect. Here’s another report on AI Data Centers:
-
Greetings from BOOOO-scon!
That would be Tucson, Arizona, home of the University of Arizona.
And I’m proud to report that, at the latest UA commencement, Eric Schmidt (of Google infamy) was booed off the stage. Who knew that the new grads wouldn’t be excited to hear his speech on the virtues of AI?
I’m additionally proud of the fact that we the people of Tucson were among the first to rise up against the construction of data centers. We don’t have enough electricity to power them, and don’t get us started on the scarcity of water in our desert.
Closer to home, I live within easy walking distance of a business that, up until very recently, had a sign out front with the company name and the words “Data Center” beneath it.
The sign was just swapped out for one that just displays the company name.
-
Helen — your list is a useful starting point. Since last January, I’ve been working out the seven concerns and your post prompted me to finish my draft. I published the result this morning: two concerns are real (diesel and evaporative cooling in the wrong locations), the other five don’t survive scrutiny. My report also looks at where the trillion-plus dollars of capital expenditures (AI capex) actually goes — and the disclosure picture on brockovichdatacenter.com itself. Full piece with primary sources: https://rkoch.substack.com/p/coast-lake-and-ice-the-geography
-
What is so interesting to me that years ago there was so much concern about fossil fuels and pollution, which is somewhat legitimate, … but now with the data centers, all of a sudden all fossil fuel and even nuclear energy will be a good thing – and that is from the same folks, who were knocking the fossil fuels in the same place. What has changed? Pollution is pollution. I know it does not effect robuts as much as it does humans, … I still do not see the utility.
-
Wgaspar — you’re pointing at the right thing, and the flip-flop is the diagnostic.
Pollution from a diesel generator does not care whether the generator is powering a steel mill, a hospital, or a GPU farm. PFAS in groundwater behaves the same whether the cooling tower belongs to a chemical plant or a data center. If a concern is real, it does not change when the user changes. That is what “pollution is pollution” means, and you are right to notice that the position has migrated.
I think the migration tells us something about what was actually under the older objections. There are two distinct things that get called “environmentalism,” and the AI buildout has separated them in a way that the fossil-fuel debate did not.
The first is environmental stewardship — the recognition that we hold the natural world in trust and have an obligation to use it well. That position is older than the EPA, older than the modern environmental movement, and it is rooted in the same tradition that gave us “subdue the earth and have dominion over it” and the obligations that come attached to dominion. A steward who poisons the well he was given to keep is a bad steward. That ethic does not flip when the consumer changes. It applies the same to a coal plant, a refinery, an oncology infusion suite, and a GPU farm.
The second is environmental ideology — environmentalism as a political identity, where the position on a given pollutant tracks the political valence of the industry producing it. Coal: bad. Nuclear: bad. Then the AI capex flood arrives, the political valence of the industries shifts, and suddenly nuclear is acceptable, diesel backup is acceptable, and the locality’s groundwater stops being a topic. The position on the pollutant moved because the political identity required it to move. The pollutant didn’t.
That is exactly the test you’re applying without naming it: if the same person who objected to a coal plant on environmental grounds in 2014 is silent or supportive about a data center burning the equivalent fossil energy in 2026, the original objection was about identity, not about pollution. If they are still objecting in 2026 with the same vigor and on the same scientific grounds, the original objection was about stewardship.
My own report engaged Helen’s list with that distinction in mind. Two of her six concerns — diesel emissions during sustained generator runs, and evaporative water consumption in already-stressed basins — are real and apply regardless of the industry. The other four (low-frequency noise as a health hazard, sleep disruption from the noise, “stress and anxiety” framed as an environmental exposure, PFAS exposure to neighbors) do not survive scrutiny at the dose and distance involved. A stewardship objection should be able to make those distinctions. An identity objection generally cannot, because it was never really about the specific pollutant.
Thank you for the post — you put a finger on the right thing.
-
Robert Koch, Thank You for your detailed and very intelligent discussion on the subject.
-
We certainly have a very smart community 🙂
-
-
As someone who follows environmental health issues closely, I think people are right to ask questions before massive AI data centers are built near residential communities. Noise pollution, diesel backup emissions, water consumption, and sleep disruption are not “conspiracy theories” — they are legitimate public health concerns that deserve independent study and transparency.
A few useful sources discussing the issue:
– Brockovich AI Data Center Reporting Map (https://www.brockovichdatacenter.com/ geometry dash lite)
– Fast Company article on the AI data center boom map (https://www.fastcompany.com/91549212/ai-data-center-map-reveals-where-biggest-boom-is-erin-brockovich)
– TechRadar coverage discussing environmental concerns (https://www.techradar.com/pro/self-reporting-is-the-best-way-we-can-get-this-information-out-to-the-public-erin-brokovichs-next-crusade-is-tracking-new-data-centers-across-the-us-and-she-wants-your-help)
Personally, I would want strict environmental oversight, independent air/noise monitoring, and clear public disclosure before supporting one near my home.
Log in to reply.