I would prefer you not sue me if you get sick for any reason. Though I am not a multi-million dollar corporation responsible for toxic waste under your bed.

I don't want to pay the cost of environmental remediation through my rent. I would rather an agreement was reached to either deem the area uninhabitable or clean it thoroughly and deem it safe, in which case the non-liability clause oughtn't be necessary. I dislike the lack of guarantee either way.

I didn't mean to trivialize a complicated issue. It was more so hyperbolic musing that in an area that supposedly epitomizes Western civilization, technological progress and elevates humanism, we can't even guarantee basic safety from the elements.

It's mentioned in the link to the Atlantic article people are sharing that tech industries in the valley were specifically requested to hide all traditional outward signatures of industry like smokestacks and storage tanks to make the industrial buildings more acceptable to suburban folks - and it actually worked.

The person who owns your apartment building did not also operate the semiconductor fab that dumped toxic chemicals into the ground.

It should be illegal to rent out a place that you believe is an environmental hazard. If this seems onerous, imagine the landlord knew the structure had dangerous wiring and wanted to waive liability for any fire damage.