11/1/2017 0 Comments Love canalA shocking incidence of environmental pollution, a series of unfortunate deaths and an outrage against state negligence. This is the picture of the Love canal tragedy that happened in the state of New York near the Niagara Falls in the 1970s. Around 900 families, whose houses were built on a site heavily polluted by toxic chemicals, started facing health problems. When the number of such cases started growing, people started looking for reasons behind this. It was not long before they identified that their neighborhood was a former dumpsite for chemicals. Soon, the awareness spread through the residents and there was a movement to evacuate the area, which caught national attention.
In this incidence, there were many stakeholders involved, who were either responsible for the toxic contamination or were victims of it. The stakeholders were residents of the Love canal, local and state officials, federal government and the industry who dumped toxic waste at the site. The residents were concerned because they were affected by unethical handling of hazardous waste. The local and state officials had the responsibility to start acting on the issue immediately. The federal government was a stakeholder too, because they had to give a direction about remediation of the issue. In addition, they had to control the relative authority of various other stakeholders in taking decisions in this matter. The industry was a stakeholder for two of its important duties. First, to carry out safe disposal of the toxic waste, instead of merely its ‘containment’. Second, if a safe disposal has not been carried out, then the possible hazards to the residents should be communicated. There were various people responsible for this incidence. Without any doubt, the Hooker Chemical Company had the biggest responsibility in avoiding this tragedy. When they decided to dump their toxic waste into the abandoned canal, they should have disclosed all the possible risks and negative impacts of their solution to the local government. This action of dumping waste was not against the law at that time. However, the corporate companies have to deal responsibly when it comes to the impact of their activities on public well-being or environment. This is because, by providing the space in an around the habitat, the corporate companies are shown trust, for maintaining public health and safety. It should be in the corporate responsibility clause to continuously assess the possible risks and threats to the health of the local community and environment. In this case, the hazards were checked after receiving complaints from the residents. However, the data was not made available to the public. This practice, although in a public interest to protect important data from falling into wrong hands, reduces the trust in the government. I personally feel that the data should be public, even though there are a few risks associated with doing it. These risks are either be a situation of panic among public or antisocial activities which may lead to a risk for public. However, the police officials should keep a watch around these risky sites, to spot any unusual activity. While interpreting the scientific data, the correlation between the irresponsible dumping of toxic waste and cases of damage to public health was subjected to a stringent statistical test. However, there was not a strong correlation. Although, strong correlations are considered necessary in the research community, in the case of public hazards, even the weak correlations should be taken seriously. Other compelling evidences should not be neglected. For example, the parameters covered to assess any risk to public health in any study are limited. The other health complaints from different residents, even if in a large number, may not have found a place in the study. The environmental degradation and subsequent public health concerns associated with this incidence lead to ethical issues. Looking from the perspective of environmental ethics, the incidence shows shocking negligence on the part of industry and government. The human activities such as excessive chemical waste generation by industries impact the balance in nature and start making it unhealthy. It is a moral responsibility of humans to avoid such a negative impact on the well-being of the environment that they deal with. In an eco-centric approach towards this issue, the environment itself is an entity that deserves to be treated with respect. On the other hand, it is also seen from this study, that humans and environment are connected to each other in a stronger bond than what is usually perceived. In either perspective, this issue demanded immediate attention. In an interesting incident, the residents of this neighborhood locked up the visiting EPA representatives to communicate strongly about their demands. However, from the video footage of Lois Gibbs, it can be clearly seen that they were treated with utmost respect and this move was not out of any personal rage. Looking at the bigger issue which involved serious losses to public and the lack of strong action from the government, a strong demand from the residents were necessary. Hence, this action by the residents cannot be considered unethical. It was equally shocking to see the houses in the Love canal area being sold again, 35 years after this incident. The new residents of these houses can be financially poor and desperate for an affordable house. However, selling a house that has a future risk of health hazard is itself unethical. This is because, the standards of health and safety should be same for everyone irrespective of their financial status. Also, rewarding someone for staying in such neighborhoods is not a good idea. Instead, abandoned homes in other safe areas can be purchased and refurbished, later to be sold at lower prices. Or else, those abandoned houses can also be given on lease at affordable prices to the financially weak population. If I were to buy a home today, I would check whether the surroundings are safe and its history is clean in terms of hazardous activity. I would ask the person trying to sell me the property, whether the neighborhood is checked for any possible risks to the residents. I would also demand an access to the documents related to these assessments. In case, a similar incidence of toxin seepage is repeated today, the hazards to the public health will be no different than what they would have been 35 years ago. However, the history has already taught that the political and financial interests will take precedence over any scientific evidence. The measurement of hazard is important. But the process of getting the relocation of residence done in a timely manner can only be accelerated by political persuasion. Hence, the residents may want to focus on demanding an urgent action from the local politicians. From the Love canal case study, it is seen that the financial interests of a few stakeholders caused this problem from being solved for a long time. Clearly, there were vested interests for politicians, company officials and a few scientists as well. Prevention of financial setback to a company was given priority over public safety. In future, if the financial security of corporates is made independent of their communication of any risks arising from their business to the people, the problem can be avoided. Meaning, the government agencies should help the company in taking any necessary remediation action in case a hazard occurs. The state and federal governments could have played their roles in a better way by supporting the public demand for immediate relocation rather than protecting the interests of the polluting company. In addition, the nature deserves more respect from the humans and their actions. Every human activity, that uses natural resources or space, should protect the health of the existing environment at that location.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorVivek loves nature. He feels one with it. He wants to share his story. ArchivesCategories |