Controvery at Love Canal

Summary of Selection 23

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 50,000 hazardous waste sites exist in the US. 90% of these pose potential health threats due to poor location and poor management. 2000 are currently threatening the health of communities. We can learn from past experiences such as the disaster at Love Canal.

Hooker Electrochemical Corporation filled the canal with toxic chemicals and then covered them up. Years later the land was sold to the Board of Education. Schools and homes were built on top of and around the site of the canal. The residents could tell that something was wrong because toxins could be seen seeping through the dirt into their basements, strange puddles and odors, and some people and children were getting very sick and had chemical burns. At first the Niagra Falls Health Division took no action, but the residents pushed for it. Eventually the homes immediately surrounding the canal were evacuated and a fence put up. The families in the other homes were told they were safe by the Health Department; but they didn't believe it, they knew there was evidence that chemicals had moved beyond the fence. Beverly Paigen was a scientific researcher and began to survey the people living nearby for birth defects, illness, miscarriages, and so on. She found that there was a much higher than normal frequency among families who lived in homes that had been along former stream beds (since filled in), "wet homes." She reported her findings, and the Health Department decided to evacuate only families with children under 2 years of age or women who could prove they were pregnant. This was far too little, but the department seems to have been stalling over the "controversies."

The 2 opposing sides in the controversy were the community vs. the health department. This has happened at a number of other hazardous waste sites. Once the antagonism there were several factors causing delay, impeding a resolution:
1. Either side may have something to gain by not resolving the controversy. Money and precedent would have been lost by the state.
2. Opponents don't agree on the question that needs to be answered, or even what an answer might imply.
3. More than one group should be in charge of gathering and interpreting information/data, since the outcome will be greatly reflected by this. Preferrably a neutral third party.
4. People who express dissident and minority opinions must be allowed to do so. They should not be demoted, transferred, or harassed. This does not resolve the problem!
5. Scientists should follow proper protocol such as openness of data, peer review and criticism, publication of data, and experimental replication. This will give accountability and allow errors to be detected.
6. Both sides should agree on what facts need resolving, who should resolve the controversy, the procedures by which those people will do the research, interpret the data, etc. and they must agree to abide by what is implied by the findings. Unethical conduct should be severely penalized. Some examples by the state on the Love Canal controversy are appointment of a secret decision panel, manipulation of health data, huge unexplained delays, harassment of employees with different views, and discouragement of independent, professional health studies.

An official process should be developed to ensure that the next time this happens (as it inevitably will), it can be dealt with in the most effective way possible. These issues are not just scientific, but also ethical...people's lives are at stake and that needs to be recognized. Dealing with these issues in a methodical way will ensure fewer people are harmed and that the state's money is used in an effective way.