Love Canal Tragedy - Case Study Example

Environmental Studies Love Canal Tragedy Executive Summary Love Canal’s main purpose was closing the gap between the Niagara River but due to an economic downfall William T Love, the original owner sold it. The US Army and Hooker Chemical and Plastic Corporation used it to dispose chemical and toxin waste after which they sold it to the city of Niagara. Later on infrastructures inform of schools, sewers and homes were set up without the residents knowing what lie beneath them. Eventually, the toxin waste surfaced to the ground affecting everything including the water, food in gardens and polluting the air. Residents would complain of chocking odors and illnesses due to contact with the chemical and toxic wastes. This led to protests, intervention by the government and multiple lawsuits in pursuit of the compensation for the affected residents. Most of them moved, the infrastructure brought down and the Love Canal crossed for revitalization processes by the Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of the Love Canal Tragedy William T Love is the impresario behind the famous Love Canal as indicated by his last name (Johnson 1). Significantly, the core purpose of the canal was to connect the separations of the Niagara River that had Niagara Falls parting them. Moreover, the canal’s construction would be in a way that residents of the Niagara area would also source electrical power from it; typically, this was a prevalent idea for environmental conservation and community development. Unfortunately, William’s plan faced multiple challenges during the 1892 economic downfall leading to the plan’s ultimate failure; however, this was after he had dug a large percentage of the proposed area. Nonetheless, there was not much that he could do leading to its sale in auction over 25yrs later. Shockingly, the Love Canal served the wrong purposes after its sale. Firstly, the purchasers used it as a chemical disposal site and later on, the United States Army joined the party by using it for warfare experiments that entailed chemical weapons. In the late 1940s, a company (Hooker Corporation) that dealt with chemicals and plastics acquired the Love Canal for the private practices (Phillips 313). Conversely, the company also concealed multiple tons of toxic surpluses in the Love Canal for a period of over 5 years filling it, after which they used land material to cover the chemicals. Niagara City bought the canal to counter its over-population problem from Hooker Corporation that was keen to caveat relative to previous dealings of the land. After purchasing the Love Canal, the city set up infrastructure in form of schools and sewers puncturing the chemical waste barriers in the process. However, the city official took long before discovering the primal dangers; matter of fact, it was after reports of odors and health inspection that they took the matter with momentousness (Johnson 1). An investigation followed but it was too late, the chemical and toxic wastes had already negatively affected a significant number of Niagara residents. Multiple homeowners had at least one of their family members sick from the inhalation of toxic gases or contact with the waste. The government and Hooker Corporation opposed the families that demanded compensation or places for relocation but it eventually became a national crisis. The president of the United States avowed the Love Canal as a federal emergency area calling upon scientists to conduct the necessary experiments. Essentially, the scientists established the types of chemicals and toxins in the area confirming that indeed they facilitated the illnesses among Niagara residents. The Environmental Protection Agency filed a lawsuit later on that led to Hooker Corporation paying over 120 million dollars for compensation of land and other damages (GENESEO 1). Relative to the Love Canal’s tragedy, the Environmental Protection Agency set initiatives such as the Superfund that led to cleaning up of other similarly affected sites (EPA 1). Parties Involved The government, through the United States army contributes a lot to the tragedy; moreover, the Hooker Chemical and Plastic Corporation is chiefly responsible for disposing over 20,000 tons of chemical waste and agreeing to sell it knowing the repercussions (DeCarvalho 1). The homeowners are the core victims through acquiring illnesses from the toxic odors and chemical waste but the Environmental Protection Agency intervenes to make sure the right compensation steps apply on top of suing the responsible corporation. Even though the city only plays the minor role of purchasing the land, they are also equally responsible for the tragedy because they ignore the caveat on its prior dealings. In the end, President Jimmy Carter also offers crucial assistance by declaring the land a federal emergency area, which attracted a lot of attention hence making the EPA to come to the aid of the affected. Environmental Problems The chemical waste surely eroded the environment with multiple reports stating that drum were visible through cracks on the ground; moreover, trees and plants in the area were changing color and eventually drying up. The chemicals corroded the foundation a swimming pool around the school and these chemicals would float on the water (Phillips 315). The toxin gases polluted the air and everyone complained about a choking smell especially in the basements and playgrounds. With the chemical wastes affecting everything, people also refrained from eating vegetables from their kitchen nurseries and the polluted air affected pregnant women and children who had difficulties in breathing. Media Coverage The media coverage was not in the required depth given a situation of such vast significance. However, the Niagara Falls Gazette that was the core investigator and media representative took the necessary processes and steps before making any postings on the local newspaper (Niagara Gazette 1). Considerably, the two reporters that headed the investigation took the necessary environmental evaluations before making any assumptions and conclusions. However, even after establishing that the land had toxic chemicals the involved parties were reluctant to voice out their findings. A reporter from the gazette later on confirmed the health defects of the toxic chemicals urging the residents to protest. The protest was effective for a long time and other media organizations started covering the Love Canal story. Essentially, the Love Canal tragedy is still popular in the media today with prominent media houses and universities covering the story after more than thirty years. Most of the post and reports exercise accuracy on almost all the aspects but there lacks clarity on who disposed the chemical wastes; in fact, most of them avoid including the US Army and government in their postings. Root Cause of the Love Canal Tragedy The root cause of the Love Canal tragedy was definitely the chemical and toxin wastes disposed by the Hookers Corporation and the US Army during the weapon testing practices. However, the Hooker Corporation takes most of the blame because it disposed over 20,000 tons and used a barrier that was not sufficient (Cruz 1). However, the city bought the land even after the corporation’s caution so they also contribute to their own crisis. This is the only fact that left out in most of the conclusions about the tragedy. Solutions Proposed and Implemented and Remediation of the Event Appreciably, the Environmental Protection Agency intervened suing the Hookers Corporation that paid the compensation fee; moreover, the president declared the land a federal emergency area. After the incident, there was a demolition of the houses affected by the toxin and chemical wastes with most people vacating. Years later, there was the foundation of the Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency after which, the city of New York covered the chemicals with plastic, clay and dirt (EPA 1). However, the pace of renaissance is not as expected since after more than 30yrs, the Love Canal remains as a restricted area with barbed wire round the affected land. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has been a subject of several lawsuits by neighbors of the Love Canal claiming that it still leaks; nonetheless, the agency claims to be doing their best in sampling, monitoring and containing the land. In 2011, reports showed that the danger goes further than the barricaded area especially because of the sewers constructed initially by the city. Moreover, some of the neighboring homes argued that the revitalization crews flushed the chemicals in their drains. Essentially, a significant number of critics and neighboring residents question EPA’s process to revitalize the land claiming that they did not follow the correct protocol. All the same, one cannot fail to acknowledge that the agency was still taking steps in making the Love Canal a better place up to 2011. Conclusion During the time of the tragedy, the media called the Love Canal a public health time bomb creating a lot of panic in people, which is there even today (Goodwin 1). This is just one of the criticisms facing the media, and the government faces the same prompting the EPA and other government organizations to give the Love Canal more attention and effort to protecting the public from the toxins and chemical wastes. Moreover, non-governmental organizations also disapprove the decisions made by the government before and after the tragedy. Works Cited Cruz, Gilbert. Love Canal- Top Environmental Disasters: Time, 2010, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804, 1986457_1986501_1986441, 00.html> DeCarvalho, Juliana. Love Canal Disaster: Environmental Health Perspectives, 2013, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Love+Canal+Disaster> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Love Canal Tragedy: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 1979, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy> GENESEO, Love Canal- A Brief History: Suny Geneseo History Department, State University of New York, 2013, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://www.geneseo.edu/history/love_canal_history> Goodwin, Michael. Love Canal Still Oozing Poison 35 Years Later: New York Post, 2013, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://nypost.com/2013/11/02/love-canal-still-oozing-poison-35-years-later/> Johnson, Jason. Love Canal – America’s Worst Man-made Environmental Disasters: Mother Nature Network, 2015, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/americas-10-worst-man-made-environmental-disasters/love> Niagara Gazette, Love Canal Chronologies: University of Buffalo, State University of New York, 2014, Web, Viewed 6 February 2015 < http://library.buffalo.edu/specialcollections/lovecanal/about/chronology.php> Phillips, Alicia. Love Canal Tragedy: Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cleveland State University 21(4): 2007, 313-19 Read More