Love Canal The New York Toxic Wasteland - Term Paper Example

Love Canal “The New York toxic wasteland”, The lessons learned Your Love Canal contamination is chain of events that is tragic and hopeful simultaneously. It is tragic because of its hugely negative impact on the health of neighboring residents as a consequence of governmental and industrial ignorance. It is hopeful because the incident evoked such an awakening in community that evolved into environmental movement, not only for Love Canal issue but for other environmental concerns as well. The tragedy teaches us many lessons for future, the paper identifies and analyses these lessons by studying different research works on Love Canal. Lessons learned from Love Canal “The New York toxic wasteland” A hazardous waste site Love Canal and associated citizen action is a milestone in American history, it was the extensively publicized citizen action that proved to be the starting point of activism against people exposition to toxic and hazardous chemical wastes. It also drifted federal policy to provide Superfund for cleaning Love Canal and other hazardous waste sites (Brown and Clapp, 2002, p.95).According to Center for Health, Environment and Justice, history of Love Canal takes us back into 1892, when William T. Love put forth a proposal of connecting upper and lower Niagara River by a canal for generating cheap power. However, due to economic pressures, the project was abandoned and land was auctioned and until 1953, it is used chemical disposal site. Hooker Chemical Corporation that was a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum in addition to City of Niagara and United States Army used this site for dumping chemical to warfare materials. In 1953, Hooker sold this site to education board after covering the area with dirt and clay. In this way, the site became in direct use of unaware citizens and most importantly school kids who never imagined about living on 20,000 tons of toxic waste materials. Despite of citizen complaints of odors and health issues, no considerable action was taken until a female citizen and mother of two kids, Lois Gibbs took stand and rest is the history. This paper identifies the lessons learned in the whole journey of Love Canal, the hazardous waste site in New York (Love Canal, n.d.p.1). Love Canal became the typical example of hazardous waste and Superfund program. Surprisingly, it was not the top-ranked Superfund site of New York in 1983 when National Priority List was formulated. Even it was not the major dumping site of Hooker Chemicals. Hooker dumped their major wastes at three sites in Niagara County; 102nd Street Dump, Hyde Park in north and in S-area that was next to city’s water treatment plant. Love Canal has got edge over all these sites because a neighborhood citizen organization initiated by an individual drew everyone’s attention towards toxic wastes and its health consequences. It also made effective use of media and politics to work toward an objective for collective gain (Townsend, 2001, p.7). According to Townsend (2001) Love Canal experience reveal that it is not just about the gaps in scientific research but loopholes in our social structure and understanding as well. Recent example for this is many Superfund sites with institutional controls. Institutional memory at all levels is short when it comes to environment. It is highly unlikely that toxic materials left in clean ups will be operated, maintained or provided an alternative treatment after 100 years from now. There is no guarantee that governments in distant future will not provide such sites for building houses and schools that will expose future generations to such hazardous chemicals again. Love Canal is a clear indication of short institutional memory as it took only few years in 1950s from the last toxic material dumping to building of an elementary school and residential areas that were directly exposed to these poisonous chemicals (p.28). After Love Canal numerous citizen groups have taken the initiative to protect the environment and citizen. Paigen (1982) analyses the Love Canal controversy between Love Canal community and the New York State Department of Health and suggests that in such cases, all parties to the conflict needs to be agreed on the issues to be addressed and they authority who is going to resolve the controversy (pp.29-37).Dandoy (1990) explains that such steps might have worked for recommendation of advisory group created for Medfly dispute. However, in another example, California group made considerable achievement even without this step when they persuaded and overcome public fears of aerial pesticide application (p.1300).Another important lesson is the mobilization and use of inter-faith coalitions and voluntary groups, Townsend (2001) states: Inter-faith coalitions and other voluntary groups may play a significant role in the area of institutional controls-in the face of powerful forces working towards active forgetting-by creating memorials, museums, and other symbols that keep memory alive. An example of this from Love Canal would be the maintenance of the Ecumenical Task Force archives by Patricia Brown, their placement at the University at Buffalo archives in 1999, and the memorial service held there in June 2000 that honored her. (p.28) Love Canal legacy draws attention to the influence of ETF on the reaction from communities of faith to other Superfund sites. It can be explored in three main dimensions. Firstly, understanding and defining these waste sites as disaster areas and responding them in a way that is similar to the response to natural disasters. Secondly, it promoted unity among churches and coalition reached beyond churches to voluntary organizations. Thirdly, it emerged as a prophetic dimension because this call for justice evolved into movement and later called as “environmental justice” and “eco-justice” (Townsend, 2001, pp.28-290). In Love Canal experience, response from inter-faith community proved to be revolutionary. However, religious groups in Niagara Frontier were dormant at the first stage of site identification. Initially local residents were fighting on their own with the help of few volunteers and media. But as ETF formed, it actively participated not only at Love Canal but at other sites from the first stage of identification. Few of such sites became federal Superfund sites while others were handled at state level.ETF with coalition partners successfully blocked expansion of two similar sites in Niagara County. At love Canal they contributed majorly in assessing and communicating the risk throughout the entire Superfund status procedure (Townsend, 2001, pp.30-31).Citizen awakening and community action initiated organization like ETF to act as catalyst and encourage governments to take action. These incidents clearly highlight the importance of public participation for collective decision making. For working on potential environmental risks, public participation involves being communicative and open to people. They need not only to be aware of the planning but their input in decision making and concerns should be on the top of priority list. It is crucial to work beyond pronouncements that authority is expert and bring out what is best. Love Canal teaches us that risk communication is two way communications; it is not just telling but listening and understanding as well. Public trust and faith on governmental bodies and health departments will be restored only by working on the two-way communication process (Dandoy, 1990, p.1300). A report by Center for Health, Environment and Justice (Love Canal, n.d., p.12) reveals that in case of Love Canal, the history is going to repeat itself in near future. It is due to the fact that deeds contain a clause that liberated federal government, city or state from any responsibility if new residents face health issues, such as become sick, injured or even die due to Love Canal wastes. The clause is no different than “Hooker Clause” that was proposed in 1950s land transfer. It is crucial to highlight that resident families were unaware of being exposed to such hazardous materials. They were not taken in confidence while contaminating their rivers, land and air. Love Canal community realized the hazardous impact of chemical wastes on not only their own physical and mental health but on their future generations’ and environment as well. Love Canal residents taught us a lesson by their blind faith in government as they always believed that government will protect them but their belief was completely wrong. They learned about health hazards even with slight exposure to such chemicals and government will never come to rescue until and unless they are forced. The most important lesson is to stop over-realization on all entities and focus majorly individual knowledge, vigilance and collective action for sensitive matters like health. Love Canal is a series of incidents that teach us many lessons at different levels, such as individual, community, government, religious, voluntary and environmental associations. It reveals negligence and carelessness even in highly sensitive industries when it comes to taking care of environment and citizen’s health. Love Canal makes us aware that it is not obvious that governments will take care of everything even what they are responsible for. Among all the hopelessness from authorities, Love Canal shows us the light of hope when it teaches us about the power of collective action. Citizens can move governments and work for collective welfare with knowledge and being aware of their surroundings. Raising voices and collective efforts can bring change even in most desperate situations. However, sometimes just raising voices is not enough as you need forceful community action in order to force authorities for taking an action to solve the problem. Such as Gibbs did, she not only made herself knowledgeable, sacrificed her family life, mobilized people but as Schabecoff(2003,pp.228-229) puts it, they collectively used unusual strategy combined with bulldog determination and not only got nation’s attention to the dilemma of the Love Canal residents but also forced government to take action for their collective cause. Work Cited Brown, P., Clapp, R. (2002).Looking Back on Love Canal. Public Health Reports, 117(2), 95-117. Center for Health, Environment and Justice (n.d.).Love Canal. Retrieved from http://www.chej.org/documents/love_canal_factpack.pdf Dandoy, S. (1990).Risk Communication and Public Confidence in Health Departments. American Journal of Public Health, 80(11), 1300. Paigen, B. (1982). Controversy at Love Canal. The Hasting Center Report, 12, 29-37. Shabecoff, P. (2003).A fierce green fire: The American Environmental Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press. Townsend (2001).Case Study One: Love Canal Superfund Site, Niagara Falls, New York. SFAA Project. Retrieved from http://www.sfaa.net/eap/lovecanel.pdf Read More