1. Is it reasonable to demand that the ethical duty of public officials is to respond to an environmental problem by objectively examining the scientific facts and the potential hazards to local residents, independent of economic and political considerations?
Yes, it is reasonable to demand that public officials respond to an environmental crisis by examining facts without considering politics or money. The government is here to serve the needs of the people and if they worry more about money or politics then they’re not serving the people.

2. One of the charges raised against the NYSDH and the Health Commissioner was that the public health establishment would not divulge the details of the studies that led to its decisions, held many closed meetings and even refused to reveal the names of members who served on consultation panels it established. Do you think that there might be an ethical justification for such public agencies to refuse public access to such information? If so does this seem to apply to the Love Canal situation?
We think that the government shouldn’t keep important public decisions secret because we elected them to represent us and they should be making the kind of decisions we want them to make. If they’re doing something in secret, it’s probably because they’re doing something they know they shouldn’t be doing.

Another values issue is the extent of evidence needed to justify action to protect public health. Should public health officials demand, as they often do, that the data indicates a 95% probability that the problem is related to the environmental concern? For example, if evidence shows that there is an 80% chance that exposure to some chemical in the environment may cause a serious adverse health effect, should the health officials refuse to inform the public of the risk or take action to prevent exposure until further studies -- which may take months, or even years -- raises the certainty of the causal relationship to 95%?
We think that scientists should report their findings, even if there isn’t 95% certainty that it’s true. If they wait there’s 95% proof of danger, then a lot more people could be hurt or killed then if they act right away. It’s always better to be safe than sorry. However, if they’re not certain, then they should tell the people that they’re not certain. They shouldn’t pretend to be 100% sure, when really they’re just making an educated guess.

4. In recent years the issues of environmental justice and equity have been raised within the environmental movement. Minority populations, and poor people in general, have produced persuasive data showing that they are far more likely to be exposed to environmental pollution from factories or waste disposal facilities than more affluent white people.One proposal that has been put forth in response to demand for environmental justice is to provide some form of reward to those who live in neighborhoods where exposure to environmental toxins is significantly higher than average. Would this be an ethical practice? What other steps might be taken to promote environmental equity in an ethical manner?
Giving rewards to people living in neighborhoods exposed to environmental toxins seems like a nice thing to do, but really, money isn’t going to save people from being exposed to toxins. Whether someone has a dollar or a hundred dollars, if they’re exposed to toxins, the results will be similar. The money would be better used trying to clean up the toxins to make the poor areas safer, or to help the poor families move into healthier areas. Unless the people are getting enough of a reward to allow them to move away from the toxins, then the reward isn’t helping.

Love Canal

William Love started building a canal by Niagra Falls. He ran out of money and the partially completed project was abandoned. When the locals found it, they nicknamed it the “Love Canal.” The children would swim in it during the summer and use it as a skating rink in the winter. Later, the Hooker Electrochemical Corporation leased the canal as a toxic waste dump. After dumping more than 21 thousand tons of toxic waste, they lined the canal with cement and put a cap on it. The school board needed a place to build and they saw this dump as an open site. The Hooker Corp. warned the school board that it was a bad idea and harmful, but the school board didn’t listen and built on the land. Later all of the board members died, but no one linked the deaths to the site they built on. So then they built an elementary school and houses on the site.
In 1958 three children suffered from burns from toxins that had resurfaced. Hooker investigated and found that there was probably a toxin leak but he kept it a secret. People kept seeing death due to the toxins so they decided to form the LCHA (Love Canal Homeowners’ Association). The disaster was so big that the Love Canal became the first hazardous site to be featured on television and magazines. Scientists saw the situation and came to the site to investigate and a public health emergency was declared. They realized how much money it would cost to relocate the people so they just declared the site safe. Dr. Beverly Paigen came into the picture and did studies and realized that there was something going on that no one knew about. There were more miscarriages, asthma problems and birth defects in that neighborhood than any others. The New York State Commision of Health started evacuating and didn’t let pregnant women join unless they could prove they were pregnant. This was a problem because the tests at that time could not detect early pregnancies and they were more sensitive to the toxic waste. Eventually EPA got involved and showed that the people living in the area were at higher risk. Funds were made available to hundreds of “Love Canal” families, Hooker chemical company got sued, and they started cleaning the area up. In 1994 the clean up was done and they re-opened the subdivision as “Sunrise City.”