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.