Question 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?

Well, I believe that people who live in conditions with higher levels of enironmental pollution should be somewhat compensated so that they can pay to get their environmental problems fixed or at least made better.So it would be an ethical practice. Another step to promote environmental equity would be to have state workers visit homes where their might surrounded with an excessive amount of environmental waste/pollution to make sure that the homes are safe to live in.

Question 3

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%?
No, public officials should not wait until the probability that the problem is related to environmental concern until it reaches 95%. If there is at least a 60% chance that the problem is related to the environmental concerns, they should inform the public because even though the probability not might be 95%, there is still the good chance that the problems are due to the environment. If the public is not warned, then they may be experiencing harm due to their living conditions without knowing it.

Question 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?
I don't think they should reveal the names of the people who were tested in the studies unless the people gave consent. I think they should have let the public know what the results of the test were, but not say the names of the people involved in the tests. I think that this does apply to the Love Canal situation because there were rumors about people getting harmed from the noxious gases. I think they should let the public what the results of the tests were.

Question 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. It is the duty of officials to protect those harmed by environmental disasters that can be hazardous to their health.

Summary

LOVE CANAL
Humans have been hurting the environment since the fifteenth century. This is shown when people began dumping waste in the Love Canal and harming the public. In the 1940s canals were being built for shipping. William Hooker wanted to build a canal in Niagara Falls, but it failed midway due to lack of money during the Depression. The canal was named “Love Canal” by residents. In 1947, Hooker Electrochemical Corporation bought the Love Canal and made it a waste dump, and from 1942-1957 21000 tons of chemicals were dumped! Hooker then put a cap over the Love Canal to prevent toxic leakage. The School board sought to build a school over it; however, Hooker cautioned against it. Once built…. the walls breached. In 1958, three children suffered from severe burns caused by the leak. When health departments and agencies did nothing to help and did not correctly notify homeowners of the problem, the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA) was formed. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDH) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) then became quickly involved to compensate for the embarrassment of the officials poor response. Tests were administered and revealed a wide variety of chemicals in Love Canal homes and frequency of miscarriages among women living in homes near the former canal site. A public health emergency was declared on August 2, 1978 and New York bought all of the homes. Beverly Paigen, a cancer research scientist, volunteered her time and found the noxious gases were causing miscarriages, birth defects, worsening asthma, and urological problems. The women who could prove to be pregnant or had infant children were relocated with compensation. At one point, the residents were so angry at one point that nobody was listening to them and they were not relocating them that they locked the EPA representatives in their offices and the FBI had to come and release them. The Occidental Petroleum Corporation, which bought Hooker Chemical in 1968, had to pay $129 million to the state of New York to cover the cost of the cleanup and relocation programs and to 2,000 people who were injured by the chemicals. In 1994, the cleanup of the condemned homes in Love Canal was finished. A real estate company bought the land and developed a new neighborhood called “Sunrise City”.