Love Canal Incident

Residents in a small town near Niagara Falls, New York began to experience health issues because of exposure to toxic fumes and poisonous chemicals that were surfacing in their neighborhoods (Friedrichs, 2010, pp.  66-67).  When the inquiry about the unusual circumstances in such an isolated area began, it was discovered that the land had been acquired by a local school board and others and had a canal in the plot of land that was drained and used as a dumping site by the Hooker Chemical Corporation (Friedrichs, 2010, pp. 66-67).  When the land was sold not much was said about the many barrels of toxic waste that had been buried in the Love Canal (Friedrichs, 2010; Gibbs, 2010).  The victims, again, were the residents who bought properties in the area, and because their incomes were relatively average or below-average they were locked in a community without the ability to escape the horrendous health concerns (Friedrichs, 2010; Gibbs, 2010; Sherrow, 2001).  Moreover, once the dumping site became known to the public many of the residents had no other option but to remain in the area because no other person wanted to purchase property that was located in the Love Canal area (Gibbs, 2010; Sherrow, 2001).  The victimization expanded because of this and generations within families suffered an array of serious health concerns and unnecessary deaths (Brown, 1979; Sherrow, 2001).  Essentially, the illegal actions by the Hooker Chemical Corporation caused financial and health harms in a longitudinal manner and, at first, attempted to cover-up any wrong doing or liability in the incident (Friedrichs, 2010; Gibbs, 2010; Sherrow, 2001). 

Eventually, the Hooker Chemical Corporation faced so much public scrutiny and costly legal battles that a twenty million-dollar settlement was negotiated between the company and the affected families in the Love Canal area (Friedrichs, 2010; Gibbs, 2010; Thompson, 2013).  Even with the settlement and attempts to rejuvenate the environment in the area, there were problems that were permanent (Gibbs, 2010; Thompson, 2013).  That is, the land is still considered contaminated by the government and private entities and now rests with nothing but a small fence barricading the property (Gibbs, 2010; Thompson, 2013).  The above-mentioned settlement, however, was the only legal repercussion that the chemical company has faced (Friedrichs, 2010; Gibbs, 2010).  After years of criticism, Hooker Chemical Corporation became Occidental Chemical Corporation to avoid affiliation with the Love Canal disaster, went on to become one of the world leaders in the chemical industry and let the federal government relieve the residents who had been victimized (Gibbs, 2010; Sherrow, 2001, Thompson, 2013).  It was not until many years later that residents in the area were properly evacuated and reimbursed for their expenses used to purchase living quarters in the polluted area, but again, this was done without much assistance from the chemical business (Friedrichs, 2010, Gibbs, 2010). 

Prevention of Toxic Waste Dumping Sites

In order to prevent these types of environmental and human harms, companies that deal with toxic substances should be routinely monitored with a strict regulatory process when disposing of toxic substances.  That is, state and federal agencies need to have monitoring agents that routinely check the disposal processes that businesses use.  Additionally, there should be stricter regulations about the distances between businesses that produce harmful substances and residential neighborhoods.  Since there appears to be a lack of criminal law enforcement against corporations that perform environmental harms, better laws should be configured that hold individuals and organizations who perform harmful activities accountable.  In other words, because there are humans who perform these activities and know that the actions are wrong and harmful, there should be criminal justice punishments for these individuals and any defense that that the individuals were/are acting under the guidance of company policy should not be allowed.  In sum, only using civil litigation to help victims and punish businesses is inappropriate and infers that organizations and the individuals who work within them are able to bypass the criminal justice system.  Which, in turn, furthers the idea that organizations can participate in activities that harm the environment and many people and simply use their profits to avoid prosecution a criminal court.  Basically, there should be criminal justice sanctions for people who participate in environmental harms when they know that the actions are going to be harmful to the environment and other living species.  Negligence should not be disregarded by the criminal justice system because individuals are acting under the idea that they are doing things for the best interest of their employer. 

References

Brown, M. H.  (1979, December).  Love canal and the poisoning of America.  The Atlantic.

            Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1979/12/love-canal-and-

the-poisoning-of-america/376297/. 

Friedrichs, D. O.  (2010).  Trusted criminals:  White collar crime in contemporary society (4^th

ed.).  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth.

Gibbs, L. M.  (2010).  Love canal and the birth of the environmental health movement.

            Washington:  Island Press.

Sherrow, V.  (2001).  Love canal:  Toxic waste tragedy.  Berkeley Heights, NJ:  Enslow

            Publishers.

Thompson, C.  (2013, November 2).  Lawsuits:  Love canal still oozes after 35 years later.

            USA Today.  Retrieved from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/02/suits-claim-love-canal-still-

oozing-35-years-later/3384259/.      

Source:  Public Domain