LOVE CANAL ISSUE

BY
1. Nor Anierah binti Noho (2016728775)
2. Nur Fadilah binti Harun (2016706453)
3. Nurul Amalia Farhana binti Abu Bakar (2016524053)
4. Wan Nur Atikah Nabila binti Wan Badli Shah
(2016728141)

Class: EH2206A
Lecturer’s name: Dr Zulkifli Abdul Rashid
Submission date: 6 December 2019
 ISSUE 1
 Beverly Paigen, the research scientist who volunteered her services to
the Love Canal residents, commented in reference to her differences
with her superiors in the NYSDH, ‘‘I thought our differences could be
resolved in the traditional scientific manner by examining protocols,
experimental design, and statistical analysis. But I was to learn that
actual facts made little difference in resolving our disagreements— the
Love Canal controversy was predominantly political in nature, and it
raised a series of questions that had more to do with values than
science.’’ Consider the differences in the values that might be of
greatest importance to a Love Canal resident, the New York State
Commissioner of Health, a scientist doing research sanctioned by either
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the
EPA, an independent scientist (like Dr. Paigen) who was doing volunteer
research for the residents, and a typical citizen of the state of New
York. In what respects might these value differences lead them to
conflicting decisions about what should have been done in response to
the Love Canal disaster and how to do it?
COMMENT:
 Ethics stands for the principles, standards, beliefs, understanding of
taking right decision by choosing between right and wrong options; good
and bad etc. Ethics stands for the personal choice that an individual
undertakes listening or suppressing the individual’s conscience.
 Personal ethics stands for that part of philosophy which evaluates what
an individual believes about morality; right and wrong options for
choices. This type of ethic is based upon an individual’s choices, outside
the government or organization where he or she works for. Example:
Taking care of the elderly parents is a personal ethics choice of an
individual. In personal ethics, an individual has to take care of his
conscience, and take decision that is going to impact his personal life. No
authority would controls or judges the individual over the choices.
 Professional ethics stands for that part of philosophy where the
corporate rules that govern behavior of an individual is considered.
Example: It is a judge’s moral obligation to give true and justified verdict
of the case and give justice to the innocent party. But in professional
ethics, the choices made by an individual are going to be judged by
professional concerned people. Thus, an individual tries to be more
attentive, and cautious while making decisions based upon professional
ethics.
 ISSUE 2
 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, in
dependent of economic and political considerations?

COMMENT:
 Yes because It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of
ethics in public service. Public officials shall at all times be accountable
to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead
modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest
 ISSUE 3
 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?

COMMENT:
 No, there might not be an ethical justification for such public agencies to
refuse public access to such information because this ethical manner will not
justice for residential people who live in that affected residential area. The
effected residential people should have the right to gain such information
from the public agencies if it concerning mainly about their safety from
chemical toxic issue. This case can be related to the Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA"), which provides access to the public records of most
departments, agencies, and offices of the federal government.
 ISSUE 4
 Another accusation was that state employees sympathetic to the Love Canal
residents were harassed and punished. For example: Dr. Paigen’s ability to raise
funds for her research work was curtailed by the Roswell Park Memorial
Institute, causing the professional staff to charge the administration with
scientific censorship; her mail arrived opened and taped shut; her office was
searched; and when she was subjected to a state income tax audit, she
discovered newspaper clippings about her Love Canal activities in the auditor’s
file. In addition, when William Friedman, who had been the Department of
Environmental Conservation’s regional director, pressed state officials to take a
less conservative approach to protecting the health of Love Canal residents, he
was promptly demoted to staff engineer. This type of reaction by the political
power structure seems morally indefensible, but it is by no means unique to the
Love Canal case.

COMMENT:
 This situation is immoral because they harassed and punished the state employees
that show sympathy to the Love Canal residents.The political power structure
mainly concern about economic considerations which is politics,public pressure and
profitability rather than scientific evidences in determine the outcomes.
Therefore,they should be fair and equitable to the state employees. Besides,they
should take action against the person who responsible that arise the case.
 ISSUE 5
 Another values issue is the extent of evidence needed to justify action to
protect public health. In order for the scientific community to accept as fact
research showing that a specific health effect is caused by a particular agent,
the statistical analysis of the data must indicate with more than 95 percent
certainty that the observed effect could not occur by chance. This high but
clearly arbitrary standard has been adopted to protect the integrity of the body
of accepted scientific facts. But should public health officials demand, as they
often do, the same standard before taking action? For example, if evidence
shows that there is an 80 percent chance that exposure to some chemical in the
environment may cause a serious adverse health effect, should 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— raise the certainty of
the causal relationship to 95 percent?

COMMENT:
 No, public health officials should directly take action before the situation getting
worst in order to avoid more serious problem occurred. Public health officials
should inform the community of the residential area about the issue happening and
the risk that may be occurred so that the community will be aware with the issue
that happens around them. It is the public health official responsibility to assuring
an adequate local public health infrastructure, promoting healthy communities and
healthy behaviors, preventing the spread of communicable disease, protecting
against environmental health hazards, preparing for and responding to
emergencies, and assuring health services.
 ISSUE 6
 It is common in environmental controversies for those who believe they are at
risk to become distrustful of public officials in charge of investigating their
concerns. This was certainly the case in the Love Canal controversy. It is
unusual for a citizens group to be able to obtain the volunteer services of an
independent expert with qualifications like those of Dr. Paigen and they are not
likely to have the financial resources necessary to hire their own consultant.
Furthermore, although Dr. Paigen was able to provide valuable scientific
services, she was unable to gain access to and assess much of the evidence
that the public officials used as the basis for their decisions. Dr. Paigen and
others have suggested that the ethical solution to this problem is to provide
public funds to groups such as the LCHA with which they can hire their own
experts and which they can use to hire a qualified advocate who will be given
access to all public data and a voice in the decision-making process.

COMMENT:
 Yes, the LCHA should have been provided the public funds and a chances to raised
their voice and the decision-making about their dissatisfaction regarding what the
public officials have done to them. It is not fair for the LCHA to be served and have
an inequity life just because they are unaffordable.
 ISSUE 7
 The Hooker Chemical Company did not violate any then-existing specific
environmental regulations by disposing of toxic waste in Love Canal or by
selling the land to the school board. However, the courts have found
Hooker financially liable for the harm that was the ultimate result of their
disposal practices. This decision was largely based on the judgment that
Hooker possessed the scientific expertise to be able to anticipate that
dumping waste chemicals in the canal was likely to result in a public
health threat. It was also argued that Hooker acted irresponsibly by not
informing the public of the risks it discovered in 1958. Should
corporations be required to use their knowledge to avoid activities that
may cause public harm?

COMMENT:
 Yes, ethical roll of the corporation in society should have the knowledge
about the safety and health management in order to prevent any health
issue. This knowledge will encourage the corporation to avoid activities that
may cause public harm especially from building residential area that have a
safety issue regarding the chemical toxic impact.
 ISSUE 8
 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. In the Love Canal case, the
initial neighborhood population was neither poor nor did it have a high
percentage of minority members. Of course, those who chose to live there
were not aware of the pollution risk. It is likely, however, that the
inexpensive houses now being offered to induce people to move back into the
area after remediation is supposed to have made it safe will attract primarily
the poor. 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?

COMMENT:
 This is not an ethical practice. In order to promote environmental equity in an
ethical manner, state federation or the government should provide a safe and
clean residential area for all class people. State federation or the government
should portray the ethical manner concerning the safety of residential people
first in preventing from health illness issue.
 ISSUE 9
 In our society, environmental risks are generally evaluated in economic
terms. However, the assignment of economic value to human health, a
pristine forest, or a smog-free vista is surely not an objective exercise.
What other means might be used to evaluate environmental risks and
benefits?

COMMENT:
 Other means to evaluate environmental risk is by human health and
environmental assessment rather than economic assessment.Human health
and environmental assessments are included as part of an air quality
management program to characterize the human health and environmental
risks associated with exposure to pollution. Typically, these assessments
evaluate the impact of existing levels of pollution and the estimated
beneficial impact of a policy or program to reduce emissions and improve
the air quality. As a result from this assessment it may beneficial as a part of
an assessment from reducing emissions.
 ISSUE 10
 We generally assign value to things in anthropogenic terms. We consider how
humans will be affected by an activity that will cause pollution or degrade an
ecosystem. Some environmental ethicists have proposed that we should
adopt a biocentric perspective in which living things and natural objects are
assigned intrinsic value independent of human concerns. How do you respond
to the assertion that nature does not exist solely for the purpose of being
exploited by humans?

COMMENT:
 The exploitation of natural resources is the use of natural resources for economic
growth, but sometimes with a negative connotation of accompanying
environmental degradation. In the struggle for survival and development,
mankind creates a lot of negative impacts on the environment, these impacts
ranges from over-exploitation of resources, destruction of ecosystem as well as
pollution. Typically the exploitation of nature has been executed in a non-
sustainable way, which is causing an increasing concern, as the non-sustainable
exploitation of natural resources ultimately threatens the existence of human
being itself. Ethical egoism describes an individual’s act such as “exploiting
natural resource” based on their self interest for the sake of gaining more
profits. When nature being over-exploited by humans, causing environmental
degradation, which is the deterioration of the environment through depletion of
resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems; habitat
destruction; the extinction of wildlife; and pollution.
 ISSUE 11
 Although there is no explicit mention of engineers in this case study, it is
not difficult to imagine that engineers, too, were involved in the events
resulting in the creation of the Love Canal hazard, as well as in the
cleanup. Discuss the types of responsibilities that engineers have in
regard to the prevention of hazards such as this from occurring in the
future.

COMMENT:
 In order to prevent the hazard from occuring in the future, the
responsibilities that engineers have to take such as the engineering control
method. Engineering control method are very reliable way to control
exposure of chemical in a place or plant. As an engineer, one must know the
impact or consequences of the handling toxic substance to the surrounding
either it is safe or not to be dump and buried in a rural or resident area.
Engineer should provide an enclosure or isolation place for toxic dump site
far away from the residential area.