selection 23

Selection 23, Controversy at Love Canal by Beverly Paigen

This reading takes a scientist, Beverly Paigen as she looks to investigate the conditions of the Love Canal; the love canal was a man made dike that was suppose to connect with the Niagara river, but instead was a dumping ground for chemicals and waste. The controversy expands, because a community was built upon the site, resulting in miscarriages and harmful side effects.

Paigen was studying at the time, and was intrigued to find out the differences in the metabolisms of those living over Love Canal, and those elsewhere.

She assessed that the underlying geography of the past, below the area may be causing the Love canal’s chemicals to migrate, using old stream beds as they’re path of destruction.

She found more miscarriages from those living over these old bodies of flow. An increase in both birth defects and long term side effects were seen as well, such as new bourns with two sets of teeth, or higher rates of asthma.

She found herself in a tough spot, as her findings differed from the proposed ruled at the time, that the chemicals would not breach the wall.

She passed her findings along to the NY Health Department, several months later they were put in place. Women and children under the age of 2 were evacuated.

Soon a controversy was under way between the community of Love Canal and the NY Health Department, over the way the department let the chemicals go unnoticed, and did not warn the residents.

Several issues arose;

· The sate being hesitant on its action; too soon and action would cost a lot of money, not soon enough, would endanger lives and they could lose their jobs.

· The studies the health department made were only looking for pregnancy irregularities, instead of the whole community. So only pregnant women were evacuated.

· Reliability of the information; Outside findings were done with very little money, and were not part of the department of health, leading to controversy over findings.

· People were being treated poorly, transferred to different departments, or just denied funding for simply not agreeing with the departments findings.

· Paigen and several other scientists were denied access to databases of information, which was publically promised but never followed through.

Finally she looks ahead at how other scientists should look at not only Love Canal, but other sites. Stating that “an openness of data, funding and community selection of scientist”[1] is needed.

---

[1] Environmental Studies, Thomas Easton (Selection 23, Beverly Paigen)