Talk:Love Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale


Contents

[edit] Swales

It occurs to me that the link to 'swales' (referred to here as the vector responsible for the upwards migration of buried wastes) is probably in need of attention. I think it unlikely that a small governmental region in England conspired to destroy the health of the Canal. Given, though, that I have not the foggiest notion what a 'swale' is (or was) I am unable to fix it myself. -J.H (Yes, I should get an account.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.211.2 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2005

Good catch. I removed the link since I couldn't find an appropriate article for swales to link to. Bkhouser 18:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
In response to the first person's comments, I wanted to offer the following. First, a swale merely is a shallow ditch used to direct rainwater in a particular direction. This is the link to a site that provides a similar definition: [1]. Second, the article said the site had "underground swales" which is a little misleading. I suggest editing the text along the line of "former swales that have been since filled with permeable material and allowed the lateral movement of contaminated groundwater." Mtneer183 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)mtneer183

130.39.61.29 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)== Bias? == What is interesting is why were the original polluters held respnsible, despite having notified the original school board of the insuing dangers. They were not even willing to sell, but for the threat of expropriation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.96.96.241 (talk • contribs) September 26, 2005

I agree. The first part of the article seems to suggest that Hooker Chemical dumped the waste in what would have been a run of the mill toxic dump. If they sold it to the city for $1 and explained to the city what had been buried there, why would Occidental later "oppose" the residents of the area? It seems to me at that point the issue was no longer in their hands. Is there some complication that is missing from this picture that explains Occidental's supposed guilt? TastyCakes 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well, I believe the article is biased against Hooker... I'm not usually one to defend chemical companies practices, but they have been exonerated of many of these public accusations by writer Eric Zuesse, who's article itself is linked at the bottom. Someone needs to figure out who's version is right - Eric or Lois Gibbs, the latter having made many of the public accusations. Rainman420 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We studied this issue in College in nearby Buffalo, and I recall there being information that Hooker's lawyers repeadetly tried to stop the school authority from digging past a certain "safe" depth for the playground site, to no avail, which makes the "hiding" claim somewhat dubious. 66.57.225.195 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If you need a reference to help support this point, see here: Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out -- 70.20.161.132 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The liability limitation clause of the contract was simply not legal, as is the case in most such liability limitation statements in contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.156.133 (talk • contribs) 20:45, October 24, 2006
Except that the majority of sources such as Mokhiber say that no such warnings were given, and quite obviously the liability qualifiers in the land deeds are incredibly illegal. Hooker can burn.Ademska 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I would like to add that anyone citing "information" from a website whose slogan is about freemarket and is quite obviously a rightwing procorporate article site is out of his mind. I know Wikipedia is a tertiarty source at best, but at least TRY not to be idiots.Ademska 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the claim that Hooker was under threat of having the property condemned anyway? Or that they tried for many years to prevent development on that property? Or that several governmental entities dumped at that site and not solely Hooker? Can anyone demonstrate that these claims of Reason's were false? PenguiN42 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A site with a "Free market" slogan can still have valid information. Though I haven't taken the time to read the article or the website, if the information is so false it should be easy for you to disprove. Instead you decided to attack the site and the contributor who cited it. There are plenty of sources cited on Wikipedia which could be labeled as "left wing propaganda or anti-capitalism". Regardless, they still have valid informations. Like it or not people have different political ideologies and news organizations cater to their readers. On controversial subjects like this sometime the best information comes from unbalanced sources. They tend to be more motivated and do the best investigations of controversial subjects. I am not saying every website on the net has valid information, but to say website is not valid solely because it has conservative leanings isn't justifiable. Calling people idiots isn't justifiable either and doesn't make you look very good. Thank you for your contributions with this article, your views and opinion are needed create a fair article, but please refrain from insulting people and discrediting sources because you are ideologically appose to them.Mantion 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to contradict yourself. Whether the liability qualifiers are illegal or not, they clearly are warnings that the property may contain dangerous chemicals. Therefore, it can't be correct to say that no warnings were given. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's defending capitalism. But Zuesse is a lawyer, and he claims he was quoting from the actual deed. If you can get the deed and prove that Zuesse fabricated that entire passage, let me know, because I'd love to catch Reason magazine in an embarassing fraud like that. If Mokhiber says that the deed doesn't include that passage, let him fight it out with Zuesse and prove it. But until then, Reason is a reliable source. Nbauman 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How our society should handle liability in cases like Love Canal was undecided prior to the passage of CERCLA in response to the Love Canal disaster. So even if the contract included a disavowal of liability, the question was unsettled as to where the initial liability should be placed, and whether a clause shifting liability is valid. Hooker/Occidental had more knowledge and expertise about toxic waste than the Niagara Falls School Board, as we can see from the Board's foolishness in building an elementary school right on top of a dump. A non-paternalistic, or libertarian view, such as represented by Reason magazine, would put liability on individuals, or in this case, the School Board. This might or might not be a good idea in general, but the Niagara Falls School Board was clearly not up to it.

As a result of the evacuation, society as a whole - the federal government - was left with the cost of the evacuation and cleanup. This too might not seem to be the best allocation of liability, because of moral hazard, among other reasons. So CERCLA shifted "joint, strict, and several" liability onto the polluter, in a way similar to that in which strict liability had been assigned for highly dangerous activities in earlier situations.

This is just a beginning of what needs to be brought into a discussion of Love Canal. I've taught this case at SUNY Buffalo and published papers on it in philosophy journals. It's not clear how to put this into a "neutral point of view" since Love Canal is a test case for different views of liability and different views of society. (Perhaps the article could be rewritten as saying that if you believe A about society then X is a good analysis of Love Canal, and if you believe B about society then Y makes sense, and so on. But I would not write it that way.) It's doubtful that the discussion in the article of the sale to the School Board upholds the "NPOV" standard either, since the portrayal of the Board as somehow threatening Hooker is far-fetched, and the article makes a dubious interpretation of the liability limitation clause.

I'll just add a citation to the federal court decision on Hooker's liability. The judge wasn't impressed by the liability disavowal in the sale, and ruled that Hooker/Occidental was negligent, but not reckless, in its handling of the waste and sale of the land to the Board. (alercher, 14 August 2007)130.39.61.29 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton Park

I removed a section titled "Hamilton Park" from this page, since it didn't belong there. I later discovered it was a violation of copyright, taken from this website: [2]. Thus it has not been restored. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of the Hamilton Park link at all. It leads to a disambig page where none of the three articles seem connected in any way. Tilefish 09:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see more discussion about how Hooker and Occidental are related and what happened to Hooker and Occidental as a result of the government forcing them to sell the land. Lawsuits, out of business, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.97.2 (talk • contribs) January 19, 2006

I believe Occidental is now known as Oxy, and can be found a few miles down the road from Love Canal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.72.187 (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006

Oxy is a "nickname" for Occidental Petroleum, it still exists and I believe is something like the 8th biggest oil company. Basically I think they paid to help clean up the site, end of story. It's headquarters are in LA, don't know if they have anything in the Love Canal region. TastyCakes 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you head down Buffalo Avenue you'll end up surrounded by Oxy chemical plants. They have buildings on both sides of the road with various Oxy-labeled pipelines crossing over the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.72.187 (talk • contribs) February 3, 2006
According to this EPA press release, Occidental Petroleum A/K/A Oxy is Hooker Chemical Company's parent company. --FloBrio 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Article Image

I recently added an image for this article, hope it suffices. Plexus2 00:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording? huh?

"During construction, a clay seal which Hooker had put in to stop the chemicals seeping out was broken through, despite the breaking of several drill bits in the process." This should be cleaned up. It took me a couple passes to figure out what it was trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.46 (talk • contribs) August 7, 2006

[edit] Clean up

This article needs some help, especially the toxic waste dump section. A mcmurray 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

-lol! Love canal "needs cleanup". Does anyone else think this is funny in a dark and ironic way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.4.166 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2006
Shouldn't this be improved? It's a bit short I think, and this is a very important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) April 23, 2006

I agree. The article also makes several references to a "Mrs. Lobosco" who doesn't appear to have any kind of significance, other than being mentioned specifically. It says that she was at the school, but I still don't see how this makes her any more or less noteworthy than anyone else that was there at the time.--Mysterioususer 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There is a "citation needed" note right before the actual first numbered note link. However, all that information comes from the article cited in that note link, the article at http://www.reason.com/8102/fe.ez.the.shtml ANTPogo 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fill

Here's kind of a horrible thought, but unfortunately important... does anybody know what happened to the fill dirt they removed when they dug out the basement/foundation for these buildings? That seems highly likely to have been contaminated, and if it was sold as "clean fill" or something used elsewhere, that seems like a very serious issue. Any information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakpoint (talk • contribs) February 1, 2007

While certainly informal, the article seems to suggest that the damage to the site's "cap" and the subsequent leakage didn't take place until after the buildings were built. Eli lilly 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] kms

I reverted the change which removed the kilometer conversion. The edit summary was kind of ethnocentric and I figured it could stay, I mean the Wiki is for a global audience. "We" have to remember that not everyone is American. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs Lobosco?

Who is Mrs Lobosco? Why is she mentioned 3 times in the article with no introduction? Why should we be interested in her? PenguiN42 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency of dates under State of Emergency

The second paragraph reads: "On August 7, 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal, and those living closest to the site were relocated."

And the fifth paragraph reads: "After growing evidence and two years' effort by Lois Gibbs and other residents, President Carter declared a state of emergency at Love Canal on May 21, 1980, and the EPA agreed to evacuate 700 families temporarily."

Am I missing something, or are these dates inconsistent?

larz (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure looks inconsistent to me. So find out which one is correct and change the other date. Eli lilly (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is still there and I am too lazy to do anything about it My computer said love (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)