center for health, environment and justice p.o. box 6806...

Center for Health, Environment and JusticeP.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org

L

O

V

E

C

A

N

A

L

For more information or to order copies of this publication contact:

Center for Health, Environment and JusticeP.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, Virginia 22040Voice: 703-237-2249 - Email: [email protected] - Website: www.chej.org

Cover photo: Lois Gibbs and daughter Melissa 1979

Fact Pack P001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A History of Love Canal 1

Love Canal Homeowners Association 2

A Summary of Events 4

Remedial Construction

Outside the Fence

Community Health Studies 6

Miscarriages and Crib Deaths

Birth Defects

Nervous Breakdowns

Urinary Tract Disorders

Combined Health Disorders

Key Dates of Events at Love Canal 13

Biography of Lois Gibbs 17

Formation of Center For Health, Environment and Justice 19

News Clips and Articles on Love Canal 20

A HISTORY OF LOVE CANAL

The history of Love Canal began in 1892when William T. Love proposed connectingthe upper and lower Niagara River bydigging a canal six to seven miles long. Bydoing this, Love hoped to harness the waterof the upper Niagara River into a navigablechannel, which would create a man-madewaterfall with a 280-foot drop into the lowerNiagara River, providing cheap power.

However, the country fell into an economicdepression and financial backing for theproject slipped away. Love then abandonedthe project, leaving behind a partially dugsection of the canal, sixty feet wide and threethousand feet long. In 1920, the land wassold at public auction and became amunicipal and chemical disposal site until1953. The principal company that dumpedwaste in the canal was Hooker ChemicalCorporation, a subsidiary of OccidentalPetroleum. The City of Niagara and theUnited States Army used the site as well,with the city dumping garbage and the Armypossibly dumping parts of the ManhattanProject and other chemical warfare material.

In 1953, after filling the canal and covering itwith dirt, Hooker sold the land to the Boardof Education for one dollar. Hooker includedin the deed transfer a “warning” of thechemical wastes buried on the property and adisclaimer absolving Hooker of any futureliability.

Perhaps because they didn’t understand thepotential risks associated with Hooker’schemical wastes, the Board of Educationbegan in 1954 to construct an elementaryschool on the canal property. The 99th StreetSchool was completed by 1955, opening itsdoors to about 400 students each year.

Homebuilding around the old canal alsobegan in the 1950’s. However, homeownerswere never given any warning or informa-tion that would indicate that the property waslocated near a chemical waste dump. Mostfamilies who moved into the area wereunaware of the old landfill and its poisons.The one-time canal looked very innocent,like any field anywhere. It certainly did notappear to be a chemical dump with 20,000tons of toxic wastes buried beneath it.

In 1978, there were approximately 800private single-family homes and 240 low-income apartments built around the canal.The elementary school was located near thecenter of the landfill. The Niagara River, tothe south and a creek to the north of thelandfill formed natural boundaries for thearea affected by the migrating chemicals.

1

From the late 1950’s through the 1970’s,people repeatedly complained of odors andsubstances surfacing near or in their yardsand on the school playground. The city,responding to these complaints, visited thearea and covered the “substances” with dirtor clay.

After years of complaints, the city andcounty hired a consultant to investigate. In1976, the Calspan Corporation completed astudy of the canal area and found toxicchemical residues in the air and sump pumpsof a high percentage of homes at the southernend of the canal. They also found drums justbeneath or on the surface, and high levels ofPCB’s in the storm sewer system. Calspanrecommended that the canal be covered withclay, home sump pumps be sealed off and atile drainage system be installed to controlthe migration of wastes.

Love Canal

Love Canal Homeowners Association(LCHA) was established in August of 1978 togive the community a voice in the decisionsmade during the Love Canal environmentalcrisis. LCHA membership consisted ofapproximately 500 families living within a10-block area surrounding the Love Canallandfill. The community consisted of blue-collar workers with an average annual incomeof $10,000-$25,000. The majority of peopleworked in local industries which were largelychemical.

The Love Canal Homeowners Associationgrew out of another group established in June1978, the Love Canal Parents Movement. TheParents Movement was started by Lois Gibbs,who lived in the neighborhood and whosechildren attended the 99th Street School. Ms.Gibbs, unaware of the dump, was alerted firstby newspaper articles describing the landfill,its wastes, and proximity to the 99thStreetSchool. Having a small sickly child

Love Canal Homeowners

Association

Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Gibbs first approached the School Boardarmed with notes from two physiciansrecommending the transfer of her child toanother public school. But the Board refusedto transfer her child stating that if it was unsafefor her son, then it would be unsafe for allchildren and they were not going to close theschool because of one concerned mother witha sickly child. Gibbs was angered and begantalking with other parents in the neighborhoodto see if they were having problems with theirchildren’s health. After speaking withhundreds of people, she realized that the entirecommunity was affected.

On August 2, 1978, the New York StateDepartment of Health (NYSDOH) issued ahealth order. The health order recommendedthat the 99th Street School be closed (avictory), that pregnant women and childrenunder the age of two be evacuated, thatresidents not eat out of their home gardens andthat they spend limited time in theirbasements. A few days later, the state agreedto purchase all 239 homes in the first two ringsof homes closest to the canal.

These unprecedented actions served to bringthe residents together to form a strong unitedcitizens organization, and served as thestepping stone to the establishment of theLove Canal Homeowners Association. Withina week of the health order, the residents held apublic meeting, elected officers and set goalsfor the newly formed organization. All goalsset at that time were ultimately reached.

However, nothing was done by the city withthe exception of placing window fans in a fewhomes found to contain high levels ofchemical residues.

In March of 1978, the New York StateDepartment of Health (NYSDOH) begancollecting air and soil tests in basements andconducting a health study of the 239 familiesthat immediately encircled the canal. TheHealth Department found an increase inreproductive problems among women andhigh levels of chemical contaminants in soiland air.

2

attending the school, Gibbs became veryconcerned about the danger the landfill posedto the school. She also realized that the schoolbeing built so close to the landfill might havesomething to do with her son’s poor health.

3

Love Canal

The Love Canal and the Surrounding Neighborhood


At the time of the first evacuation order inAugust of 1978, the state established theLove Canal Interagency Task Force tocoordinate the many activities undertaken atthe canal. The task force had three majorresponsibilities: the relocation of evacuatedfamilies, the continuation of health andenvironmental studies and the constructionof a drainage system to prevent furthermigration of toxic chemicals.

A cross-sectional diagram of the Love Canallandfill is shown below. Because of the closeproximity to the Niagara River, the watertable in the canal would rise and fallsubstantially. As this occurred, water wouldmix with chemicals in the landfill and moveout into the community as “leachate.” As thewater table rose, so did the leachate whichmoved out through the topsoil to homes builtnearby. There was also an old stream bed

A Summary of Events

Remedial Construction

4

that crossed the canal and underground sandlayers that carried this overflow into thebasements of adjacent homes and through-out the community.

The cleanup plan consisted of a tile draincollection system designed to “contain” thewaste and prevent any outward migration ofchemical leachate. A graded trench systemwas dug around the canal to interceptmigrating leachate and create a barrier drainsystem. The containment system is shownbelow.

The leachate collected from the drain systemis pumped to an on-site treatment plant thatuses a series of filters, most importantly,activated charcoal, to remove chemicalsfrom the waste stream. The remaining“clean” water is then flushed down thesanitary sewer system. Chemicals such asmercury and other heavy metals are notremoved by this treatment system.

A clay cap was placed over the canal as acover to minimize rainwater entering the

5

Love Canal

canal surface, to prevent chemicals fromvaporizing into the air and to prevent directcontact with contaminated soil. The 20,000tons of wastes are still buried in the center ofthis community.

Although this system cost the state millionsof dollars, a monitoring system to determineits effectiveness was not established until 5years had passed.

Thus, there was no baseline data on contami-nant levels in the groundwater. Once the statebegan to monitor the wells, they did findchemicals leaking into the river. This wasnot surprising since there was no bottom tothe “containment” sytem. Other data indi-cated that some contaminants were increas-ing in the monitoring wells outside the ca-nal. The state ignored these data and pointedto other data that indicated that the systemwas working.

Outside the Fence

Once the state had evacuated 239 familiesand began the cleanup, they arbitrarilydefined the affected area and erected a 10-foot fence around the evacuated area. Thisdecision was arbitrary because at the timenobody knew how far the chemicals hadgone or how many people were affected. Atthis same time, the state began to makepublic statements that there was no evidenceof abnormal health problems outside thefenced area. Consequently, the families inthe outer community became angry andbegan to look at the fence as though it fencedthem in. The residents knew there werehealth problems outside the first 239 homesbecause of a health survey that LCHA hadconducted.

The community quickly began to expresstheir anger and concerns. Even quiet andretiring residents suddenly found them-selves raising their voices in public protest.The protests included mothers and fatherswith their babies and seniors who were readyfor retirement. They marched into the streetson Mother’s Day, carried symbolic coffinsto the state capitol, and held prayer vigils.

The residents also picketed at the canalevery day for weeks in the dead of winter,hoping someone would hear them andsomeone would help. Their children weresick, their homes were worthless and theywere innocent victims.

Because of the pressure created by theprotests and the persistence of the commu-nity, the state was forced to address thecommunity’s concerns. They gave theresidents “concessions” such as an extensivesafety plan, a scientist-consultant of their


Community Health Studies

With the help of a dedicated volunteerscientist, LCHA began to interview families.Once the data was collected, they plotted theresults on a map and immediately noticed aclustering of diseases in certain areas of theneighborhood. Elderly residents suggestedthat the clusters seemed to follow the path ofold stream beds that had crossed the canalmany years ago. LCHA looked at old aerialphotographs, geological survey maps andpersonal photographs that residents broughtforth. One of these photographs showed an oldstream bed which appeared to be 10-feet deepand more than 20-feet wide. These stream bedscrossed the canal carrying water to and fromthe Niagara River. When the area wasdeveloped, the stream beds were filled withdirt and building rubble through which waterflowed easily. Even though there was nosurface evidence of these stream beds, theyprovided an easy pathway for chemicals toflow out of the canal.

The scientist who helped the residents withtheir health study was Dr. Beverly Paigen, acancer research scientist at Roswell MemorialInstitute in Buffalo, New York. The data wascollected by interviewing each family using aquestionnaire. More than 75% of the homesoutside the fenced area were included in thestudy. The 239 families who lived closest tothe canal were not included because they werealready evacuated.

Thus, the results were an underestimate of thetotal health damages in the community. Thestudy was completed in February, 1979.

Study Area

6

choosing whose salary was paid by the state,and a $200,000 Human Services Fund to paysome of the residents’ medical expenses. But,residents did not want concessions. Theywanted and needed to be evacuated as the first239 families were.

7

Findings

The LCHA’s study found increases inmiscarriages, still births, crib deaths, nervousbreakdowns, hyperactivity, epilepsy, andurinary tract disorders. Each of thesedisorders were plotted on a map using dots torepresent each case. Many of the dotsclustered around the old stream beds or“historically wet” areas. On the followingmaps, homes and streets have been removedso that no family would be identified. The“wiggly” lines are the undergroundstreambeds and the closed shapes are theponds or wet areas.

Miscarriages & Crib Deaths

The first map (Map 1) shows the miscarriagesthat occured at Love Canal. Each black dot rep-resents one miscarriage. As can be seen, thefamilies located in the ponded area had mul-tiple miscarriages. Also, the majority of thesemiscarriages occurred on or near a “wet” area.

When the observed miscarriages werecompared to the number of miscarriages thatoccurred in the same women before theymoved to the Love Canal, miscarriages werefound to have increased 300%. Most of thesemiscarriages occurred in women who lived inthe historically wet areas.

LCHA also examined the pregnancies thatoccurred between January 1979 and February1980, the construction period. This studyfound that out of 22 pregnancies occurringamong Love Canal women, only four normalbabies were born. The rest of the pregnanciesended in a miscarriage, stillbirth or a birth-defected child.

Map 1

Love Canal

Map 2


The LCHA also investigated the number ofbirth defects in the Love Canal community.Map 2 shows the homes where birth defectswere found.

When comparing the number of birthdefects in historically wet areas with homesoutside these areas, there were almost threetimes as many birth defects.

Importantly, no birth defects were found inhomes located on the stream bed that did notcross the canal. The study also showed thatduring the 5-year period from 1974 to 1978,56% of the children in the Love Canalneighborhood were born with a birth defect(9 birth defects among 16 children born) thatincluded three ears, double row of teeth, andmental retardation.

Children born 16No. of Birth Defects 9

Percentage 56%

Birth Defects

8

MISCARRIAGES AND CRIB DEATHS

Pregnancies Miscarriages PercentageBefore moving to Love Canal 714 61 8.5%After moving to Love Canal 155 39 25.2%

Relative Risk = 3.0

Birth Defects in ChildrenBorn During 1974-1978

in Wet Areas

Love Canal

NERVOUS BREAKDOWNS

Adults Break- %Living in downs

Wet Areas 149 13 8.7Dry Areas 226 5 2.2

(south section)Dry Areas 286 2 0.7

(north section)

Relative Risk = 6.3 wet vs. all dry areas

Map 3

9

Another condition that was increased inLove Canal residents was nervous break-downs including suicide attempts and ad-missions to a mental hospital. The table be-low shows that people lving in historicallywet areas were six times more likely to havenervous breakdowns as those living in dryareas.

The black dots shown on Map 3 representeither a nervous breakdown, suicide attempt,or an admission to a mental hospital. No onewas included that reported only a ‘nervouscondition’.

Nervous Breakdowns


Many of the chemicals in Love Canal are alsoknown to affect the kidneys and the urinarysystem. Map 4 and the table show an increaseof almost 300% in urinary tract disorders.LCHA found a great number of the canalchildren to have urinary tract disorders. Thestudy showed more disease on the streambedsthat intercepted the canal when compared tothe streambed that did not cross the canal.

URINARY TRACT DISORDERS

People Urinary % Tract

Disorders

Living inWet Areas 314 22 7.0

Living inDry Areas 826 21 2.5

Relative Risk = 2.8

Kidney and Urinary Systems

Map 4

10

Combined Health Disorders

Map 5 shows all the diseases combined.Remember that this data represents anunderestimate of the health damages at LoveCanal, since it does not include the 239families who recieved the highest exposuresand who were evacuated.

LCHA presented these findings to the statehealth authorities who quickly dismissed thestudy calling it “useless housewife data,”saying residents’ illnesses were all in theirheads, the birth defects were genetic, and theurinary disease the result of sexual activity(in a five-year-old boy??).

So, the community went back to the streets andexplained their problems to the public in orderto gain the public support needed. Thousandsof people soon began to write letters and sendtelegrams to the Governor, to legislators andto the President of our country. Residentscreated so much pressure and public outcrythat the health authorities were forced toinvestigate their claims.

On February 8, 1979, after the health depart-ment looked at the reproductive problems inthe outer community, they confirmed thehomeowners’ findings and issued a secondevacuation order for pregnant women andchildren under the age of two. This evacua-tion was a step in the right direction, but itwas still not enough. It was not until Octoberof 1980 that a total evacuation of the com-munity was ordered by President JimmyCarter. Everyone who lived at the LoveCanal had the option of moving away, withthe government purchasing their homes atfair market value.

It is unfortunate that everything done atLove Canal, from the health studies toevacuation, was done for political reasons.None of the decisions were based on scien-tific evidence. LCHA truly believes that if ithad not been for the large, strong citizenorganization, families would still be living atLove Canal with the health authoritiessaying there were no health problems.

For these same reasons, in September, 1988,portions of the Love Canal area were declared“habitable,” by the NY State Department ofHealth. But the state never declared that theseareas were “safe.” The 239 homes closest tothe canal have been demolished and theremaining homes may be sold to new families.The homes that will be reinhabited are stillcontaminated, still unsafe. There have been nocleanup measures taken around the homes,which were found to have several toxicchemicals in their yards. Only the creek andsewer systems were cleaned.

Map 5

11

Love Canal

In the case of Love Canal, history will mostlikely repeat itself. The deeds contain a clausestating that if the new owners become sick,harmed, or die due to the Love Canal wastes,the city, state or federal governments will notbe responsible. This clause is similar to the“Hooker Clause” in the earlier land transfer in1950.

In conclusion, it is important to add that canalfamilies didn’t know that they were beingexposed to poisonous chemicals, nor werethey aware that chemical wastes were beingdumped in our rivers, soil, and air. Love Canalawoke a community to the unpleasant andunfortunate realization of how toxic wastesaffect our lives, and destroy our environment.Residents at Love Canal always believed thatthe government would automatically protectthem. They were wrong; in some cases deadwrong!

Residents learned at Love Canal that even lowlevels of chemical exposure have an effect onthe human body, and that the government willprotect you from this only when you forcethem to. If you think you’re safe, think again.We can count only on ourselves to safeguardour families’ health through vigilance,knowledge and collective action.

12


Love Canal

April, 1978 - Niagara Gazette Newspaper reporter Michael Brown writes a series on hazardous wasteproblems in Niagara Falls, NY including the Love Canal dumpsite.

April, 1978 - Residents of area, become concerned about health risks from Love Canal after readingBrown’s articles and called local and state health authorities for answers.

April 25, 1978 - New York State Health Commissioner, confirms that a public health hazard exists inthe Love Canal community. Commissioner orders the Niagara County Health Department to removeexposed chemicals from the site and install a fence around the area.

April, 1978 - Lois Gibbs, resident and mother of two children, begins to canvass the neighborhoodwith a petition to close the 99th Street School located near the center of the dumpsite. Gibbs’ five yearold son attended kindergarten in that school.

May 19, 1978 - New York State Health Department meets with residents for the first time to explainpotential hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals in and around homes.

August 2, 1978 - A small group of residents drives to Albany, NY to present their petition to close the99th Street School to the NYS Health Department.

August 2, 1978 - The New York State Commissioner of Health declares a State of Emergency at LoveCanal and orders the 99th Street School closed and a clean up plan to be undertaken immediately. Healso recommends that pregnant women and children under two who live in the area immediatelysurrounding the Love Canal landfill should move.

August 7, 1978 - The President of the United States declares the Love Canal neighborhood anemergency and provides funds to permanently relocate the 239 families who live in the first two rowsof homes that encircled the landfill site. Families that lived in the remaining 10-block area, includingLois Gibbs’ family, were told they were not at risk.

February 8, 1979 - A second evacuation order was issued by the New York State Department ofHealth. This order recommended that pregnant women and children under the age of two who livedin the 10 block area outside the first evacuation zone of 239 homes should leave. In this case, once thechild turned two years of age or the pregnancy terminated, the family was to move back into thecontaminated neighborhood.

September 8, 1979 - 300 additional families who lived within the 10 block neighborhood were temp-orarily relocated as a result of health problems caused by chemical exposures from the clean upactivities.

May 17, 1980 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the result of blood tests thatshowed chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. Residents were told that this meant they wereat increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems and genetic damage.

Key Dates and Events at Love Canal

13


May 19, 1980 - Love Canal residents, frightened by the news of chromosome damage and angered by

the lack of government action to relocate their families from the serious public health risks of living

near Love Canal, “detained” (held hostage) two Environmental Protection Agency representatives. Love

Canal families challenged the White House to relocate all families by Wednesday (May 21st) at noon or

“What we’ve done here today, will look like a Sesame Street picnic compared to what we’ll do then,”

said Lois Gibbs, President of the Love Canal Homeowners Association.

May 21, 1980 - White House agrees to evacuate all Love Canal families temporarily until permanent

relocation funds could be secured.

October 1, 1980 - President Carter visits Niagara Falls signs the appropriation bill that provided the

funding for permanent relocation for all 900 families who wished to leave.

December 20, 1983 - Lawsuit filed by 1328 Love Canal residents was settled for just under $20

million dollars with Occidental Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum. One million

dollars was set aside for a Medical Trust Fund.

September 1988 - New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) completes a five year Habitability

Study and concludes that portions of the Love Canal neighborhood were “as habitable as other areas of

Niagara Falls.” NYSDOH refused to declare these areas safe.

September 15, 1989 - People from across the country joins former Love Canal residents in Albany,

New York at the capitol, to protest the decision to move new families back into the Canal.

January 19, 1990 - Lois Gibbs and others meet with E.P.A. Administrator William Reilly in an attemptto block the resettlement of the northern portion of Love Canal.

April 1, 1990 - Community leaders from across the state and nation came together with the one-timeresidents of Love Canal and held a major rally in Niagara Falls to protest the resettlement.

August 15, 1990 - Love Canal Revitalization Agency renames a portion of Love Canal, Black CreekVillage, and announces that 9 homes were available for sale to the general public.

November 28, 1990 - The first new family moves into Love Canal, but further efforts to sell homesmoved slowly. Regional banks were unwilling to accept mortgages for Love Canal homes.

April, 1992 - Federal Housing Administration agrees to provide mortgage insurance to families whowished to purchase Love Canal homes.

September, 1992 - the 93rd Street School building was demolished.

14

June 22, 1994 - Occidental Petroleum agrees to pay $98 million to cover New York State’s cleanupcosts.

January 5, 1995 - Occidental Chemical, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, takes over fulloperations and maintenance of the chemical waste treatment plant at Love Canal.

December 22, 1995 - Occidental Petroleum agrees to pay $129 million to cover the federalgovernment’s cleanup costs at Love Canal.

August, 1997 - The New York State Department of Health, was awarded a $3 million federal grant toconduct a follow-up health study of the families who lived near Love Canal before 1979.

July 24, 1998-- Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-Tn. of Tonawanda) announces that the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has agreed to request the City of Niagara Falls that the agency demolish the 63remaining homes in the portion of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) deemed unsuitablefor residential use.

August, 1998 - A playground was built on the southern section (not habitable) section area of theneighborhood.

Love Canal

15


16

In 1981, now a single parent, with twochildren and $10,000, Lois left NiagaraFalls for the Washington, DC area toestablish a national organization to helpfamilies living near other Love Canal-likesites. Many doubted her ambitious goal toguild a movement – even her mother toldher as she drove away “you’re forgettingyou’re just a house wife with a high schooleducation”. Lois knew she was no longerthe innocent housewife of the past – buthad become a sophisticated advocate ofhuman rights and justice.

In 1981, Lois created the Center forHealth, Environment and Justice, (CHEJ)(formerly Citizens Clearinghouse ForHazardous Wastes), an organization thathas assisted over 8,000 grassroots groupswith organizing, technical, and generalinformation nationwide.

Today, Lois serves as Executive Directorof CHEJ and speaks with communitiesnationwide and internationally aboutdioxin and hazardous waste pollution. Asthe author of Love Canal The StoryContinues, published in 1998, Lois bringsthe Love Canal story up to date anddiscusses the issues society faces todaywith chemical exposures. Lois along witha network of grassroots groups haveinitiated the Stop Dioxin ExposureCampaign and published Dying fromDioxin in 1995, to support local groupswith the goal of eliminating the sources ofdioxin exposure, a chemical she fearedmost at Love Canal.

LOIS MARIE GIBBS

Love Canal

17

In the spring of1978, a 27 year-oldhousewife namedLois Gibbsdiscovered that herchild was attendingan elementaryschool built on topof a 20,000 ton

toxic-chemical dump in Niagara Falls,New York. Out of desperation, sheorganized her neighbors into the LoveCanal Homeowners Association andstruggled more than 2 years for relocation.Opposing the group’s efforts, though, werethe chemical manufacturer, OccidentalPetroleum, local, state and federalgovernment officials who insisted that theleaking toxic chemicals, including dioxin,the most toxic chemical known to man,was not the cause of high rates of birthdefects, miscarriages, cancers and otherhealth problems. Finally, in October 1980,President Jimmy Carter delivered anEmergency Declaration, which moved 900families from this hazardous area andsignified the major victory for thegrassroots environmental movement.

Once families were relocated from LoveCanal, Lois’s life was changed forever.During the crisis, she received numerouscalls from people across the countrywhowere experiencing similar problems.This revealed to her that the problem oftoxic waste went far beyond her ownbackyard. She became determined tosupport these grassroots efforts.

Lois has been recognized extensively forher critical role in the grassrootsenvironmental justice movement. She hasspoken at numerous conferences and hasbeen featured in hundreds of newspaperarticles, magazine, and textbooks. Loishas appeared on many television and radioshows including 60 Minutes, 20/20, OprahWinfrey, Good Morning America, TheMorning Show and the Today Show. CBSproduced a 2 hour prime-time movie aboutLois’s life entitled “Lois Gibbs: The LoveCanal Story” staring Marsha Mason.

Among the many awards she has receivedinclude the 1990 Goldman EnvironmentalPrize, Outside Magazine’s “Top Ten WhoMade A Difference Honor Roll,” in 1991,the 1998 Heinz Award, and the 1999 JohnGardner Leadership Award from theIndependent Sector. She has received anhonorary Ph.D. from the State Universityof New York (SUNY), Cortland College.She also sits on numerous Boards andAdvisory Committees. She lives inVirginia with her husband and 4 children.


18

Formation of Center For Health, Environmentand Justice

Since Love Canal, Ms. Gibbs founded the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ)(formerly the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste - CCHW) in 1981 to empower localgroups to protect their communities from public health threats posed by environmentalcontamination. She started CHEJ because she was contacted by hundreds of people seekinghelp with their hazardous waste problems. As Director, she has traveled extensively across thecountry working with citizens and she quickly found that, although Love Canal is the mostfamous, it is not the only serious problem. In fact, chemical wastes and emissions continue tothis day, to threaten thousands of communities across the country.

Over the past twenty years, CHEJ has assisted more than ten thousand community-based groupsby providing them with technical information about the problems confronting them and helpingthem to strentghen their organizing and leadership skills. We are particularly committed toempowering groups faced with environmental injustice, who do not have the political, financialor social power to protect their communities.

CHEJ also coordinates nationwide, issue-focused campaigns around eliminating dioxin exposureand environmental health threats to children. These campaigns derive their influence at thenational level from the local victories achieved by our grassroots partners. As our networkbecomes broader and stronger, it is winning the power to hold industry and governmentaccountable for protecting public health.

Love Canal

19

The Risks of Birth Defects: Living Near ToxicWaste Sites

After fourteen years, the New York StateDepartment of Health (DOH) has comearound to the high level thinking of theresidents of Love Canal. A new studypublished in the American Journal of Epi-demiology confirms what Lois Gibbs andothers fighting the dangers of the LoveCanal and other dump sites were sayinglong ago: It’s dangerous to live near toxicwaste sites!

This study, conducted by DOH and re-searchers at Yale University, found thatthe closer you live to a contaminated site,the greater the risk is of having a child witha birth defect. This is not just gut instinctor observation of the obvious, this is arigorous, hard, scientific conclusion thatshows a “statistically significant” differ-ence between the rate of birth defects in acontrol group compared to those living neardump sites.

The researchers found that mothers livingless than one mile from a contaminated sitehad a 12 percent higher risk of giving birthto a child with a birth defect when com-pared to mothers who lived more than onemile from a site. Rates were highest fordefects of the central nervous system (CNS),the musculoskeletal system and the skin. Ifyou look at those sites “with the greatestpotential for exposure,” the rate of birthdefects was 63 percent higher than fornonexposed controls. For CNS defects, therate was 48 percent higher; for the muscu-loskeletal system, the rate was 75 percenthigher and for the integument system (skin),the rate was 163 percent higher.

The authors looked at the records of morethan 27,000 births throughout New Yorkstate for the years 1983 and 1984. Theycategorized the births according to addressand the type of birth defect. The data camefrom the New York State Department ofHealth Congenital Malformation Registry.

There were 9,313 infants studied with birthdefects such as cleft lip and palate, chromo-somal anomalies and digestive, muscularand nervous system abnormalities. A com-parison group of 18,802 normal births wasselected from the same registry andmatched with the “exposed” group.

The authors then looked at 590 inactivehazardous waste sites in 20 upstate NewYork counties. These sites were ranked bythe state DOH according to their “potentialfor human exposure to toxic substances”using EPA’s hazard ranking system. Thissystem focuses mostly on existing evidenceof contamination. The communities werefurther broken into three groups—thosewith high, medium or low exposure. Thehigh exposure communities were thosewithin one mile of a site where there wasdocumented evidence of contamination.

What’s remarkable about this study is thatthe authors did everything they could tolook at the data in ways that would reducethe likelihood that they would find any-thing. They bent over backwards trying todismiss the results and trying to show thatthere was no problem. They eliminatedcertain types of birth defects; they lookedonly at defects that were “likely to be asso-ciated with wastes sites;” and they did notinclude data on spontaneous abortions andfetal deaths.

The researchers concluded that the study“does suggest a small positive associationbetween proximity to hazardous waste sitesand birth defects” but they qualify theirconclusion by stating that the study hascertain limitations. Their biggest concernwas that no one can be sure that the moth-ers were actually exposed to chemicals fromthe waste sites and therefore that the birthdefects were the result of exposure to chemi-cals leaking from these sites.

20

Does this sound familiar? Once again gov-ernment is trying to excuse what they foundand protect industry by carefully wordingwhat they say. Why is the health depart-ment for the state of New York more wor-ried about whether they say anything thatwould hurt private business than they arein protecting the public’s health? I thinkthe answer lies in the influence big busi-ness has not only on government but alsoon the politicians who dictate the prioritiesof government.

Despite these cautions and efforts to mini-mize the results, the study still found a 12percent increase in all birth defects forthose who lived less than one mile from anydump site and a 63 percent increase forthose who lived less than one mile from theworst sites. Had the authors been morelenient in choosing data to include, hadthey included information on miscarriagesand stillbirths and had they not catego-rized data in ways that leaned towardsdismissing the results, the effects would beeven more striking.

The positive side of this approach is thatthe results are stronger, more convincing,and less subject to challenge. No one cansay that the authors were biased or thatthey used inappropriate methods to get apositive finding. But, this also means thatthe true effects might be even higher.

This study was published in late July of thisyear and we expect that industry will soonmount it’s challenges of this study. Theyhave too much invested in the argumentthat there is no evidence of health damageto people living near dump sites to let thisgo.

But no matter what industry or other crit-ics say, they cannot take away the fact thatevery time a good, solid, study is done toevaluate health problems in a communityaffected by toxic chemicals, researchers do

find health effects. The evidence is growingeach day. The heart defects in childrenborn to mothers exposed to trichloroethyl-ene (TCE) in drinking water in Tucson,Arizona; the increased miscarriages andbirth defects in San Jose, California; andthe leukemic children born in Woburn, Mas-sachusetts, are just a few of the healthproblems found in communities near con-taminated sites.

These problems are real. Exposure to toxicchemicals does cause adverse health ef-fects. We have to stop listening to industryand government who tell us these problemsare not real and who negate the evidencethat chemicals cause health effects. Theiragenda is to stall for time and to avoidaccountability for their actions.

The truth is the more we look, the more wefind. If we wait until we are absolutely surethat chemical X caused health problem Y,then it surely will be too late. We cannotafford to wait until the bodies are in thestreet. We need to act now, to hold industryaccountable for the pollution they createand to make government more responsiveto the needs of the people.

References

“Risk of Congenital Malformations Associ-ated with Proximity to Hazardous WasteSites,” Sandra Geschwind, Jan Stolwijk,Michael Bracken, Ed Fitzgerald, AliceStark, Carolyn Olsen and James Melius,American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol.135, No. 11, pp. 1197-1207, August 1992.

“Public Health Aspects of Toxic ChemicalDisposal Sites,” Arthur Upton, Ted Kneipand Paolo Toniolo, Annual Review of PublicHealth, Vol. 10, pp. 1-25, 1989.

“Health Effects from Toxic Chemicals—Fact or Fiction,” Stephen Lester, Everyone’sBackyard, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 1988.

21

center for health, environment and justice p.o. box 6806...

Documents