Re: Love Canal

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

March 28



	The source for Harry Hinks' posting to RADSAFE about Love Canal is

"RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS," #276, March 11, 1992.  The NEWS touts

itself as having "News and resources for environmental justice."  "Rachel"

is Rachel Carson, made famous by DDT and "Silent Spring."



	Montague wrote, "In 1953, when the canal couldn't hold any more toxic

waste, dirt was piled over it, and the land was sold to the local

government for $1.00. The local government then built a school on top of

the dump."



	This is grossly deceptive.  In 1952 the Niagara Falls Board of Education

demanded that Hooker Chemical, the company that owned Love Canal at the

time, sell the site to the Board so it could build a school there.  The

Board threatened to begin condemnation proceedings against Hooker if it

would not sell the Canal, and since resistance was obviously futile Hooker

sold the Canal for $1.00.  The deed of transfer contained "clear

notification" of the chemical wastes on the property.  A portion of the

Canal was not filled at the time the property was transferred.  [1]



	Montague also noted the part played by "Beverly Paigen and others" in

studying residents of the Love Canal area.  I do not know who the "others"

were, but Paigen issued a report about Love Canal that was evaluated by a

panel set up by Hugh Carey, then governor of New York.  This 1980 panel

said that Paigen's report "falls far short of the mark as an exercise of

epidemiology.  She [Dr. Paigen] believes fervently that her observations

prove the existence of multiple disease states directly attributable to

chemical pollution, but her data cannot be taken as scientific evidence for

her conclusions.  The study is based largely on anecdotal information

provided by questionnaires submitted to a narrowly selected group of

residents.  There are no adequate control groups, the illnesses cited as

caused by chemical pollution were not medically validated. . . .  The panel

finds the Paigen report literally impossible to interpret.  It cannot be

taken seriously as a piece of sound epidemiological research, but it does

have the impact of polemic."  [2]



	Even the New York Times - which did much to blow Love Canal out of

proportion - eventually acknowledged that Paigen's claims were "discounted"

by Gov. Carey's panel.  [3]



	As is typically the case, another 'environmental disaster' turned out to

be nothing.  Note too, that Louis Ricciuti's initial postings were about

exposures to radiation by workers in defense-related plants.  Ricciuti

threw in Love Canal for emotional effect.  In case you didn't know it,

Louis, Love Canal had chemicals in it, not radionuclides.



Steven Dapra

sjd@swcp.com





REFERENCES



[1]	"Hazardous and Toxic Waste Disposal."  Joint Hearings before the

Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and Resource Protection of the

Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, March 28

and 29, 1979, Part 1; pp. 249 and 255.



[2]	Toxic Terror.  Dr. Elizabeth Whelan.  Jameson Books (1985); p. 99.

[This chapter, (pp. 87 - 105) is about Love Canal.]



[3] 	New York Times, editorial.  June 20, 1981; p. 22.





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/