—, €ANABA ———< Love Canal — the tip of the iceberg — perry By RICHARD LANE “* ... the Love Canal . . . situation (is) ... Simply the tip of the iceberg.”’ — James Moorman, U.S. assistant attorney-general for land and natural resources, May 16, 1979. ““Love Canal, a suburb of Niagara Falls, N.Y., is the scene of the largest and most notorious of American’s hazardous waste tragedies.” — New Scientist, Dec. 11, 1980. * * * In 1895, William Love planned a model community near Niagara Falls. As. a source of cheap electricity for his community he started to build a seven- mile-long canal to connect the upper and lower levels of the Niagara River. Before its completion an economic recession put an end to Love’s dream. The planned community had to be abandoned as backers withdrew. Even- tually, in 1920, Hooker Chemical Co. bought the site. From 1947 to 1952 Hooker used the unfinished canal as a chemical waste dump. In that period, it is estimated, Hooker dumped 22,000 tons (19,958 tonnes) of chemical wastes. Hooker shut down the site and capped it in 1953. That year they sold the land and dump to the Niagara Falls (N.Y.) School Board for one dollar. The School Board erected an elementary school on top of the dump site(!) and sold the adjoining lands to developers. Soon thousands of families lived at Love Canal.- In the unusually wet winter of 1977, ol’ Report on Hazardous Waste Disposal, water entered the dump site and caused overflow of the chemical wastes. Thick black sludge oozed to the surface of the school yard, into back yards and base- ments of nearby houses. About this time a preliminary environmental study identified 80 different chemical com- pounds of which 12 are carcinogenic (cancer causing). (The completed study revealed another 200 compounds!) Health Study In 1978, Dr. Beverly Paign, a cancer researcher at tie Rosewell Cancer Insti- tute, Buffalo, conducted a health survey — of Love Canal residents. She found mis- Carriage rates increased 25% from an average of 8.5% among women who had moved to Love Canal. She divided the Love Canal into “‘wet’”’ and ‘“‘dry”’ areas for comparison because it was believed the ‘‘wet’’ areas were more contaminated. The study bore this out. A 20% increase in birth defects in the wet area residents com- pared to 7% for the dry areas. Nervous breakdowns of adults living in wet areas was at a rate of 9% (!) compared to 1.5% in dry areas. Eleven out of 13 hyper- active children studied lived in the wet areas. Dr. Paign believed her findings under- stated the true state of affairs because the *“‘control group’’, the dry areas dwellers, was probably also exposed to some chemical pollution. Neither did the study include residents from the worst zone because they had been evacuatea. (From ge Cleaning up a dioxin spill. Taster’s Choice boycott TORONTO — The Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) has an- nounced a boycott of Taster’s Choice, manufactured by Nestlé. In addition INFACT plans to collect thousands of signatures on petitions which will be presented to Nestlé in Geneva this month. The campaign is an attempt to pressure Nestlé to make the final changes in their infant formula marketing policies to bring them in line with the World Health Organization Code. The WHO Code bans all forms of formula promotion, which has been linked to malnutrition and death among millions of Third World babies. Promotion by companies like Nestlé has led mothers in poor countries to bottle-feed rather than breast-feed, and the combination of impure water and poor sterilization has resulted in severe malnutrition among many of the infants. David Hallman of the United Church of Canada said that Nestlé has made some improvements to their policies and practices but problems remain. In particular, evidence collected in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines last fall demonstrated continued wholesale distribution of free samples. Company literature and labels still do not include the information on the risks and hazards of formula feeding as required by the WHO Code. The World Health Assembly will be reviewing the WHO Code and its implementation in Geneva. At that time the Boycott Taster’s Choice petitions will be presented to Nestlé. Hallman said that he hopes this will give Nestlé the extra incentive that they apparently need to reflect the Code accurately in policy and practice. Hallman said that the petition campaign is being co-ordinated through the INFACT Canada office in Toronto. Contact them at 85 St. Clair Ave. E., phone 925-5931. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 13, 1983—Page 10 U.S. Government, Sept. 27, 1979.) The school was finally closed in 1978 and in August pregnant women and small children were evacuated. Soon after, 235 families were also removed. By June 1980 a total of almost 1,000 families had been evacuated from Love Canal. Citizen Power In a desperate act, Love Canal resi- dents grabbed and held two U.S. federal government officials in May 1980, be- . cause they were getting little action from the government on their request for Love Canal to be designated a disaster area (this would mean federal assistance for relocation, low interest mortgage loans, moving expenses and temporary housing.) After threats of police violence by the FBI, the residents released the officials. Eventually the homeowners were successful. Without such actions, their lobbying, their demonstrations and the media coverage, they would have failed, Lois Gibbs, president of the home- owners’ organization claimed. Beginning in 1977 the group went door-to-door with a petition to close the school. That was the start of the success- ful and at times a vehement battle to be recognized and assisted. ‘Prestigious Panel’ Governor Carey of New York State convened a “‘blue ribbon’’ panel to evaluate an epidemiological study ~of Love Canal, begun in 1978 and con- ducted by the New York State Health Department. The panel concluded that the results were inconclusive since in their opinion the population was too small, and control was poor. Dr. Irwin Bross, director of Biosta- tistics at Rosewell Park Memorial Insti- tute, Buffalo, analyzed the results and concluded that the panel, which had ~ claimed, ‘“‘The public deserves no less than the facts,’ offered no facts, only opinions about the study. The study showed an increase in mis- carriages, birth defects in Love Canal births, which amounted (to 100%) over the control. This prompted Dr. Bross to write (New Scientist, Dec. 11, 1980) that ** ,.. Such studies are recognized as one of our best early-warning signals of environmental hazards. A 50% increase would signal a serious hazard. Thus there is strong evidence ... of a very serious health hazard at Love Canal.”’ The ‘‘prestigious panel’s’’ ‘‘last word”’ had left the impression that Love Canal was ‘much ado about nothing’’, the opposite to what a “‘fidelity to fact’’ would find. (Bross) Clean-up Complete? By the summer of 1982 the ‘‘clean-up”’ was said to be complete, costing over $30-million (also more than $14-billion has been claimed in compensatory and punitive law suits). Ironically, it has been’ estimated that a properly secured dis- posal site would have cost only $4-mil- lion in 1952 when’the site was closed. True to form, the clean-up report by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was challenged, causing a reversal of the conclusion — twice! Reaganite pressure got the National Bureau of Standards, the report’s main challenger, and the science committee, ~ ‘Love Canal is only one of at least 180 dumps on __ Niagara shores of which only a handful have be ' checked; for example the leaking Hooker S-A __ dump is three times as large as Love Canal.’ | TRESPASSING DANGEROUS AREA In 1978 schools were closed and prey nant women and small children wele evacuated from the Love Canal area. to reverse their positions to okay a repo that said that the ‘‘ ... Love Canal area no more hazardous than the contro area’’ — this conclusion for areas nea! but not adjacent to the dump, which still recognized as heavily contaminate with hazardous chemicals. ; Lois Gibbs, claims the report is.# ““whitewash’’. Dioxin levels were St high in some houses, proving the barrie! drain system used had not worked we#: “*They should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people can move there a2 live safely, rather than (leave) all thes¢ questions ...”’ The clean-up director and EPA repot writer, John Deegan Jr. admits ‘‘Lové Canal is still potentially very dangerous to the environment and human health. (Science News, July 24, 1982) Is the Love Canal area, is the Niagal@ area, now safe? From all the bungling, cover-up% whitewashes, debunking, political pres sures, it can be said with certainty that the Love Canal story is still not over- Love Canal still contains close ! 20,000 tons (18,140 tonnes) of more tha® 200 hazardous chemical compounds fot which “‘safe limits’? have only been && tablished for a handful. There are no ¢” posure limits for the untold possible combinations of these compounds! The true toxicity of Love Canal has not been determined. The potential danger of another or worse disaster 1 mains. The story will never be over fof the 1,000 families who. had to mové: They will always be haunted by doubts about their safety. What about geneti¢ defects and cancer which take a get" eration or more to surface? Love Canal is only one of at least 180 dumps on the Niagara shores of whic only a handful have been checked; fot example the - leaking Hooker S-Are4 dump is three times as large as Lov Canal. * a Pollution of the workers and their fam!- lies means more profits. The Love Can and Niagara stories continue! Richard Lane is the pseudonym of 4 working scientist.