Andrei Benedict N.

Mendiola
12 – Biology
Case Study Report: Love Canal: The Forgotten Wastes of Love Canal

A.
The Love Canal was merely an unfinished hole in Niagara Falls, New York when The
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation converted it to an industrial landfill of more than
20,000 metric tons of chemical wastes. People started taking notice of the foul odor, so Hooker
sold the site to the City of Niagara. A school and playground were then built on top of the
dumpsite, along with homes around it.
Residents soon started to notice chemical burns on children. After an engineering firm
discovered toxic chemicals in groundwater, concerned mothers were prompted to start petitions
on closing the schools and playing fields, simultaneously discovering a high birth defect and
medical problem rate around the neighborhood. The surveys were initially dismissed, but the
New York State would soon order for the evaluation of families living within two blocks from
the Canal.
After years of lawsuits, negotiations, and rehabilitation, the Love Canal is now
considered ‘habitable’ in four out of seven areas, and houses around it are being sold to unaware
buyers. Whether this action is ethical is up for argument, but in any case, the Love Canal is a
reminder of the dangers of toxic wastes, corporate negligence and societal ignorance.

B.
Listed below are the ethical issues or arguments that I was able to formulate based on my
synthesis of the text, as well as my knowledge on ethics that I learned from Biology class, and
from my own values and morals:
1. Was it responsible for the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation to use the Love
Canal as a dumpsite for their toxic chemical wastes in the first place?
This issue is mainly concerned with whether it was the right thing for Hooker to use the
Love Canal as their dumpsite for their chemical wastes. At the time, Hooker may not have
realized the possible consequences of their action as not only was it convenient for them to use
the Love Canal (it was already being used as a garbage dump, so how would chemical wastes be
any different?), there was also no disapproval from the people around the area. What they failed
to consider was the long-term. They did not consider how these toxic wastes could behave over
time and what effects it could cause on humans and the environment, or how the population
around the area could exponentially increase over time. It was highly irresponsible of them to not
consider these factors in making this decision; they blatantly set the future consequences aside in
favor of convenience and ease in the present.
Andrei Benedict N. Mendiola
12 – Biology
Case Study Report: Love Canal: The Forgotten Wastes of Love Canal

2. Was it right for the Hooker company to sell the dump for $1.00 in order to free itself from
liability and responsibility?
The Hooker company was fully aware of how dangerous and controversial the dumpsite
could be – after all, one of their engineers called it a “quagmire which will be a source of
potential lawsuit.” They also knew that it was a tough situation to be in, which I assume due to
the use of the word “quagmire”, or a difficult situation to deal with or get out of. Instead of
owning up to the mess that they made and finding a way to properly dispose of the wastes, they
decided to escape from their situation, resorting to passing it on to the City of Niagara in order to
escape the consequences of their action. To make things worse, they did end up having to deal
for their actions as they were forced to pay for the damages they caused the residents of Love
Canal. It was a severe case of corporate negligence and a lack of responsibility and
accountability on their part, which are values that I personally believe every company should
uphold.
3. Was it a good idea to develop the canal as a housing site in order to solve the land
shortage and pollution problems being experienced by the residents?
At the time, this decision would have probably been praised; after all, it did hit two birds
with one stone! There would be new residencies for the growing population, and the foul odor
caused by the site would be dealt with. In order to decide if this was indeed a good thing to do,
let us look at it from a teleological perspective and look at the result. It’s not rocket science as to
why the end doesn’t justify the means in this case. The government’s intentions meant well as
they did consider the people, but they were not planned out well. The fact that toxic wastes were,
in fact, toxic was not considered. The government lacked awareness on toxic wastes and how
these could negatively affect the environment. They did not consider the long-term effects of
establishing residences on a toxic chemical dumpsite. The establishment of these residences was
perhaps a step forward in the short-term when it came to solving the land shortage and pollution
problems being experienced at the time, but was several steps backward in the long-term
wellbeing of the people themselves. Ultimately, it caused more harm in the long run than it
caused good in the short term, and that makes it ethically wrong.
Andrei Benedict N. Mendiola
12 – Biology
Case Study Report: Love Canal: The Forgotten Wastes of Love Canal

4. Was the New York State’s decision to evaluate only the families living within two blocks
of the canal fair?
The New York State’s decision could have been lauded as them rising to the safety of its
people, but to me, the decision to only include those living within two blocks of the canal was
not only bare minimum and non-inclusive, it was also ignorant as it showed a glaring lack of
awareness on the behavior of toxic chemical wastes; these wastes are capable of showing up in
places far from their sources, just like the streambeds described by the residents in the case
study. It would have been better if they looked into the safety of the people of Love Canal was a
whole, and not just those living two blocks the area. Their hearts were probably in the right
place, their plan was just not well-thought of nor executed properly.
5. Should residents be allowed back to Love Canal?
There are two sides to this argument; the government, who claims that pollution levels
around the area have been reduced enough for the safety of human life, and critics who believe
that the area could potentially be dangerous still. To me, this is yet another matter of
accountability and responsibility, and honesty. The government should be honest in their claim
of pollution levels being reduced enough, and the future residents of the area should be well-
informed in their decision of moving into the area. Should another health disaster strike, the
government should be as equally liable and responsible as the residents and should be primarily
responsible for taking the necessary actions, such as relocation and rehabilitation, for the safety
of the environment and the people.
C.
1. I believe that the required societal values in this case would be those of
environmentalism, accountability, responsibility, and deliberation. The value of
environmentalism would have walked hand in hand with awareness of the effects of toxic waste
chemicals on human beings and the environment. Had the Hooker company valued
environmentalism, they would have been more careful in the disposal of their wastes or would
have thought of ways to keep the wastes at bay from affecting the environment earlier on.
Accountability and responsibility should have also been practiced by the Hooker
company as well as the government of Niagara Falls. The Hooker company should have been
responsible and accountable and know better than escaping from their own problems by passing
it on to other hands, and the government should have known better than building residences on
top of a dumpsite. The government also should have taken action earlier, and not dismiss the
concerns of the residents as mere ‘housewife research’; they should have seen themselves as
responsible for the wellbeing of the people earlier on.
Andrei Benedict N. Mendiola
12 – Biology
Case Study Report: Love Canal: The Forgotten Wastes of Love Canal

Finally, deliberation would have also been of great importance in this case. By
deliberation, I mean consideration; consideration of the safety of a whole instead of one, and the
consideration of long-term effects over those of the short-term. Had these societal values been
present, perhaps the Love Canal disaster could have been avoided entirely.
2. I think that the main ethical standard in this case is, “Is this action going to be just as
beneficial as it is in the present 10 or so years from now?”. Had this principle guided the
decisions of the people in the Love Canal disaster, things could have played out differently. How
different would things be had the Hooker company considered the long-term consequences of
dumping toxic wastes in the Love Canal over the short-term convenience it gave them? Had the
Hooker company considered the long-term effects that mishandling of the site could cause when
passed on to unaware hands over the short-term escape from liability and responsibility they
craved? Had the City of Niagara considered the long-term consequences of establishing
residences on a toxic chemical dumpsite and the possible devastation that it could cause on
humanity over a short-term solution to land shortage and pollution problems being faced at the
time? The possibilities are endless.
3. As of now, I think that my recommended actions would be to promote responsible
disposal of toxic chemical wastes, as well as to increase awareness on how devastating corporate
negligence, mishandling, and ignorance can be when it comes to these toxic wastes. I believe that
these should be promoted on a global scale, and in doing so, we can further prevent the
occurrence of more and more cases like that of the Love Canal around the world. After all,
prevention of higher rates of birth defects and medical conditions is way better than curing them!
I would also like to set up different parties on all sides of the globe; these would
investigate around the area for other toxic chemical dumpsites disguised as residences, and
hopefully could help in the reduction of cases like the Love Canal.
The Love Canal case was devastating enough as it is; it should not happen again for we
humans can prevent it with our ability to learn from the past. It all boils down to whether we are
going to use this ability for positive change, or to not use it all, neglecting our responsibilities to
fellow human beings and the environment.