Advertisement

Chemicals and Community at Love Canal

  • Martha R. Fowlkes
  • Patricia Y. Miller
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 3)

Abstract

In August 1978 residents of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Love Canal chemical landfill in Niagara Falls, New York, were notified by state health officials of the “grave and imminent peril” posed by exposure to its leaching contents.1 The uncontested facts of the situation were these: the 21,800 tons of residues and by-products that had been buried by Hooker Chemical Company in the neighborhood’s midst contained a number of chemicals known to have adverse effects on human health; this chemical waste had made its way to the surface of the landfill in places and had also leached laterally from its original burial site in the canal; the presence of toxic chemicals had been confirmed in and/or on the property of some specific homeowners. It was far less certain whether these conditions had actually physically harmed or injured residents or had placed them at widespread risk of physical harm or injury.

Keywords

American Sociological Review York State Department Canal Site Maximalist Family Love Canal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, Howard S. and Blanche Geer. ‘The Fate of Idealism in Medical School,’ American Sociological Review 1985, 23, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumer, Herbert. ‘Sociological Analysis and the “Variables,”’ American Sociological Review, 1956, 21 683–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, Michael. Laying Waste: The Poisoning of America by Toxic Chemicals. New York: Pantheon, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Bucher, Rue. ‘Blame and Hostility in Disaster,’ American Journal of Sociology, 1957, 62, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. Drabeck, Thomas E. and Enrico L. Quarantelli. ‘Scapegoats, Villains, and Disasters,’ Transaction, 1967, 4(4), 12–17.Google Scholar
  7. Durkheim, Emile. De la division du travail social. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1893. Translated by George Simpson, under the title The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan, 1933.Google Scholar
  8. Ecumenical Task Force of the Niagara Frontier, Inc. The Love Canal Disaster: An Interfaith Response, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. Erikson, Kai T. Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Commnunity in the Buffalo Creek Flood. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, Claude S. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. Fowlkes, Martha R. and Patricia Y. Miller. Love Canal: The Social Construction of Disaster. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. Fowlkes, Martha R. and Patricia Y. Miller. ‘Toward a Sociology of Unnatural Disaster: The Case of Love Canal’ Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, Renee C. ‘Training for Uncertainty,’ pp. 207–41 in Robert K. Merton et al. (eds.), The Student Physician. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbs, Lois. Love Canal: My Story. New York: Grove Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  16. Halle, David. America’s Working Man: Work, Home and Politics among Blue-Collar Property Owners. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. Hart, F. C. Associates. Task IV — Economic Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract 68014895, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. Hooker Chemical Company. ‘Love Canal: The Facts (1892–1980),’ Faciline Hooker, 1980a, 11.Google Scholar
  19. Hooker Chemical Company. ‘No Demonstrated Health Effects From Love Canal,’ Faciline Hooker, 1980b, 12.Google Scholar
  20. Interagency Task Force on Hazardous Waste. Toxic Substances in New York’s Environment. Interim Report, May 1979 (as cited in Paigen 1982, note 7).Google Scholar
  21. Kolata, G. B. ‘Love Canal: False Alarm Caused by Botched Study,’ Science, 1980, 208, 1239–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kreps, G. ‘The Work of the NAS-NRC (1951–63) and DRC (1963-present): Studies of Individual and Social Response to Disasters,’ pp. 91–121, in J. D. Wright and P. H. Rossi (eds.), Social Science and Natural Hazards. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 2(2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  24. Levine, Adeline G. Love Canal: Science, Politics and People. Lexington, Massachusetts Lexington Books, D. C. Heath, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. Lewontin, R. C. ‘Science as a Social Weapon,’ pp. 13–28 in Occasional Papers I. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, 1983.Google Scholar
  26. Love Canal Homeowners’ Association. Love Canal Chronological Report, April 1978 to January 1980.Google Scholar
  27. Lowrance, W. W. Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
  28. Mason, James O. and David A. Axelrod. Letter to the authors, 1984.Google Scholar
  29. MacMullin, R. B., F. L. Koethen and C. N. Richardson. ‘Chemical Industry on the Niagara Frontier,’ Transactions of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1940, 36(2), 295–324.Google Scholar
  30. New York State Department of Public Health. Love Canal: Public Health Time Bomb. Albany, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  31. New York State Department of Public Health. Love Canal: A Special Report to the Governor and Legislature. Albany, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. Niagara Coalition and Schwartz, Fichtner and Bick, Planning Associates. Niagara Falls: Community Renewal Program, 1971.Google Scholar
  33. Paigen, Beverly. ‘Controversy at Love Canal,’ The Hastings Center Report, 1982 12(3), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perrow, Charles. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic, 1984.Google Scholar
  35. Picciano, D. Letter on Love Canal Chromosome Study, Science, 1980, 209, 754–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford M. Lyman. ‘Accounts,’ American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sennett, Richard and Jonathan Cobb. The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.Google Scholar
  38. Short, James F., Jr. ‘Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis,’ American Sociological Review, 1984, 49(6), 711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.Google Scholar
  40. Thomas, R.E. Salt and Water, Power and People: A Short History of Hooker Electrochemical Company. Niagara Falls, New York: Hooker Electrochemical Company, 1955.Google Scholar
  41. Thomas, W.I. The Unadjusted Girl. New York: Little, Brown, 1923.Google Scholar
  42. Trescott, Martha M. The Rise of the American Electrochemicals Industry, 1880–1910: Studies in the American Technological Environment. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  43. Wolfenstein, Martha. Disaster: A Psychological Essay. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha R. Fowlkes
  • Patricia Y. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations