I am evaluating solutions to reduce the proliferation of chemical and radioactive industrial carcinogens that threaten human health nationally and globally. I am specifically concerned with the toxic health effects on minority and low-income communities. After critiquing several alternatives, I can recommend methods to find reparations for suffering resulting from severe medical problems.
More than half of the nation’s 26 million African Americans and more than a third of its Latinos live in neighborhoods with at least one uncontrolled toxic waste site. People of color, immigrants, and low-income workers disproportionately suffer from toxic emissions because polluting industrial facilities are intentionally placed in minority neighborhoods and residential areas for minorities are built adjacent to industrial facilities. This causes residents to be unnecessarily exposed to industrial chemicals, nuclear radiation, and dioxins that cause cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, and immune system problems.
Three solutions: increased community awareness and activism, increased government regulation of toxic sites, and housing redevelopment, are evaluated in respect to criterions (equality, efficiency, political feasibility, legality, robustness) in the decision making process.
After negotiating the tradeoffs of money, time, better health status, justice, and equality, I feel that empowering community members to work with public health officials will help to ensure a long lasting relationship built on trust and cooperation. Once these ties are formed, more permanent plans, such as relocation and redevelopment can be discussed and possibly implemented. Other plans, such as monetary reparations can be discussed as well. These solutions may be difficult to implement, but if successful, they will benefit the health and economic states of millions of residents by preventing numerous diseases and unnecessary suffering.
I am evaluating solutions to reduce the proliferation of chemical and radioactive industrial carcinogens that threaten human health nationally and globally. I am specifically concerned with the toxic health effects on minority and low-income communities. After critiquing several alternatives, I can recommend methods to find reparations for suffering resulting from severe medical problems.
More than half of the nation’s 26 million African Americans and more than a third of its Latinos live in neighborhoods with at least one uncontrolled toxic waste site. People of color, immigrants, and low-income workers disproportionately suffer from toxic emissions because polluting industrial facilities are intentionally placed in minority neighborhoods and residential areas for minorities are built adjacent to industrial facilities. This causes residents to be unnecessarily exposed to industrial chemicals, nuclear radiation, and dioxins that cause cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, and immune system problems.
Three solutions: increased community awareness and activism, increased government regulation of toxic sites, and housing redevelopment, are evaluated in respect to evaluative and practical criterions as well as to tradeoffs in the decision making process.
Choosing “no action” may lead to a continuation or perhaps even to an increase in the current trend of political apathy and unnecessary illnesses. This may be affordable and easy, but it would not create equality or justice or reduce medical problems, which are guiding criterions. Thus, it is important to consider the following alternatives.
B. Community awareness and activism
This will be accomplished by linking community activist groups with governmental agencies and residents through committees on which all parties would reside. The community members will choose leaders/representatives to help organize monthly community forums, weekly meetings, and publications in which all sides can voice their concerns and improvements could be made. Ideally, community members who are not in a formal leadership role will participate. Being knowledgeable about health risks and injustice will build trust between all interested parties and will empower residents to make informed decisions.
This will be measured by looking at the decision making process of the community members and of the committees as well as the outcomes of their decisions. For example, the makeup of the committees will need to have an equal distribution of residents and officials. Each community member will have one vote and will need sufficient access to polls (convenient times and locations.) It will be imperative that the committees’ decisions were well thought out and accounted for long-term results, so that they will produce “equitable” decisions.
This can be measured by measuring community satisfaction and learned knowledge using pre and post surveys. In addition, analyzing voter turnout and active participation in the voting process will help demonstrate the degree to which the community is involved in the formal democratic decision making process.
With support from politically like-minded individuals, recruiting active community members and forming a cohesive unit will definitely be politically feasible. Difficulties may arise as community members work in a larger, more political arena and are likely to encounter opposition and may struggle in implementing changes to attain their goals.
Unifying individuals and prompting them to act for change is legal. However, the legality of their behavior is determined by laws and by their actions. For example, if they choose to engage in nonviolent political activity, then their actions will be considered to be “legal.” If they engage in more aggressive behavior, then their actions may be considered to be “illegal.”
Time and money may make it difficult to increase community participation of both residents and officials. The community members may not have time to attend the meetings and may not have money to donate to such causes. The government officials will have a tight budget and may not have the human resources to have employees attend and plan regular meetings with residents.
This will be accomplished by having the EPA meet with community members on a consistent basis and regularly evaluate toxic waste sites. This may be costly and time-consuming, but this will lead to better health states for residents, increased trust between residents and officials, and strengthened governmental agencies.
This will be evaluated by comparing the regulation of different sites with similar toxicities. It will be important that sites be checked on a regular basis, despite their community having more or less money to pay for the updates. However, this may mean that wealthier communities may need to support poorer residential areas. There are the questions of whether private or public toxic sites fall under identical criteria and if sites are found to be environmentally offensive, the committees will decide if there will be standard punishments.
Analyzing health problems in a community will show the effectiveness of increased regulation as well as evaluating community satisfaction with their residential area, with the bureaucratic process, and with the officials.
Ensuring that governmental agencies, such as the EPA, uphold their mission is politically feasible. Promoting the ideologies of “responsibility” and “justice” would garner public support from both conservatives and liberals. Potential difficulties may be encountered when working on the budget and allocating funds to certain residential areas or programs.
Mandating that the EPA uphold their self-imposed guidelines will most likely be legal because they need to do so for the general welfare of the public. However, if there were any discrepancies, a court will most likely distinguish between legal and illegal behavior of the EPA.
The EPA may lack the time, funds, and motivation to help each community, but their mission: “The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals… The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it…assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means, in arresting pollution of the environment…” identifies the responsibilities of the agency and demonstrates their obligation to citizens to uphold these guidelines.
This is a two-fold proposal—temporary relocation of residents and the redevelopment of housing—serves to prevent diseases and provide security. Residents will be housed in empty apartments and single residency occupancies, until older housing units are remolded or new units are built in better areas.
Under relocation, each resident in a housing unit can vote on the decision of having the unit demolished and rebuilt in a healthier environment. However, if people cannot afford to be temporarily located in another location, their say will not be weighted more to account for their predicament. In addition, if a new housing unit is built, but is unable to house all of the relocated individuals, decisions will need to be made in regards to who lives there. Will it be first come first serve or the most needy?
Evaluating the reduction in diseases, satisfaction of residents, monetary expenses, and time will help find the effectiveness of relocation and redevelopment.
Redevelopment of housing may be difficult politically because this will be quite costly and many people (including residents) may oppose such measures. In order for this to be successful, residents and public health officials must be united. Community activism and the government regulation may need to already be in place for this to occur.
Redevelopment and relocation is a legal solution as long as each resident has a say in the decision. Once a decision is reached, contracts will help to ensure that each party knows their responsibilities and entitlements and to prevent legal complications from occurring. This proposal has the potential to be very complicated legally and prudence may prove to be important.
As mentioned, the political environment and bureaucracy will affect the amount of time and money that can be spent to implement this plan. There are other factors, such as the availability of land space, interested contractors, and potential residents, which will affect the implementation of this plan.
After negotiating the tradeoffs of money, time, better health status, justice, and equality, I feel that empowering community members to work with public health officials will help ensure a long lasting relationship built on trust and cooperation. Once these ties are formed, more long-term plans, such as relocation and redevelopment can be discussed and possibly implemented. Other plans, such as monetary reparations can be discussed as well. These solutions may be difficult to implement, but if successful, they will benefit the health and economic states of millions of residents by preventing numerous diseases and unnecessary suffering.
V. REFERENCES
1.Ifeoma Udoh, California Preventive Education Project, Graduate Student at UC Berkeley
2.Eugene Bardach, The Eight-Step Path
3.Joel Hirschhorn, Two Superfund Environmental Justice Case Studies
4.Environmental Health Coalition, Community-Based Health Survey of Residents in San Diego’s Most Polluted Neighborhoods
5.Bill Allen, Uproar Over Toxic Racism in Oakland
