Talk:Love Canal/Archive 1

Bias?
1Albert Gore Senior:

•	US Senator and US Rep. •	Father of 2Senator and V.P Al Gore Jr. who recommended the sale of US Govt. Naval oil reserves at Elk Hill to 3Occidental petroleum •	Attorney 3Occidental petroleum, parent company to Hooker Chemical that caused 4Love Canal Contamination only one 1 of at least 6 EPA Superfund sites •	Vice President 3Occidental Petroleum •	Chairman 5Island Creek Coal Company a subsidiary of 3Occidental Petroleum •	Member Board of Petroleum and Coal Companies •	Sold Gore Zinc Mine to son 2Al Gore Jr. who leased the mine to 3Occidental Petroleum purchased by soviet socialist 6Armand Hammer who owned he brand Arm and Hammer, later sold to 7Bill Gates. •	Member of committees responsible for the creation of 6Atomic Energy Commission and 7Oak Ridge development of Atomic Bomb •	Member Commission that created US Interstate Highway System

32.176.224.153 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC) What is interesting is why were the original polluters held respnsible, despite having notified the original school board of the insuing dangers. They were not even willing to sell, but for the threat of expropriation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.96.96.241 (talk • contribs) September 26, 2005


 * I agree. The first part of the article seems to suggest that Hooker Chemical dumped the waste in what would have been a run of the mill toxic dump.  If they sold it to the city for $1 and explained to the city what had been buried there, why would Occidental later "oppose" the residents of the area?  It seems to me at that point the issue was no longer in their hands.  Is there some complication that is missing from this picture that explains Occidental's supposed guilt?  TastyCakes 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, I believe the article is biased against Hooker... I'm not usually one to defend chemical companies practices, but they have been exonerated of many of these public accusations by writer Eric Zuesse, who's article itself is linked at the bottom. Someone needs to figure out who's version is right - Eric or Lois Gibbs, the latter having made many of the public accusations.  Rainman420 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We studied this issue in College in nearby Buffalo, and I recall there being information that Hooker's lawyers repeadetly tried to stop the school authority from digging past a certain "safe" depth for the playground site, to no avail, which makes the "hiding" claim somewhat dubious.  66.57.225.195 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you need a reference to help support this point, see here: Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out -- 70.20.161.132 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The liability limitation clause of the contract was simply not legal, as is the case in most such liability limitation statements in contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.156.133 (talk • contribs) 20:45, October 24, 2006


 * Except that the majority of sources such as Mokhiber say that no such warnings were given, and quite obviously the liability qualifiers in the land deeds are incredibly illegal. Hooker can burn.Ademska 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I would like to add that anyone citing "information" from a website whose slogan is about freemarket and is quite obviously a rightwing procorporate article site is out of his mind. I know Wikipedia is a tertiarty source at best, but at least TRY not to be idiots.Ademska 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, do you have any factual issues with the article, or are you just trying to start a flame war? Also, they are a hell of a lot more libertarian than conservative. 11:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.138.141 (talk)


 * Agreed. If anything, the argumentum ad hominemonly serves to weaken the argument against said source. 65.209.181.185 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the claim that Hooker was under threat of having the property condemned anyway? Or that they tried for many years to prevent development on that property? Or that several governmental entities dumped at that site and not solely Hooker? Can anyone demonstrate that these claims of Reason's were false? PenguiN42 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A site with a "Free market" slogan can still have valid information. Though I haven't taken the time to read the article or the website, if the information is so false it should be easy for you to disprove.  Instead you decided to attack the site and the contributor who cited it.  There are plenty of sources cited on Wikipedia which could be labeled as "left wing propaganda or anti-capitalism".  Regardless, they still have valid informations.  Like it or not people have different political ideologies and news organizations cater to their readers.  On controversial subjects like this sometime the best information comes from unbalanced sources. They tend to be more motivated and do the best investigations of controversial subjects.  I am not saying every website on the net has valid information, but to say website is not valid solely because it has conservative leanings isn't justifiable.  Calling people idiots isn't justifiable either and doesn't make you look very good.  Thank you for your contributions with this article, your views and opinion are needed create a fair article, but please refrain from insulting people and discrediting sources because you are ideologically appose to them.Mantion 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to contradict yourself. Whether the liability qualifiers are illegal or not, they clearly are warnings that the property may contain dangerous chemicals.  Therefore, it can't be correct to say that no warnings were given. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody's defending capitalism. But Zuesse is a lawyer, and he claims he was quoting from the actual deed. If you can get the deed and prove that Zuesse fabricated that entire passage, let me know, because I'd love to catch Reason magazine in an embarassing fraud like that. If Mokhiber says that the deed doesn't include that passage, let him fight it out with Zuesse and prove it. But until then, Reason is a reliable source. Nbauman 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How our society should handle liability in cases like Love Canal was undecided prior to the passage of CERCLA in response to the Love Canal disaster. So even if the contract included a disavowal of liability, the question was unsettled as to where the initial liability should be placed, and whether a clause shifting liability is valid. Hooker/Occidental had more knowledge and expertise about toxic waste than the Niagara Falls School Board, as we can see from the Board's foolishness in building an elementary school right on top of a dump. A non-paternalistic, or libertarian view, such as represented by Reason magazine, would put liability on individuals, or in this case, the School Board. This might or might not be a good idea in general, but the Niagara Falls School Board was clearly not up to it.

As a result of the evacuation, society as a whole - the federal government - was left with the cost of the evacuation and cleanup. This too might not seem to be the best allocation of liability, because of moral hazard, among other reasons. So CERCLA shifted "joint, strict, and several" liability onto the polluter, in a way similar to that in which strict liability had been assigned for highly dangerous activities in earlier situations.

This is just a beginning of what needs to be brought into a discussion of Love Canal. I've taught this case at SUNY Buffalo and published papers on it in philosophy journals. It's not clear how to put this into a "neutral point of view" since Love Canal is a test case for different views of liability and different views of society. (Perhaps the article could be rewritten as saying that if you believe A about society then X is a good analysis of Love Canal, and if you believe B about society then Y makes sense, and so on. But I would not write it that way.)  It's doubtful that the discussion in the article of the sale to the School Board upholds the "NPOV" standard either, since the portrayal of the Board as somehow threatening Hooker is far-fetched, and the article makes a dubious interpretation of the liability limitation clause.

I'll just add a citation to the federal court decision on Hooker's liability. The judge wasn't impressed by the liability disavowal in the sale, and ruled that Hooker/Occidental was negligent, but not reckless, in its handling of the waste and sale of the land to the Board. (alercher, 14 August 2007)130.39.61.29 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the indemnity clause included in the deed transferring the land from Hooker to the Niagara Falls School Board. It is very clear that they (Hooker) are not to be held liable for any damages to persons or property resulting from wastes buried in the canal. I saw this original document in a University of Buffalo Library, but I am unaware of an electronic copy. Someone needs to find this indemnity clause so it can be cited. It is also instructive to remember that Hooker at first refused to sell the land. When the City of Niagara Falls threatened them with an eminent domain lawsuit, Hooker sold it for the minimum price ($1.00) and included the explicit indemnity clause.Army46Q (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is alercher again (August 9, 2010). Judge Curtin's decision in US v. Hooker (850 F.Supp. 993 (W.D.N.Y 1994)) is that Hooker (Occidental) is liable for New York State's *clean up costs*, rather than for damages to persons or property.  This decision accommodates Hooker's (Occidental's) argument that, based on current knowledge, they had not been reckless or wanton.  So no punitive damages.  The decision also discusses the allegation that the Niagara Falls School Board threatened condemnation of the Love Canal property.  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Hooker (Occidental) would have had a stronger argument if they had in effect dared the School Board to do this.  The decision discusses the various bits of testimony and evidence relevant to this.  Curtin's decision is an important record of the events and analysis of them.


 * The decision also quotes and discusses the clause in the 1953 transfer deed giving Hooker indemnity against suits by the School Board. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this does not foreclose suits by New York State.  The School Board was in over its head on this.  Although Curtin finds "no evidence that the Company (Hooker or Occidental) deliberately intended to mislead the Board" (p. 1065) the School Board did not know what they were doing.
 * The basic problem was there a huge pile of poisons, with people living next to them, and going to school on top of them, though they never agreed to this. It is not entirely clear whether anyone actually became ill as a result of this.  It's very difficult to prove that, because the limitations of evidence and statistical methods.  Nonetheless, presumely, this situation had to change, and the costs of making the changes had to be shared somehow, and the current owners, the Niagara Falls School Board, were not capable of taking this on.  This raises fundamental questions about society that are impossible to discuss properly within the limits of Wikipedia's style and purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.60.26 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Zeusse's article is 34 years old and was clearly - one would hope - written without the benefit of access to much of the Hooker internal correspondence from the early 1950s now available in the Love Canal Archives. Zeusse cannot be considered a neutral or reliable source for this simple reason. Keri (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts in this case are that Hooker Chemical was not liable initially until they were later held liable which would explain their position change. Don't expect rationality from Wikipedia. This article is accurate ad has only been brought into question for political reasons. Libertarians are idiots by the way. Don't expect to win with them. It's best to just let them feel important and smart like the rest of us. They'll fail on their own because it's what they do best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.138.43 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hamilton Park
I removed a section titled "Hamilton Park" from this page, since it didn't belong there. I later discovered it was a violation of copyright, taken from this website:. Thus it has not been restored. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see the relevance of the Hamilton Park link at all. It leads to a disambig page where none of the three articles seem connected in any way. Tilefish 09:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see more discussion about how Hooker and Occidental are related and what happened to Hooker and Occidental as a result of the government forcing them to sell the land. Lawsuits, out of business, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.97.2 (talk • contribs) January 19, 2006

I believe Occidental is now known as Oxy, and can be found a few miles down the road from Love Canal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.72.187 (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006


 * Oxy is a "nickname" for Occidental Petroleum, it still exists and I believe is something like the 8th biggest oil company. Basically I think they paid to help clean up the site, end of story.  It's headquarters are in LA, don't know if they have anything in the Love Canal region.  TastyCakes 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you head down Buffalo Avenue you'll end up surrounded by Oxy chemical plants. They have buildings on both sides of the road with various Oxy-labeled pipelines crossing over the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.72.187 (talk • contribs) February 3, 2006
 * Occidental Petroleum maintains a huge presence in the city and owns a huge factory along Buffalo Avenue. It employs hundreds, which is possibly why they haven't been booted out yet. They also once had headquarters at 360 Rainbow Boulevard in a large glass building that is now a trinket shop passed off as some mediocre attraction known as One Niagara. Not to mention the four superfund sites that were caused by them in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.235.148 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this EPA press release, Occidental Petroleum A/K/A Oxy is Hooker Chemical Company's parent company. --FloBrio 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Article Image
I recently added an image for this article, hope it suffices. Plexus2 00:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording? huh?
"During construction, a clay seal which Hooker had put in to stop the chemicals seeping out was broken through, despite the breaking of several drill bits in the process." This should be cleaned up. It took me a couple passes to figure out what it was trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.46 (talk • contribs) August 7, 2006

Clean up
This article needs some help, especially the toxic waste dump section. A mcmurray 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * -lol! Love canal "needs cleanup". Does anyone else think this is funny in a dark and ironic way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.4.166 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2006


 * Well, don't forget it was Hooker Chemicals who decided to dump toxic waste into the Love canal 142.157.16.13 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be improved? It's a bit short I think, and this is a very important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) April 23, 2006

I agree. The article also makes several references to a "Mrs. Lobosco" who doesn't appear to have any kind of significance, other than being mentioned specifically. It says that she was at the school, but I still don't see how this makes her any more or less noteworthy than anyone else that was there at the time.--Mysterioususer 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to a section of this article of what has been done to clean up and remove the toxic chemcals from the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specie8470 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fill
Here's kind of a horrible thought, but unfortunately important... does anybody know what happened to the fill dirt they removed when they dug out the basement/foundation for these buildings? That seems highly likely to have been contaminated, and if it was sold as "clean fill" or something used elsewhere, that seems like a very serious issue. Any information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakpoint (talk • contribs) February 1, 2007


 * While certainly informal, the article seems to suggest that the damage to the site's "cap" and the subsequent leakage didn't take place until after the buildings were built. Eli lilly 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Does anybody know what happened to the fill dirt they removed when they dug out the basement/foundation for these building." -Yes I do. It was taken, all 200,000 tons of it, to New Jersey to be burned [a way of cleansing] and once all the chemicals were "burned out" the soil was clean and reused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.102.151 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

kms
I reverted the change which removed the kilometer conversion. The edit summary was kind of ethnocentric and I figured it could stay, I mean the Wiki is for a global audience. "We" have to remember that not everyone is American. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Lobosco?
Who is Mrs Lobosco? Why is she mentioned 3 times in the article with no introduction? Why should we be interested in her? PenguiN42 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency of dates under State of Emergency
The second paragraph reads: "On August 7, 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal, and those living closest to the site were relocated."

And the fifth paragraph reads: "After growing evidence and two years' effort by Lois Gibbs and other residents, President Carter declared a state of emergency at Love Canal on May 21, 1980, and the EPA agreed to evacuate 700 families temporarily."

Am I missing something, or are these dates inconsistent?

larz (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure looks inconsistent to me. So find out which one is correct and change the other date. Eli lilly (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is still there and I am too lazy to do anything about it My computer said love (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can verify, both dates stand as declarations. Either the first one expired or the second one was a reiteration, or a heightening of the level of emergency (1980 was when the evacuations began in earnest). D. J. Cartwright (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Liability
I'd really like to see the article expanded to explain how a company which apparently went to great lengths to make the dangers known and resist the sale of the property, and equally great lengths to divest itself of any responsibility, could end up being found liable for $129 million. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the government may have tried to whitewash its own contributions to the catastrophe at various levels (the school board, the city, the NYSDOT, etc.) by pinning the blame on the only private interest involved. Eric Zuesse's article gives a good case for this argument (second source cited at the end of the article). D. J. Cartwright (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Two words: Clinton administration. Hooker was largely exonerated based on the aforementioned draconian "do not build on this land" notice. That is, until 1995, when the Clinton administration EPA decided to resurrect the case and go after Hooker on a Federal level. They couldn't get a Federal judge to sign off on a new lawsuit, so they simply slapped them with $129 million in administrative fines. Victory for the proletariat! 98.26.195.58 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

State of emergency
Under the State of Emergency section, paragraph 2 says.

On 7 August 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal, and those living closest to the site were relocated.

Paragraph 5 says

After growing evidence and two years' effort by Lois Gibbs and other residents, President Carter declared a federal state of emergency at Love Canal on 21 May 1980, and the EPA agreed to evacuate 700 families temporarily.[16] Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes..

Did he declare a state of emergency twice? Where people evacuated twice? Just checking to make sure there's no error. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually a state of emergency was declared only once, but Love Canal, now named Black Creek, was evacuated twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.102.151 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Negligence
What did the court find that Hooker had neglected to do, under the circumstances? WillOakland (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Hooker told the school board about the problem and the School Board pressured them into the sale of the land. The school board should be paying out money because they bought land they knew was dangerous. Would be nice to have the actual court's decison on how Hooker is responsible since when they sold the land they said they wouldn't be liable for the effects of the chemicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specie8470 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Court held that Hooker was not responsible for any punitive damages as a result of the Love Canal debacle, but however did find Hooker negligent in how they handled the disposal of the hazardous waste. That alone left them open to litigation in that matter, separate and aside from the issue with the school board. The school board and ultimately the city accepted the land and use thereof "as is" and could not prevail on Hooker or Occidental as it appears clear cut that it was a forced sale and under strict terms. The major point is whether Hooker/Oxy packaged and disposed of the waste in a manner that was acceptable practice at the time. In my mind, Hooker might better have allowed an eminent domain seizure to take place and set forth the same caveats, all the while resisting the sale anyway. Maybe that would have cleared them completely. Or, better yet, maybe they should have never placed fiber drums where they would fall apart so quickly.....nor the city ever allowed any building or habitation by humans or any living creature. Lots of shared blame here.

What was the state of technology when Hooker decided to use clay to contain the wastes? Was it the current state? If so, you can't fault them in hindsight for not using something developed later.Zestforlife (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They were largely exonerated until 1995. Then the Clinton administration fined them the punitive damages plus the reparation costs for taking advantage of that poor school district and being a dirty toxic waste producing Evil Corporation. It wasn't optional and it didn't involve any court. Look it up. 98.26.195.58 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Look it up where. 207.189.224.126 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Love's first name
For most of the lifetime of this page, the Canal's creator's name has been given as "William T. Love". Within the last few edits, this has been modified to "Fletcher T. Love". Is there any sound evidence to back up this change, or is this a case of plausibilistic vandalism? The name "Wiliam T. Love" appears on a lot of websites related to Love Canal and its history, while "Fletcher T. Love" on Google only links back to this page and pages that borrow from it. Recommend changing it back unless the editor responsible can provide compelling evidence that all these other sources are wrong. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wording of first sentence
I changed the wording, from:

"following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste buried beneath the neighborhood by Hooker Chemical"

to

"following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste that had been buried beneath the neighborhood by Hooker Chemical."

The original was ambiguous, I had to come back an re-read it as I initially thought Hooker Chemical had discovered the waste, not buried it. JJJJS (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By coincidence I've actually rewritten that - firstly to get rid of the overuse of "neighborhood" (the original wording was along the lines of "the neighborhood became infamous when X was found buried beneath the neighborhood") and secondly because the chemicals weren't really discovered - they were a matter of public record. It would be more accurate to say that "following a series of investigations which revealed that the extent of the dump and its effects on health were more pronounced than had previously been believed", which is too long. I admit at this point that I'd never heard of the place until reading the article, and that I clicked on the link (here) because I assumed that love canal was something rude. Toxic love canal doubly so. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of harm
I see a serious problem with this article. A fundamental piece of evidence is missing. There is no doubt that industrial waste was dumped at Love Canal. The inappropriate development of the land, the evacuations and other government reactions are well known. What is missing is the link between the dumped waste and residents' health. The article says that people saw oily puddles in their back yards, and that some people got sick. But people get sick everywhere. Where is the evidence that anyone at Love Canal had their health harmed by toxic chemicals? Peter Bell (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Two months have gone by, and there's been no reply or comment on this query. Does somebody have some evidence establishing that anyone was harmed by toxic chemicals from Love Canal? Peter Bell (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you even read the article? II  | (t - c) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like he didn't even read it. :P --76.115.67.114 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommend links
Recommend links Under "early history" recommend links for 'direct current' 'tesla' 'alternating current' 'panic of 1893' Ingcupes (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Radio Lab?
Didn't a Radio Lab episode a few years ago open with a story that began with several children playing in an abandoned Love Canal house in the 1970s? It was at the point when many of the abandoned homes were still standing, many with furniture and things still inside them. I know its a long shot asking here, but I'm taking an educated guess that the average wikipedia editor is a lot more likely to be a Radio Lab listener than say the average internet user elsewhere. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Images
There are some free images available from the EPA at. Unfortuantely none of them have captions, but perhaps someone here is knowledgeable enough about it to figure out what they are. — howcheng  {chat} 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Questionable text without reference in Corporate and Government liability section
IN the Corporate and Government liability subsection, there is nary a reference, and several instances of what looks to be OR. Statements like "it's hard to draw any conclusion other than..." are hardly encylcopedic language. The whole section seems written as a pro-Hooker Chemical defense. At the very least it's unbalanced, and at the worst it's OR/POV pushing. I'd recommend it be deleted, or heavily edited with references added.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just tagged it and came here to make a comment regarding the same thing; agree with your assessment 100%. That is not to say that the section doesn't make valid points, but the tone and lack of sources is problematic. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath/Legacy: Environmental analytical chemistry
It is widely held by people in this industry that the Love Canal disaster was one of the definitive events that firmly established environmental analysis as a fundamental regulatory component of land/groundwater/watershed monitoring/development. While it certainly was not the singular event that spurred this industry and regulatory philosophy into existence, and nor was it the first/preliminary event that brought the need for this type of analysis to light, it is nonetheless held as the *definitive* historical precedent in a manner similar to the 1969 California Channel Islands Oil Spill that is widely credited with initiating the modern environmental movement into life. I bring this up because there are potentially as many as 10,000 pages of painstakingly developed EPA (and state specific) laboratory analytical methods that have been developed for the purpose of monitoring well characterized organic volatile and semivolatile pollutants and toxins. Additionally, an entire precision instrument/analytical instrumentation and specialty chemical industry (or, at least, industry *segment*) exists to cater to this regulatory framework. Environmental laboratories typically invest a large proportion of their assets (eg expensive instruments, consumables, and man hours) into volatiles and semi volatiles, which are used to characterize hazardous waste and drinking water. This is in addition to the other major areas of concern (inorganic/metallic, gaseous/air pollution, and pesticides being the other major areas of focus). The love canal disaster is the defining historical precedent that has led to such standards as the EPA 8000 methods (8260, 8270, 8015 and 8021 being the most widely implemented).24.254.82.186 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Other studies were unable to find harm.[30][31][32][33][34]"
I tried to verify this somewhat surprising statement, in particular since over-referencing is usually a sign of problematic claims. I don't have access to most of the sources, and some do not seem to be online at all. However, to me it looks as if only reference [30] ("Cancer incidence in the Love Canal area") is a proper study (and then only a quite weak epidemiological one). Some of the others seem to reference and comment on that one. The use of [32] seems to be particular problematic quote-mining - " alterations in chromosomes indicate exposure but long term studies will be necessary to determine the severity of effects of health" does no no way imply inability to find harm, but rather the opposite. Does anybody have the cited sources at hand? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)