Risk:

• the pollution story (another side of environmental history) is about avoiding problems caused by dangerous chemicals
• two reasons to protect the environment--to enjoy it or because if we harm the environment it will harm our health or safety
• most safety issues are actually issues of risk--some percentage of people will be harmed, not everyone
• some people think the big problem is that the public doesn't understand risk
  
• a lot of what the government does about environmental issues involves health and safety issues
• these are almost always increased risk of disease or other harm
• evaluate the risks against the costs
• public perceptions of risk are very inconsistent: people are more afraid of airplane travel even though the danger is much higher for car travel
• we are more afraid of big accidents, lack of control, things that seem unnatural, risks to children
• big accidents get more news coverage
• understanding risk doesn't come naturally
  
• because of the complexities of risk, regulating pollution is hard to do well

How much risk can we live with?

• we are told not to eat large fish from lake Hartwell because they contain high levels of PCBs, which cause cancer
• should the government warn or regulate?
• when should people be able to make their own choice, when should their be regulation
  
• at what level of risk should there be regulation?
• high concentrations that directly poison people are easier to evaluate than chemicals that might cause cancer with low level long-term exposure
• evaluate the risks and benefits
• how do you determine how much cancer risk there is?  from giving a lot to rats?  many chemicals cause cancer when given in high doses to rats
• what does the dose response curve look like?
• we don't know risks very accurately
  
• should everything that causes cancer be banned?  even if the risk is tiny?  not possible
• charred food (eg. burned areas in food that has been grilled) has cancer-causing chemicals
• the majority of cancers have environmental causes--can we do something about that?
  
• what level of exposure is safe?  that depends on what you mean by safe
  
• cost-benefit analysis:
• how much is a human life worth?  one common figure is $3 million
• can you trade economic benefits against human lives?
  
• how you measure risks is very tricky
• there was lots of room for controversy because there was no way that the science and policy decisions were going to be clear.

People in the 1960s became more worried about pollution

• pollution was getting worse and more obvious (much worse than today)
  
• Fears about hidden hazards such as nuclear and toxic waste
• These became a symbol of fears about technology
• Key issue was that Americans lost trust of their government and in scientists and other experts

Reactions to the atomic bomb

• during the cold war people sometimes thought a real war could happen at any minute
• civil defense was part of preparing for war--survival under atomic attack
  
• ordinary people built fallout shelters
  
• Operation Plumbob: nuclear testing and the risks to soldiers
• with the pressures of the cold war safety was not first priority either in testing or at production sites like Hanford and the Savannah River Site
• early nuclear weapons were tested in the desert or on islands
• this put radioactive material into the atmosphere high enough to go all around the world
• very small amounts of radioactive fallout everywhere
  
• strontium gets into bones and milk
• scientists began to look at radioactivity in human milk, very low levels
• eventually a treaty was signed to ban nuclear tests except underground (eventually a broader test ban was signed)
  

nuclear power notes are separate
Love Canal

• there was a lot of industry in Niagara Falls because of the cheap electricity
  
• a pattern of health problems in a neighborhood built on a former industrial waste dump
• the city told residents not to worry while reporting to the state that there was a hazard
• the EPA and then the State Health Commissioner took the issue more seriously than the city
• when do people see individual problems as part of a larger problem?
• people were angry and couldn't afford to move out of their homes without help, which was slow to come
• got a lot of publicity

Hazardous waste was a problem in many places

• Can you convincingly tie any individual's disease to chemical exposure?
• after Love Canal the worst cases began to be cleaned up
  
• Who pays for the cleanup?

Superfund--industries were taxed to pay for government cleanup of sites if there wasn't a responsible company still in existence

• identify dangerous sites--9600 of them
• polluters would be expected to pay for cleanup
  
• government funding if necessary from a $1.6 billion fund
• the Reagan administration slowed things up by trying to get the funds from the polluters before starting

Environmental justice

• who is hurt by pollution?
• where are dumps located?
• in industrial areas of cities
• these problems affect poor people most for several reasons
• they live near factories
• they can't afford to live in nicer areas
• they are more concerned with jobs than pollution
• they have less ability to complain effectively
• Environmental racism--sites where people are exposed to hazardous chemicals are disproportionately in poor and minority neighborhoods
• environmental concerns aren't only for the rich

Not in my backyard (NIMBY)

• some stuff can be made less hazardous
• but some stuff has to be put someplace
• why did South Carolina get 90% of US low level nuclear waste in 1980s--Barnwell Site
• where do you put the stuff?
• it doesn't work any longer to put it where there aren't any people

Pollution used to be handled by putting it somewhere where it wouldn't bother people (or the solution to pollution is dilution)
pollution issues are no longer local
now we need to find a way not to generate it in the first place
Green chemistry--find safer alternatives to dangerous chemicals