How does living near toxic waste affect children's development and psychological functioning, as well as that of their families? Was the Love Canal chemical toxic waste pollution disaster just a hoax perpetrated by over-zealous environmentalists, as some claim?  For example, the 'junk science' website (I won't put a link to here, because... the things you read there are junk) claims that there was no evidence of harm from toxic waste at Love Canal. Find the thoughtful answers to claims that environmentalists are out of control in this book,
"Silent Scourge: Children, pollution, and why scientists disagree". The book covers the behavioral and psychological effects of pollutants that we commonly encounter in the environment, written by Colleen Moore (Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and published by Oxford University Press).

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 6 (copyright Oxford University Press, all rights reserved):
on Love Canal:
"The Department of Health also refused to share data or even technical summaries of results with the Love Canal Homeowner’s Association or its consultants, including Dr. Paigen. Even when residents sent notarized forms authorizing the release of their health surveys and blood tests, the data were not released (Levine, 1982, pp. 110-111; Paigen, 1982).
    One expert panel of five men appointed by New York Governor Carey (known as the Thomas Panel) recommended that all studies on Love Canal be administered and controlled by the state government under the oversight of a panel appointed by the governor (Levine, 1982, p. 167). This suggestion would have helped different agencies to communicate, but it flies in the face of science as an open enterprise in which the sifting and winnowing of evidence is done from many different points of view.
    The Thomas panel’s report became instant news, and the conclusions are still sometimes quoted as showing that there was no evidence of harm at Love Canal. The Thomes report concluded that there was no demonstration of acute health effects, and that “chronic effects of hazardous waste exposure at Love canal have neither been established nor ruled out as yet” (N.Y.D.O.H., 1981, p. 52).
    Although the Thomas report was widely quoted, it lacked the kind of detailed references that a review of science normally includes. Professor Levine had to obtain documents about its proceedings under Freedom of Information requests because the panel would not send them to her directly. Those papers, plus evidence from her correspondence with D.O.H. scientists, indicate that the panel used verbal summaries rather than looking at the statistics directly (Levine, 1982, pp. 159-160). Dr. Irwin Bross, Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute, criticized the Thomas report for failing to faithfully evaluate the data on miscarriages and birth defects (Bross, 1980).  Bross concluded that the miscarriage and birth defect results from Love Canal had less than a one in 100 chance of occurring. He also chided the panel for presenting opinions instead of the facts about reproductive hazards to the residents.
Studies of Other Hazardous Waste Sites
    Whether residence near a hazardous waste site is a health hazard is still controversial. One problem is that the exact chemicals, timing, and exposure levels of the people near toxic dumps are usually unknown. Measuring exposure at one point in time does not necessarily reflect exposures years earlier, or during certain sensitive periods of development. A multi-national study in Europe examined the frequency of birth defects in proximity to (within 7 km, or 4.24 miles) hazardous waste sites, compared with births from comparable neighborhoods in a matched control design. The results showed a dose-response relationship between the frequency of excess birth defects and proximity to hazardous landfill sites. Neural tube defects and hypospadias13 were most affected by proximity to waste sites (Dolk et al., 1998).  
Conflicting Moral Concerns of Residents and Government
    Two conflicting moral concerns formed the center of the battle at Love Canal. The first is injustice to the residents who were innocent victims of chemical waste deposited years before.  ..."

Click here to read more, and to visit my page on children and pollution.

The book Silent Scourge: Children, pollution, and why scientists disagree covers these topics.
Chapter 1 covers lead
Chapter 2 covers mercury. (contains an excellent section on the subjective aspects of risk assessment)
Chapter 3 covers PCBs
Chapter 4 covers certain pesticides
Chapter 5 covers the effects of noise on children's development
Chapter 6 covers community pollution disasters including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Love Canal
Chapter 7 the precautionary period and environmental hazard decision making

click here to be redirected to my children and pollution web page.