Erika McKenzie MPH 560 2/8/15 Week 6 Assignment 2 - Environmental Injustice in Homer, LA Case Study

Transcription

1 Erika McKenzie MPH 560 2/8/15 Week 6 Assignment 2 - Environmental Injustice in Homer, LA Case Study Questions within case study: 1. Why would various parties want to locate a uranium-enrichment facility in Homer? Henry Payne (1997) argued that this type of facility was actually in the best interest of the community on the basis that it would improve the economy and provide much needed jobs through the industry. There was also not positive evidence at that point to prove that such a facility would be dangerous and based on this lack of evidence Payne and others deemed it as safe (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). Why might a multinational corporation want to build such a facility there? Since this was one of the poorest towns in the United States and an African American community, there were underlying racial implications for this decision and environmental racism and/or environmental injustice present (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). Why might residents welcome or oppose such a plan? Residents could welcome such a plan if they believed they would gain opportunities for work and a better income. They may oppose it if they were concerned with the safety and health implications of such a facility. Why would local businessmen or politicians welcome or oppose such a plan? Local businessmen may view this plan as potential for profit while Louisiana residents would bear the risks associated with the facility. Politicians could welcome this plan for the same reason or choose to play it safe by opposing it on the grounds of safety and ethics. Why would teachers, school administrators, and others concerned with public services welcome or oppose the building of such a facility? These people could potentially welcome or oppose such a plan for the same reasons as residents. These people may believe it would benefit the economy and that the benefits would outweigh the potential risks, or that the risks are too elusive to bear for the benefits. 2. Why would outsiders, like environmental activists take an interest in Homer and the Claiborne facility? Because this would be a highly polluting and dangerous facility and those who value the environment would not support something so dangerous. There is also potential for a facility like this to also affect wildlife, water sources, and landscapes which could impact

2 humans as well. Who are the outsiders and insiders in cases of potential environmental pollution, and which should have the greater say in decisions about building a potential polluter? Why? Outsiders could be considered those not in the immediate area of concern for potential environmental pollution, while insiders could be considered those immediately affected by such a facility. Insiders could be local government and residents in Homer, while outsiders could include agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that insiders should have a greater say in decisions about building a potential polluter as they would be much more affected by such a decision, but that all opinions and viewpoints should be considered. As the case study explains, it was only with the help of outside experts that stopping the building of the facility was successful (Shrader-Frechette, 2003), so based on this, outsiders expert opinions should be considered in decision making. Ultimately the decision should be up to the locals not only because they are the most affected, but also so that they can be held accountable to their own decisions if the decision ends up being one they are unhappy with in the future. 3. What data should inform a decision about whether to build? In addition to scientific data about the facility and its environmental impact, what other data are relevant? How certain or uncertain are these data? In the presence of scientific, economic, social, or other uncertainty, who should bear the burden of proof and why? Scientific and factual data should help to inform a decision about whether to build. Ethical and legal analysis should also be considered. If available, data regarding other comparable communities where facilities were built should be considered for insight into appropriateness, impact, and community acceptance. Property values may also be considered when informing a decision to build. This data could be uncertain as comparing comparable communities still leaves room for potentially important differences. Scientific and factual data is more certain, while ethical and legal analysis could leave room for bias or differing values and therefore be less certain. The burden of proof should be borne by the parties wanting to build; in a situation of uncertainty where the health of many could be affected it is better to play it safe than sorry (Shrader-Frechette, 2003).

3 4. Can a community give informed consent to the initiation of a project like building the Claiborne facility? How would such consent be similar to a process of individual informed consent, and how would it differ? Consider what is discussed in Module 4 on communitybased practice and research and on the process of sharing power within communities. Which methods discussed in that module might be useful in Homer? Informed consent requires disclosure, understanding, voluntariness, and rationality (Shrader- Frechette, 2003). In the instance of the proposed Claiborne Enrichment Center in Homer Louisiana the community did not give informed consent because the nature of facility was not disclosed, and the radiological risks and health threats that the facility would present were covered up. It would take each of the four aforementioned components being present for a community to give informed consent for initiation of a project like building the Claiborne facility. Community consent would be similar to individual consent in that each of the components would still need to be present, but they would be defined by a population instead of an individual. A community would need to come to a consensus with all potentially affected individuals and these four components would need to apply to all individuals within the community to be able to have a true community informed consent. Shared governance would be a method discussed in module four that might be useful in Homer; sharing authority between various community groups would help to make sure each group was represented and their opinions valued. 5. What would need to be disclosed and to whom in order for the community of Homer to make an informed decision about building the Claiborne facility? Are all of the issues to be disclosed factual, or are there ethical assumptions that need to be disclosed as well? Who represents the community in such a decision? Is it the community s decision to make? The actual nature of the facility, the risks and health threats imposed by it, the coverage of US governmental regulations (or lack thereof), and the corporations intentions of what to do with the products from the facility as well as their quality would need to be disclosed to the actual residents living within the community near where the proposed facility would be built in order for an informed decision to occur (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). There are more than just factual issues to be disclosed; ethical assumptions about the costs versus associated benefits of the facility would also need to be disclosed. Members of the community living within five miles of the plant should represent the community in this type of a decision, not those living a great

4 distance away from the proposed facility (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). Members who are representative of those who would be most affected by the plant should be those representing the community the most in this type of a decision. I believe it is the community s decision to make since there is potential for a health risk stemming from this type of facility and the community members are the ones who would be most impacted by it. 6. Consider some of the issues raised in Module 2 on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and issues of race. What role does the predominant race of the residents of Homer play in the siting of the Claiborne facility there? Would you argue that the facility will benefit those of a minority group, African-Americans, or would you argue that they are being singled out to bear an environmental burden? It is clear that race played a role of the siting of the Claiborne facility as this population was made up of minority residents who were African-American with one of the lowest per-capita incomes in the country (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). Shrader-Frechette and Wigley (2003) concluded that based off this information the Louisiana facility siting amounted to environmental racism or environmental injustice. I would argue that this population was unfortunately singled out to bear this environmental burden based on their socioeconomic status and race. Any potential benefits of this facility would be far outweighed by the health risks and costs it would come with. Identify the ethical problem(s) relevant to the decision Targeting a race in a specific area with a low socioeconomic status to bear the burden of the health risks associated with building this Claiborne facility without providing true information about the intent, nature of, and risks associated with the facility to the population most affected by it. This is environmental racism and injustice (Shrader-Frechette, 2003). Assess the factual information available to the decision maker(s) Not much factual information, if any, was given to decision makers. The corporation misled the community about the nature of the facility, disguised the health risks and threats associated with it, and did not provide information about wastes not covered by the US government (Shrader- Frechette, 2003). The company also did not reveal the purpose of the products to be

5 manufactured. According to Shrader-Frechette (2003) it doesn t appear that any information that was actually factual was given to decision makers. Identify the "stakeholders" in the decision Stakeholders in this decision include the community members, Henry Payne, environmental activists, Daniel Wigley and Kristin Shrader-Frechette, and the US government (Shrader- Frechette, 2003). Identify the values at stake in the decision Health, justice, safety, and honesty were values at stake from those opposing the facility. Money, productivity, and a supposed improved economy were values at stake from those supporting it. Identify the options available to the decision maker The decision maker could choose to accept the proposed Claiborne Enrichment Center and have the facility be built, or they could choose to respect the rights of the community members who would be affected by it and not build the facility, leaving it as is. Consider the process for making the decision and the values that pertain to the process. All opinions and viewpoints from everyone affected and/or involved would need to be considered. Factual and scientific information would need to be given extra importance in considering the ethics of such a decision to help rule out bias or vested interests. The costs relative to the potential benefits of the facility would need to be considered. All parties involved would need to have the same accurate information regarding the true purpose of the facility and its impact to inform their opinions. Certain values would need to be weighed over others and I personally believe that in the case of any missing important information that it is best to play it safe than sorry and respect the community member s wishes over a corporations. In my opinion one cannot put a dollar value on health, and therefore the values of health and environmental justice are far more important than money.

6 Reference Shrader-Frechette, K. (2003). Ethical issues in environmental and occupational health. In B. Jennings, J. Kahn, A. Mastroianni, & L. S. Parker, Ethics and public health: model curriculum (pp ). Association of Schools of Public Health.