Most animals and plants live on water as well, and can be easily affected by it as human beings will. They are susceptible to the chemicals in the water, which can either drastically change their lifestyles due to changing food supplies and the like to such dire consequences such as death. On the Office of Response and Restoration’s website, they state that light oils display two hazards. Some can ignite and explode, but are mainly toxic. It can kill animals and plants upon touch, even contamination to humans who breathe in the toxic fumes. The chemicals that are affecting the wildlife and plants are a deadly issue. Additionally, On the National Ocean Restoration website, they state that the oil can destroy the insulating ability of fur-bearing
…show more content…
Cryovac Incorporation, it includes the results of official investigations on their water well after researchers were placed on the scene. It was whether or not the companies have been dumping chemicals into the water, or the plaintiff’s accusations were false. As a result, on the report of Anderson V. Cryovac, researchers discover in 1979, public health officials discovered that the wells were contaminated with toxic solvents. The solvents include trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1.2 trans dichloroethylene, and trichloroethane. With the discovery of these toxic chemicals, it was obvious who was at fault in this position. However, in the end, the court questioned the findings of the researchers. As stated, the court’s finding on the issue concerning the nature and direction of groundwater flow, they had no idea it was disposed on the site in or before 1968. This case was dropped soon after the lawyer representing Anderson went into bankruptcy. However, it was soon sent to EPA, The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency. It was then brought to trial again and won, having the three businesses pay for the cleaning of the river’s …show more content…
If it’s made into a federal law, we would see less health hazard and more of our clean water. With cleaner water, our marine mammals and birds will not be covered in toxic chemicals and oil. Our drinking water would be healthy rather than health risking, and that’s what we use in our everyday lives will be lea instead of holding chemicals. Cases such as Anderson V. WR Grace & Co. would not take longer than a year without denial of research evidence our food would also be healthy do not absorb the chemicals from the water or prey that absorbed the chemicals. Here is a question the individual should ask themselves, should they allow chemical and oil spills to not be taken action upon notice right away? Would they want to have most of our water be contaminated by toxic bacteria that can influence the resources? Without this law, Earth could have water that can become toxic, reducing vital food supplies from the
Cryovac Incorporation, it includes the results of official investigations on their water well after researchers were placed on the scene. It was whether or not the companies have been dumping chemicals into the water, or the plaintiff’s accusations were false. As a result, on the report of Anderson V. Cryovac, researchers discover in 1979, public health officials discovered that the wells were contaminated with toxic solvents. The solvents include trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 1.2 trans dichloroethylene, and trichloroethane. With the discovery of these toxic chemicals, it was obvious who was at fault in this position. However, in the end, the court questioned the findings of the researchers. As stated, the court’s finding on the issue concerning the nature and direction of groundwater flow, they had no idea it was disposed on the site in or before 1968. This case was dropped soon after the lawyer representing Anderson went into bankruptcy. However, it was soon sent to EPA, The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency. It was then brought to trial again and won, having the three businesses pay for the cleaning of the river’s …show more content…
If it’s made into a federal law, we would see less health hazard and more of our clean water. With cleaner water, our marine mammals and birds will not be covered in toxic chemicals and oil. Our drinking water would be healthy rather than health risking, and that’s what we use in our everyday lives will be lea instead of holding chemicals. Cases such as Anderson V. WR Grace & Co. would not take longer than a year without denial of research evidence our food would also be healthy do not absorb the chemicals from the water or prey that absorbed the chemicals. Here is a question the individual should ask themselves, should they allow chemical and oil spills to not be taken action upon notice right away? Would they want to have most of our water be contaminated by toxic bacteria that can influence the resources? Without this law, Earth could have water that can become toxic, reducing vital food supplies from the