On May of 1980, Jimmy Carter who was the President of the United States at that time issued an emergency disaster declaration, based on the mental distress the residents of the Love Canal had experienced, instead of the chemical and physical hazards the community was exposed to. The state of New York subsidized the project and sold the houses at a lower rate with the intention to end the disaster that occurred in the area, as both New York and the city of Niagara Falls wanted to put to rest and leave behind this incident.
Even though, this was a main disaster that occurred, there was regulations and acts that came after all this and now are putting into effect to help the environment such as: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, …show more content…
A violation of the first quadrant which mainly focus on the legal and ethical issues is clearly stated where the Hooker’s Engineer did not specify the tons of chemicals and pesticides that were deposited in the canal. The engineer just mentioned that it was not safe to construct close to the canal and that there were dangerous toxins buried underneath. It was completely unethical to sell the land knowing that it could pose a tremendous hazard to the public. In addition, another important violation was the violation of quadrant two, which represents legal and unethical concerns. Hooker Company did not break any laws at that time, but it may have happened in the actual moment. Engineers have to be aware and be careful at all times of all the safety procedures and dangerous situations that may be presented in any type of project. Moreover, Hooker could have implemented better alternatives to decrease the waste dump and the contamination at that time. Quadrant three reflects illegal and unethical behaviors for the Hooker Company. As mentioned before, engineers did not break any part of the law or regulation at the time, but in any case they could have been in a dangerous problem with the New York State …show more content…
This company used an average as high as 21,000 tons of chemicals, toxins of benzene, pesticide lindane and dioxins for their own benefits, which reflects the bad part for the Hooker’s company (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2005). The use of chemicals by this company reflects mostly on the 64 women living in this area; five of them had three or more miscarriage and also had found an increment of birth rate defects in the regions close to the canal (Hatfield, 2012). Building a project without looking for the safety of people is never the right choice for any construction company. Hooker’s Company did not care about the future consequence and harm that all this chemical waste could bring. After all the unethical behavior of the company behind this construction, there was nothing positive, but harm to the human being and the ecosystem. On the other hand, a study made by Dr.Paigen developed that miscarriage was higher for women living in the path of plume (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2005). As a well being of utilitarians’ principle, he presented an original solution for those people who were affected. Those benefits were to be relocating children under two years old and women who got pregnant (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins,
Even though, this was a main disaster that occurred, there was regulations and acts that came after all this and now are putting into effect to help the environment such as: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, …show more content…
A violation of the first quadrant which mainly focus on the legal and ethical issues is clearly stated where the Hooker’s Engineer did not specify the tons of chemicals and pesticides that were deposited in the canal. The engineer just mentioned that it was not safe to construct close to the canal and that there were dangerous toxins buried underneath. It was completely unethical to sell the land knowing that it could pose a tremendous hazard to the public. In addition, another important violation was the violation of quadrant two, which represents legal and unethical concerns. Hooker Company did not break any laws at that time, but it may have happened in the actual moment. Engineers have to be aware and be careful at all times of all the safety procedures and dangerous situations that may be presented in any type of project. Moreover, Hooker could have implemented better alternatives to decrease the waste dump and the contamination at that time. Quadrant three reflects illegal and unethical behaviors for the Hooker Company. As mentioned before, engineers did not break any part of the law or regulation at the time, but in any case they could have been in a dangerous problem with the New York State …show more content…
This company used an average as high as 21,000 tons of chemicals, toxins of benzene, pesticide lindane and dioxins for their own benefits, which reflects the bad part for the Hooker’s company (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2005). The use of chemicals by this company reflects mostly on the 64 women living in this area; five of them had three or more miscarriage and also had found an increment of birth rate defects in the regions close to the canal (Hatfield, 2012). Building a project without looking for the safety of people is never the right choice for any construction company. Hooker’s Company did not care about the future consequence and harm that all this chemical waste could bring. After all the unethical behavior of the company behind this construction, there was nothing positive, but harm to the human being and the ecosystem. On the other hand, a study made by Dr.Paigen developed that miscarriage was higher for women living in the path of plume (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2005). As a well being of utilitarians’ principle, he presented an original solution for those people who were affected. Those benefits were to be relocating children under two years old and women who got pregnant (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins,