Talk:Love Canal
Improvement
Shouldn't this be improved? It's a bit short I think, and this is a very important article.
-- some guy adds -> Love's Land? Who is Love?
Swales
It occurs to me that the link to 'swales' (referred to here as the vector responsible for the upwards migration of buried wastes) is probably in need of attention. I think it unlikely that a small governmental region in England conspired to destroy the health of the Canal. Given, though, that I have not the foggiest notion what a 'swale' is (or was) I am unable to fix it myself. -J.H (Yes, I should get an account.)
- Good catch. I removed the link since I couldn't find an appropriate article for swales to link to. Bkhouser 18:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Bias?
What is interesting is why were the original polluters held respnsible, despite having notified the original school board of the insuing dangers. They were not even willing to sell, but for the threat of expropriation.
- I agree. The first part of the article seems to suggest that Hooker Chemical dumped the waste in what would have been a run of the mill toxic dump. If they sold it to the city for $1 and explained to the city what had been buried there, why would Occidental later "oppose" the residents of the area? It seems to me at that point the issue was no longer in their hands. Is there some complication that is missing from this picture that explains Occidental's supposed guilt? TastyCakes 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree as well, I believe the article is biased against Hooker... I'm not usually one to defend chemical companies practices, but they have been exonerated of many of these public accusations by writer Eric Zuesse, who's article itself is linked at the bottom. Someone needs to figure out who's version is right - Eric or Lois Gibbs, the latter having made many of the public accusations. Rainman420 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The first part of the article seems to suggest that Hooker Chemical dumped the waste in what would have been a run of the mill toxic dump. If they sold it to the city for $1 and explained to the city what had been buried there, why would Occidental later "oppose" the residents of the area? It seems to me at that point the issue was no longer in their hands. Is there some complication that is missing from this picture that explains Occidental's supposed guilt? TastyCakes 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hamilton Park
I removed a section titled "Hamilton Park" from this page, since it didn't belong there. I later discovered it was a violation of copyright, taken from this website: [1]. Thus it has not been restored. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of the Hamilton Park link at all. It leads to a disambig page where none of the three articles seem connected in any way.
Tilefish 09:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see more discussion about how Hooker and Occidental are related and what happened to Hooker and Occidental as a result of the government forcing them to sell the land. Lawsuits, out of business, etc.
- I believe Occidental is now known as Oxy, and can be found a few miles down the road from Love Canal.
- Oxy is a "nickname" for Occidental Petroleum, it still exists and I believe is something like the 8th biggest oil company. Basically I think they paid to help clean up the site, end of story. It's headquarters are in LA, don't know if they have anything in the Love Canal region. TastyCakes 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you head down Buffalo Avenue you'll end up surrounded by Oxy chemical plants. They have buildings on both sides of the road with various Oxy-labeled pipelines crossing over the road.
Added Article Image
I recently added an image for this article, hope it suffices.