Love Canal Down the Memory Hole

A review of Love Canal: A Toxic History from Colonial Times to the Present


Ask any American born before 1960 for an example of corporate greed resulting in environmental disaster and the odds are good that he or she will name Love Canal. Love Canal, for readers who don't know, is a neighborhood in the city of Niagara Falls, N.Y. that was once a chemical waste dump. The dump became a major news story in the late 1970s, including sensational articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette by registered nurse turned reporter Michael Brown, who would later write the book Laying Waste: The Poisoning of America by Toxic Chemicals (Pantheon, 1980). The incident led to passage of the so-called Superfund legislation of 1980, which imposed a tax on petroleum and chemical companies to generate revenue for government-directed cleanup of toxic chemical sites.

But the real story of Love Canal isn't the "corporate guys: bad; government guys and community activists: good" tale that many people believe. In its February 1981 issue, Reason magazine published an exhaustive, fact-filled, 13,000-word article on Love Canal written by independent investigative reporter Eric Zuesse. The article dramatically recast many of the characters in Brown's reports, including Brown himself. I recently asked Reason's longtime science writer, Ron Bailey, whether further information in subsequent years had led him to doubt any important factual claims in Zuesse's piece, and he replied, "I am not aware that his article has been contradicted or found deficient in any important way."

In the years following that article, when I read about Love Canal, I do so with an eye on two topics: (1) Does the work discuss Zuesse's version of the story? (2) Does it challenge his claims? Those questions were on my mind as I read the latest addition to this literature, historian Richard Newman's new book Love Canal: A Toxic History from Colonial Times to the Present. Newman does not mention Zuesse, but he does raise some of the issues that Zuesse did. Disappointingly, he ultimately ignores those issues and adopts much of the story that Brown presented.

Before diving into the book, some backstory is needed. In the 1890s, an entrepreneur named William Love proposed to build a canal bypassing Niagara Falls, which would allow shipping between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, better connecting the hydro-powered industrial area to markets. As part of his vision, Love proposed a planned community along the waterway. His project ultimately was dashed by the Panic of 1893 and a congressional prohibition on diverting water from the Niagara River, resulting in the abandoning of the partially dug canal. However, some of the residential development Love envisioned did become reality.

Decades later, the unfinished canal, which had become filled with groundwater, became a dumpsite for the city's municipal waste. During World War II, a city–based chemical company, Hooker Electrochemical Company (later Hooker Chemical) received permission to dispose of chemical waste in the canal. Late in the decade, Hooker drained it, lined it with clay, and began depositing drums of chemicals at the site. Dumping continued through the early 1950s, when Hooker capped the site with clay.

But the site was soon disturbed. The Niagara Falls City School District decided it wanted the property for a school, threatening to use eminent domain to gain the land. Rather than fight the action, Hooker offered to sell the property to the school board for $1. The school board agreed, even though it was aware of the site's history.

In the deed of sale, Hooker included the following closing paragraph:

Prior to the delivery of this instrument of conveyance, the grantee herein has been advised by the grantor that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof. It is therefore understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration for this conveyance and as a condition thereof, no claim, suit, action or demand of any nature whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, its successors or assigns, for injury to a person or persons, including death resulting therefrom, or loss of or damage to property caused by, in connection with or by reason of the presence of said industrial wastes. It is further agreed as a condition hereof that each subsequent conveyance of the aforesaid lands shall be made subject to the foregoing provisions and conditions.

The new owner of the land automatically became liable for any damage done by toxic waste on the land, making such a clause legally unnecessary. Why, then, did Hooker insert the clause? Zuesses's explanation is that Hooker wanted to underscore that the chemicals could be dangerous and should not be disturbed. Consider that in March 1952, a Hooker official escorted school board officials to the site and, with them present, made test borings into the protective clay cover to convince the school board officials that the potentially dangerous chemicals were there. Yet, in August 1953, the school board unanimously voted to remove 4,000 cubic yards of fill from the waste site to complete the grading at another school site. The school board then began building the school on the Love Canal site, and that school opened in February 1955.

In 1957, the school board considered trading part of the property to two developers in exchange for some other land and $11,000 in cash. Hooker executives, upon hearing about the proposal, sent company attorney Arthur Chambers to attend the board meeting where the proposal was discussed. Chambers reminded the board members that chemicals were buried under the land's surface and pleaded with them not to let houses be built on the land. The board deadlocked 4–4, with the result that the resolution to sell the land failed.

Unfortunately, at the same time, city workmen, while constructing a sewer, punctured the walls of the site and its clay cover. They did this even though articles in the local paper at the time regularly warned that the construction was "dangerous" and "injurious."

In short, Hooker Chemical tried on several occasions to warn people about the dangers of the buried chemicals, and the irresponsible players in the drama were government officials. Two decades later, as groundwater tests began finding toxic chemicals and assertions were made that the chemicals were causing birth defects, Brown began writing his articles.

Newman tells some of this story. But at some points, he undercuts it with doubts about Hooker's actions. He writes, for example:

Hooker later claimed that developers removed the [clay] cap when building new homes and streets. But subsequent investigations doubted that the company had actually capped the entire dump (perhaps only part of it)… In short, the Love Canal dump may never have been completely contained.

Here's the problem: In a 306-page book with 32 pages of footnotes, this very important claim is not footnoted. So either Newman has failed to back up a correct claim, or he's simply stating some unspecified person's opinion. The way to plant credible doubt is to show, not just assert, that there is doubt.

Newman quotes much-celebrated Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs's claim that "residents of this blue-collar community have come to see that corporate power and influence are what dictated the actions at Love Canal, not the health and welfare of its citizens." Yet, if Zuesse's version of the story is correct, then it was a major corporation that warned against various politicians' plans to cut through the cover over the toxic dump. Perhaps Hooker Chemical was truly worried about "the health and welfare" of Love Canal's citizens. Perhaps it merely wanted to avoid adverse publicity and possible legal action (despite the legal protections in the deed). Regardless, the problem was not corporate power and influence but corporate impotence. The politicians had their narrow goal—building a school over a potentially toxic dump—and they were not about to be stopped by a mere corporation. Of course, the quote is from Gibbs, not from Newman, but Newman does not even attempt to gainsay her strong claim.

This failure is not just a careless slip. In one section, for example, Newman writes, "It all came back to the concept of justice, for Love Canal families felt that they had been sacrificed on the altar of profit and power." It seems far more accurate to say that they were sacrificed on the altar of the local school board's power; the idea that for-profit Hooker sacrificed them is hard to maintain in light of Hooker's warnings not to disturb the site. Moreover, elsewhere in the book, Newman refers to Hooker's "newfound concern" in 1980 with the "public's health and safety." Newfound? As documented above, Hooker stated and, more importantly, acted on its concern in the 1950s.

And what were the chemicals' health consequences for Love Canal residents? One would think that a 2016 book would at least partially answer that question. But even though Newman refers to bad health consequences, he is disturbingly vague about their nature. He refers, for example, to some blood tests of young children living in the area without even giving a hint about what those blood tests found. Elsewhere he refers to a "much debated genetic test showing that roughly one-third of the thirty-six people sampled may have suffered chromosome damage." One third is high. What, then, was debated? Only when you actually read a 1983 New York Times article referenced in the footnote do you find the following: "Residents and former residents at the Love Canal toxic-waste site in Niagara Falls, N.Y., are no more likely to have suffered chromosomal damage than residents elsewhere in the city, a Government study concluded today." The study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control. Note the asymmetry: Newman puts the horrific claim about genetic tests in the body, references a New York Times study in a footnote, and doesn't even hint in the footnote either what the study found or that it was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control.

At one point, Newman refers to reporter Brown's being driven "by an old-fashioned sense of justice." I beg to differ. Consider, for example, Brown's claim, which Zuesse highlights: "At that time [1953], the company issued no detailed warnings about the chemicals; a brief paragraph in the quitclaim document disclaimed company liability for any injuries or deaths that might occur at the site." A brief paragraph? As Zuesse points out, this paragraph, quoted above, is the longest paragraph in the whole deed. Newman's idea of an old-fashioned sense of justice is certainly not mine.

It's usually a good idea to revisit important historical issues in light of new information. Unfortunately, Newman's revisit of the Love Canal story omits much of what Zuesse discovered 35 years earlier. People who read it will get many of the apparently false impressions produced by Brown's original reports.

If you want to know the history of Love Canal in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, part one of Newman's book is for you. But if you want to really understand the key events from the early 1950s to 1980, Zuesse's 1981 article is the place to look.

This article originally appeared in the Winter 2016/2017 issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation. Go here for more information, including on how to subscribe.

NEXT: Illinois Hoping Citizens Drink State's Debts Away with Statewide Soda Tax

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Love Canal Down the Memory Hole

    That’s not even a euphemism.

    1. It’s the title of SugarFree’s autobiography.

      1. Well, there’s even a Hooker in it, so it sounds like a shoo-in for bestseller.

    2. I came here for the euphemisms.

      1. I came from the euphemisms.

        1. I came as a result of others coming from the euphemisms.

  2. Panic of 1893

    Which was part of what was known at the time as the Great Depression, known since the 1930s as the Long Depression.

  3. “The new owner of the land automatically became liable for any damage done by toxic waste on the land, making such a clause legally unnecessary.”

    It doesn’t work like that.

  4. I read that LONG article from the February 81 edition of Reason. I couldn’t believe how exhaustive it was. It was a real example of investigative journalism that doesn’t seem to exist any more. It should be in a museum.

    Read it. The fact the popular narrative of Love Canal is that it is an example of corporate greed makes me sad for humanity. The article utterly slams the door on the possibility of that being true. And yet, here we are.

    1. That’s why I brought that article up many times during the fundraiser.

      More like that Reason!

      1. I liked that version of Reason.

    2. We lived in a post-fact world long before the Age of Trump.
      Alternative facts, you might even say.

      1. I’ve said it a long time ago, investigative journalism is basically extinct. It is a rare find, and almost always done by independent firms.

  5. The article dramatically recast many of the characters in Brown’s reports, including Brown himself.

    Fake news.

  6. OT =

    An Example of Why Polling Is Fucking Stupid

    Last week it was big news that Trump had the lowest approval ratings ever.

    and they’re still running that as some kind of ‘news’

    today he’s sailing with 57%

    what happened? nothing.

    Its the same sort of bullshit “journalism” that tries to ascribe motives to intra-day stock price moves.

    1. +10 points on the DOW

      1. You mean DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average). DOW is a cronyist chemical company in Michigan.

        1. The Federal Department of Journalistic Integrity and Truthfulness certifies this as half fake news.

    2. Pussy Hats.

    3. The public got a look at what a sizable proportion of Trump’s opposition looks like. And by that I don’t mean just the protestors rioters, but also the 15 or so journos crowded around a lone burning trash can getting close-up shots of it.

  7. You can’t expect Newman to actually report the whole story without prejudice when there’s a narrative to build about EVUL 4 PROFFITZ KKKORPORAYSHUNZ! That’s crazy talk!

  8. This is weird, I was just thinking about Love Canal the other day- and how you can take any disease cluster and turn it into anything you want.

  9. I went to the Amazon book page and see that someone left a 1 star review today, 2017-01-24, mentioning the Reason article. I left a link to said article, and also added a comment to one other 5 star review.

    Others may wish to do the same.

    1. What you should do is mark the one-star review as “helpful” so that it continues to stay at the top of the customer review list.

      1. Did. I will also go mark the five star reviews as unhelpful, forgot about that, tsk tsk!

  10. sooo, how many dead/deformed/diseased children? in excess of the non-contaminated population that is

  11. I can’t imagine why school officials wanted that land so badly. Fucking idiots.

    They really should have forced the government to go through an eminent domain proceeding so there was a much greater paper trail. It probably would have cost them all kinds of legal fees though.

  12. I live down the street from the Love Canal site. It’s interesting to read this article as the local narrative was always, “Hooker Chemical dumped tons of toxic waste that poisoned the city so they are satan”. I’ve seen firsthand the results of what living on that land had done to the occupants and it is no picnic (the rates of various cancers and thryoid disease here are outrageous). Currently several lawsuits against various agencies by people living in the neighborhood still being affected despite being told that the land was safe to live on! (Local story on that:
    The streets here are falling apart because the local government can’t afford to tear them up and expose the toxic waste beneath that would be too expensive to have to clean up (but Cuomo can somehow afford to dump billions in tax payer’s money to implement fancy new railings and parking lots in our park). The Water Board here refuse to replace the old pipework beneath the city because they know what else they’d be digging up so instead prefer to “fix” the near-constant breakages and leaks, costing the people here who-knows-how-much in taxes (though they recently managed to magically find a surplus $6 million in their budget?). This entire city is a toxic waste dump that the government could not possibly be able to mismanage any further. The Love Canal disaster is really just the beginning of the story of how the government has messed up Niagara Falls.

    1. Thanks for the local angle. Have you read the ’81 article?

      1. Just found it in the archives and am about to read it right now, actually.
        This story in particular piques my interest as my boyfriend and his maternal side of his family were some of the last to be evacuated from the old cul-de-sacs in the Love Canal neighborhood. I ride my bike through that neighborhood and pass it every single day on my way to work. Niagara Falls as a city tries desperately to downplay the sheer amount of toxic and radioactive waste left here and it’s appalling. There are more schools here sitting atop waste sites and it’s generally been very hush-hush. They’re constantly finding new radioactive hot spots around here that rarely get reported on. It’s frustrating to see fingers constantly being pointed at the wrong places and the people that live here being told that’s it’s no big deal.

        1. Hope I’m not being too nosy: are you female and libertarian?
          *Gets ready for elusive camera footage

          1. Pull your pants up, man!

            We don’t want to scare her… yet.

          2. Haha! Yes, I am one of the fabled unicorns you refer to.

        2. You mention radioactive wastes as well as chemical wastes? Well, let me tell you, ALL of these hazards are way over-played! We are more likely to die of panics and hysteria than of the “hazards” (in small doses), and even Government Almighty has to admit it!
          On radioactive wastes, Google “radiation hormesis”, and see USA government study of the Taiwan thing (accidental experiment on humans) at…..MC2477708/ ? Low-dose radioactivity is actually GOOD for you! Seriously!!!
          On “helminthic therapy”, AKA gut parasite worms are GOOD for you, too, see (USA government again) or others ?
          Well anyway, WHAT is a summary of what I am saying? I thought I heard you asking about that, through my tri-cornered aluminum-foil hat, as I am sitting here?

          HERE is your summary: Holyweird is WAY off base, with their horror movies! A Giant Gut-Parasitical Radioactive Teenage Mutant Ninja Tapeworm would be GOOD for us!!! Bring it ON, ah says!!!

    2. I’m from North Tonawanda where we were home to Hooker’s sister chemical plant and had our own dumps to play in. I’ve been gone for almost 40 years now and can see a difference in the types and amounts of cancer in people my age in my hometown and those who grew up elsewhere.

  13. This is certainly very enlightening. Before today, everything I knew about Love Canal, I learned from reading Mad Magazine as a kid.

  14. What’s Eric doing these days? I haven’t heard from him in a long time.

  15. Emily Litella: “What’s all this I hear about Love Anal being a toxic hole?”


    Livin’ in the 70s

  16. Why the heck any author would expect the individuals involved to give a rats *** about a 1981 article published by Reason when there are numerous peer reviewed scientific journal articles and information releases from the EPA is beyond me. Megalomania?

    1. If Reason wants its authors to be taken seriously by the scientific community it should endeavor to get their articles published in peer reviewed journals such as Science, Nature and the Lancet. Otherwise they will be discarded like the non-scientific crap they are. Peoples opinions are not in any way science.

      1. …and science shouldn’t be people’s opinions.

      2. Love Canal had a TON to do with bad politics, and little to do with science, especially in terms of what Reason covered in 1981. What next, are you going to talk of the “science” of why you voted for Bernie Stalin?

    2. NorEastern|1.24.17 @ 8:48PM|#
      “Why the heck any author would expect the individuals involved to give a rats *** about a 1981 article published by Reason when there are numerous peer reviewed scientific journal articles and information releases from the EPA is beyond me. Megalomania?”

      Gee, maybe a lying piece of shit could link some of those articles, right, lying piece of shit?

    3. NorEastern, your comment makes no sense. The ’81 piece is an example of investigative journalism. Those do not go through peer review as do scientific papers. You are purposefully conflating two different genres of literature in order to discredit the ’81 piece.

      Thanks goodness investigative pieces don’t go through peer review. They’d never get published.

  17. Just read the 1981 article. Amazing story.

  18. If you have some free time on your hands, why not make some extra cash every week? Follow this link for more information

    ======== http://www.joinpay40.Com

  19. Is Michael Brown a nom de plume for Rachael Carson?

  20. You make ?37/h that’s great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online , seriously I couldn’t be haappier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in ?35/h and sometimes even as much as ?85/h?Heres a good example of what I’m doing,,,,,,, ??.>>>>>


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.