Abby Kinchy sent in a link to a story at Colorlines about where waste from BP’s Gulf oil leak is being disposed of. Nine landfills have been approved as disposal sites. Robert Bullard, who studies environmental racism (particular how toxic waste dumps are often located in neighborhoods where racial/ethnic minorities are over-represented), posted his calculations of the racial makeup of the areas surrounding these nine landfills over at Dissident Voices. This map from Colorlines shows the location of the landfills, the amount of waste (which includes “oily solids,” waste from the cleanup, and so on) sent there, and the percentage of people living within a 1-mile radius that are People of Color:
I looked up the % who aren’t non-Hispanic Whites for each state (as of 2008), just to provide some context:
- LA: 38.1
- MS: 41.3
- AL: 31.6
- FL: 39.7
So if we compare the neighborhoods simply to the % of POC in each state, there are 3 in LA, 1 in AL, and 1 in FL that have an over-representation of non-Whites and/or Hispanics. On the other hand, 3 landfills are in neighborhoods with racial/ethnic minority populations significantly below the state overall. This, of course, is a very rough measure, since different racial groups are not evenly spread across a state. I just wanted to provide at least some background info.
According to a story at the Miami Herald, operators of the landfills say there is no danger:
…operators of the landfills insist the BP garbage is not unprecedented and is suitable for the type of landfills they’ve selected: disposal sites that take household waste, as well as “special waste” like contaminated soil. They note much of the waste is generated by the cleanup operation itself: soiled cleanup coveralls, gloves, sandwich wrappers and drink containers.
They point out that the BP waste makes up a tiny amount of the material taken to these landfills each day.
However, residents are concerned because the landfills are regular municipal landfills, not designated for toxic waste (since the EPA has not categorized the waste as hazardous). The Associated Press discovered problems, including a truck that was leaking and left a trail of tar balls behind it, waste in containers that were not lined with the protective liners BP is supposed to use, and uncovered containers, including one in a state park that was leaking liquid from the previous night’s rain. The AP concluded, “…the handling and disposal of oily materials was haphazard at best.”
I’m not an environmental toxicologist, so whether or not the waste is hazardous or whether the landfills can keep it from seeping into groundwater is, obviously, beyond my ability to judge. I’m more interested in perceptions of risk and confidence in experts. There are distinct differences by gender and race, with women and non-Whites expressing higher concern about environmental pollution/dangers and higher perceptions of risk compared to men and Whites. In fact, White men stood out from all other groups, rating potential environmental risks significantly lower than every other group. In the U.S., the gender gap is not explained by differences in scientific knowledge.
Given these differences, discussions of environmental safety and risk are often very contentious. Experts in both the private and public sector are disproportionately White men. Regardless of scientific knowledge, they may underestimate the risks involved compared to how women with the same scientific knowledge would (I don’t have similar data on how scientific knowledge might affect the racial gap). Science doesn’t just provide us with objective facts; researchers and those applying their findings must interpret the data. Individuals with the exact same level of expertise may interpret the same data on the hazardousness (or lack thereof) of a particular type of waste very differently, without anyone being intentionally deceptive or more clearly biased.
And not all groups have equal faith in science or, more specifically, the people engaged in scientific research. Scientists in the 1800s used supposed objective measures to prove that Whites were superior to non-Whites (and, thus, to justify slavery) and conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which they allowed Black men to suffer and die of syphilis just to see what happened despite having a cure available. And the hazards of materials or pollutants often aren’t immediately apparent and may become clear only later (or may differ for adults and children, or due to cumulative exposure over time, etc.), which scientific analyses may not predict.
I’m not arguing that scientists studying the toxicity of the BP oil waste don’t have any useful information about whether or not it poses any danger to human health, or that data doesn’t help us come to more accurate judgments than we would if we didn’t take such information into account. However, in situations such as these that may be framed, particularly by scientists themselves, as an example of uninformed public opinion vs. fact-based expertise, the differences in interpretations and the fears of local residents despite assurances by researchers may be based in a number of factors that make the story, and conflicts over perceptions of risk, much more complex than it might at first appear.
Sources:
- James Flynn, Paul Slovic, and C.K. Mertz. 1994. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” Risk Analysis 14(6): 1101-1107.
- Bernadette C. Hayes. 2001. “Gender, Scientific Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Environment: A Cross-National Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 54(3): 657-671.
- Paul Mohai. 1997. “Gender Differences in the Perception of Most Important Environmental Problems.” Race, Gender & Class 5(1): 153-169.
Comments 8
Greg D. — August 5, 2010
I am not saying I don't agree with you but to make any conclusion you would have to control for neighborhood income/wealth. Landfill are (most likely) located in poorer areas and minorities tend (on average) to be poorer.
Jared — August 6, 2010
The science-y posts on this site tend not to be the most insightful ones.
Chelsea — August 6, 2010
Jared: agreed.
"Science doesn’t just provide us with objective facts; researchers and those applying their findings must interpret the data. Individuals with the exact same level of expertise may interpret the same data on the hazardousness (or lack thereof) of a particular type of waste very differently, without anyone being intentionally deceptive or more clearly biased.
And not all groups have equal faith in science or, more specifically, the people engaged in scientific research. Scientists in the 1800s used supposed objective measures to prove that Whites were superior to non-Whites (and, thus, to justify slavery) and conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which they allowed Black men to suffer and die of syphilis just to see what happened despite having a cure available."
Give me a freakin' break. All this post shows is YOUR lack of knowledge about how science today comes up with predictions and the interpretation of scientific data. I would strongly suggest that when making a foray into an area of scientific analysis you frame your jabs at science with politics. Science can be corrupted by politics LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, but the data is re-confirmed, read ripped apart by many other experts before being interpreted as any sort of fact, science is not about creating hard, cold facts, your belief that this is true shows your extreme lack of knowledge about the scientific process and lack of thought given to political interference---who chose the landfills, scientists or politicians?
I am disgusted by this constant lack of respect, due to ignorance, given to scientific researchers by arts scholars, and NO, I am not a scientist, I AM an arts scholar myself, but I don't nip at the ankles of scientific researchers, whose area of expertise is so far outside my own.
" However, in situations such as these that may be framed, particularly by scientists themselves, as an example of uninformed public opinion vs. fact-based expertise, the differences in interpretations and the fears of local residents despite assurances by researchers may be based in a number of factors that make the story, and conflicts over perceptions of risk, much more complex than it might at first appear."
This IS an example of uniformed public opinion vs. scientific expertise, the public is largely scientifically illiterate, that doesn't mean that the scientific researchers are incorrect. One of the ways to change this would be to explain to those in the community the risks, but that doesn't happen due to politics. I would argue that income levels have more to due with this problem than anything else. Money talks and people who have it will certainly not live near a landfill and if the do they most certainly will use their cash flow to make it the cleanest landfill possible, if you get my drift.
Adam — August 6, 2010
I think Jared & Chelsea are missing the point here. Science is all good and wonderful, yes, but even when it's "ripped apart" and, assumingly, distilled to reasonably reliable and useful knowledge over time, it's still being so done by predominantly make, white & privileged folks - and said knowledge is used by them as well.
Science as a process is an incredibly good one. The issue here isn't whether science is good or bad. The issue is, who is using it, and then, who trusts them and trusts how they're using it?
BP uses a lot of science, but do you have a lot of trust in them right now?
Unless for some reason you answer, "yes, I have full faith & trust in the science of BP," then you have to be able to see how communities to be impacted by this waste may have reason to doubt or perceive differently the scientific proclamations of the more powerful people from afar who want to put waste near them.
chelsea — August 6, 2010
Adam, I understand your point, as it's similar to the one I was trying to make. When you say: "Science as a process is an incredibly good one. The issue here isn’t whether science is good or bad. The issue is, who is using it, and then, who trusts them and trusts how they’re using it?" I completely agree. My issue was that the writer of the post brought up the ol' "science caused/supported slavery," -- that is not modern science. There is a difference. Science does not make moral judgments, people do, usually companies or politicians. If science is working properly it should help bring these underlying issues to the surface -- think the autism and vaccination link -- zero science supporting that, merely an uninformed public.