A Comparative Study of Technological Disasters: Causes and Impacts

Michelle Dupuis

Disasters happen every year, falling into the categories of either technological or natural disasters. Technological disasters are those that are caused by human or technological error. “Technological disasters are human-caused arising out of the technical complexities that characterize contemporary societal systems of production and consumptions” (Picou, Gill and Cohen 1997: 307). Natural disasters are those that happen regardless of human activity, events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. These natural disasters have been happening since the beginning of time. People who live in areas that are susceptible to natural disasters have learned over generations how to cope and lessen the impacts of them. Governments have also had years of experience to set up effective responses. The United States government has the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA and organizations like the American Red Cross, both of which come to the aid of those affected by natural disasters. Due to the number of natural disasters and the frequency of them throughout history, a speedy and productive response and clean up can and usually does occur. These same factors which allow for quick and efficient natural disaster responses are lacking in technological disasters. This does not imply that we should dump oil, melt down nuclear reactors or dump chemical wastes more frequently to discover the best plausible reaction. There is no desire or need for there to be numerous oil spills or nuclear meltdowns for the purpose of experiencing the rehabilitation of an area and a society. It should be mandatory with today’s technology that industries and governments work together to protect the environment and individuals while making advancements in their regular fields. They should be required to have well thought-out precautions, safety measures and responses before they can start operating. If not, it will take at least one large disaster in each and every industrial field to get legislation and policy up to an acceptable standard of societal and environmental safety.

With technological disasters there is often a need to place blame. Mother Nature is not inflicting the harm on the environment, animals, society and individuals. Rather, it is human technology and human negligence and error that destroys, damages and harms citizens and ecosystems. There is no preventative measure for stopping Mother Nature. There are reactions and responses. Trying to predict as early as possible when and what natural disaster is going to take place is a large factor in the total damage caused. In a technological disaster there is a malfunction or a human error, highlighting a weakness of a system, bringing a disaster to the surface. There is no warning sign, scientific trend or way to predict human error. Prevention will only come from stricter policies that are followed. Prediction is the best way to prepare for a natural disaster just as prevention is the best way to deal with technological disasters.

When a technological disaster happens who is supposed to come to the aid of the victims? What about the damaged environment and long-term effects? Should the company be responsible for the cleanup efforts, damages and cost of both? A more important question is, should there have to be some sort of response plan in place, all the equipment needed for an effective response and regular oversight of these systems by agencies and/or citizens before and during industry production? Technological disasters have happened like Exxon Valdez oil spill, the incident at Bhopal, India, the Love Canal, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the Three Mile Island scare. There are similarities among the impacts and responses to the five technological disasters above. It is my hope that the industrial world will begin to realize that they need to invest the time, money and manpower on preventive measures. Once a disaster occurs nothing positive will come from it for the company. Possible future improvements in policy for the industry are one of the few silver linings of any disaster. If something can go wrong it usually does, and therefore industries need to have proper and effective response plans in places.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

The Exxon Valdez oil spill happened on March 24, 1989. At the time the Exxon Valdez was one of the newest and most advanced tankers only about two years old. It weighed 30,000 tons when empty, quite a massive ship. Captain Joseph Hazelwood was considered to be a skilled and intelligent captain. Despite the reputation of the ship and the captain, Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, puncturing eight holes into the hull. The debate over the number of barrels of oil that actually escaped from the tanker’s hull has never ended, although eleven million gallons is often spoken about as the net loss of oil into the water. This would have been a lot more had Exxon not been able to transfer oil from the Exxon Valdez hull to other tankers while the injured tanker was still balanced on the reef. The oil slick traveled four hundred seventy miles southwest down the Alaskan coastline in fifty six days, damaging Prince William Sound’s economy and ecosystem, the individuals whose lives depend on the Sound, and the animals that call it home (Keeble 1999: 120).

The response to the Exxon Valdez was horrific. Once the oil tanker ran aground, according to the contingency plan Alyeska Pipeline Service Company was supposed be the first one on the scene. Alyeska is the company composed of the oil companies who use the pipeline and the Prudhoe Bay oil. Within five hours there was supposed to be a crew and oil skimming equipment on site. THowever, the barge that Alyeska was supposed to use for oil spill reaction was under repair. The supplies needed for oil skimming were buried under several feet of snow. When Alyeska finally did arrive on site 12 hours after the grounding, they only had 1/5 the supplies they would need to contain the spill. The first 72 hours were ideal for skimming conditions. The weather was very cooperative. However, the government, Exxon, Alyeska and the Coast Guard did not work together to do much of anything in the first days.

The government could have taken control if Exxon would have said they could not handle the situation. Exxon didn’t want the negative image with the public and said that they had it under control. There was talk about using dispersants on the oil slick. Dispersants break up the oil and oil is dispersed throughout the water and not just on the top. This was a controversial topic because there is still the oil in the water, it just does not appear to look as bad as a slick on the top. They discussed burning the oil but due to the toxic fumes this was also not going to be an option. On the fourth day there were winds reaching 73 mph. This started the spread of the oil, and containment was now out of the picture. The oil that still remained on the Exxon Valdez was transferred to other tankers without tipping over the ship. The Exxon Valdez was then towed from its perch on the reef to Naked Island were it received immediate repairs.

Once the oil was on the beaches there was very little that could be done to get it off. Hot water washings were the primary cleaning method, treating 1,089 miles of shoreline. These killed all of the living organisms on the beaches. It only washed the oil into the water until the tide changed and new oil was deposited. In the aftermath, it is debated whether the hot water washings or the oil would have been more damaging to the shore. Bioremediations were used on 70 miles of beach, with fertilizers applied to the shore to increase the amount of oil eating microbes. The problem with this method is that it is introducing non-indigenous organisms on the shore, the toxicity of the solvents was unknown and the effects they would have on the already injured wildlife. The byproducts are toxic. Out of desperation people also wiped the rocks clean with towels. Once the oil hit the shores there was virtually nothing that could be done to clean it up. In 2004 there is still oil just a few feet below the surface. Exxon stopped its cleanup efforts but the spill still has not left Exxon (Ross 2000: 173-9).

The impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is immense to the people who live by the Sound, those who transport oil out of the Sound, and the animals that live in the Sound. When the oil spill first happened the animals were the ones that suffered first. Between 3,500 and 5,500 sea otters died. 200 harbor seals perished in the spills aftermath. Birds were injured the most: 375,000- 435,000 birds died in the oil. Some 151-580 of those were bald eagles. Killer whales were affected too: 20 died. These animals usually died in agony, as oil does not kill quickly (Ross 2000: 177-9).

Kelley Weaverling was a valuable asset to the animals in the spill. To gather information for the animals, rescuers contacted the Wild Life Rescue in Washington, D.C., who instructed them how to deal with the oiled birds. They called Sea World for help with the Sound’s other animals. Fishing boats were sent out to collect the sick and dead animals. 250 people and 45 boats were involved in the animal-saving part of the cleanup. Halibut boats, seine boats and gill netters were used to collect the animals. They used cardboard boxes from a cannery and they got most of their treating supplies from the hospital. They got syringes to feed the animals (Weaverling 2004).

Today the animals still are not all recovered. Even the very definition of recovery is controversial. The herring speaks for the effects on the animals. There is a tiny amount of herring in the Sound, not enough to let anyone harvest them. Fishermen were hit hard. During the cleanup, once the spill had spiraled out of containment they demanded that boom be set up around the salmon hatcheries. That was their livelihood. The natives who practice a subsistence living were drastically affected. They could not eat what was in the Sound so they were introduced to processed foods and ‘modern’ ways. They were now part of the cash economy and today many communities are finding it near impossible to revert back to their culture and old way of life. The cleanup split the area and towns in two: those who would not budge to help a company clean up after they spilled oil and others who would. Those who would did so because they wanted to save as much as they could. Others did it for the $16.69 an hour, 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week and overtime (Keeble 1999: 68). People did profit from the oil spill. Some made so much there is a term used for them, ‘spillionaires’.

In the political aftermath, which is still ongoing, there have been improvements for the environment in the oil industry. Rick Steiner pointed out that in technological disasters individuals are not allowed to put things behind them until the litigations is over (Steiner 2004). Kelley Weaverling mentioned that with a natural disaster when it is over, it’s over. However, in the case of technological disasters, when it’s over, it’s not even close to being done (Weaverling 2004).

The suit against Exxon was a victory. They won a billion dollar settlement, with the Trustee Council in charge of dealing with the funds. One of the goals of the Trustee Council is to learn as much about the Sound as possible by doing all sorts of science on the ecosystem, the people and the area. Also, out of the oil spill came the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90. This Act requires that there be double hulled vessels in the Sound by 2015. There are tugs which escort tankers out of the Sound into the open sea. OPA 90 set up two citizens’ oversight committees: Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWS RCAC) and the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council. They are responsible for terminal and tanker oversight and monitoring. OPA 90 also permits the coast guard to review national drivers records and criminal records before they issue mariner’s licenses or documents.

Since the Exxon Valdez leaked there have been vast improvements in how the oil industry prevents and prepares for spills. There still is extensive room for more improvements. There is also a reopener clause in the settlement, which could entitle those who suffered damages up to another 100 million dollars. The conditions of the reopener are if unforeseen damages can be declared and proof that the money would actually be of benefit to fix the damages. Since there is still oil in the Sound, creatures are still suffering and towns are still divided, one could be correct in claiming damages that were unknown at the time of the previous settlement.

Love Canal

In 1886, William Love decided to build a canal to connect Lake Ontario to Lake Erie bypassing Niagara Falls. He never completed the canal. Hooker Chemical Company found use for the unfinished project. They filled it with industrial wastes. The waste was composed of organic solvents, acids, and pesticides, 400 different chemicals in all. Some of the chemicals in the canal were carcinogenic, meaning they cause cancer or teratogenic meaning they cause birth defects. 21,000 tons of these chemicals were dumped in the 1940’s and 1950’s. To contain the waste Hooker Chemical Company covered it with clay. The company was pressured to sell the land to a school board. They gave in on the terms of $1, school board would take the entire parcel of land, thereby freeing Hooker Chemical Company for any claims, and that the school board had to allow Hooker Chemical Company to continue dumping wastes until the school was completed. The school was built along with a subdivision. The residents and students developed odd illnesses. There was an extremely high rate of miscarriages, birth defects were not uncommon, chromosome damage occurred, and the body’s filtering system was extremely susceptible to diseases. It was detected in 1977 that the ground was leaking toxins. The state of New York bought 230 residents’ homes, and helped them find new ones for over seven million dollars. An additional 710 families were offered to be relocated by the government. Today the town is a ghost town, fenced in is the 70-acre dumpsite. In the fence there is a 40-acre liner cap covering the 16-acre hazardous waste dump. There are also a barrier drainage system, and treatment system on site. The government spent about 250 million dollars to clean this up. Hooker Chemical Company is a smaller division of Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC). OCC’s reimbursement to the government is about 129 million dollars. Just a few million short of what the government paid. There are still some legal aspects of this case in court, pending. Three million of the settlement went to the ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, over a six-year period to develop a case study of the health effects of the victims of the Love Canal (EPA, 2002).

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 or the Superfund came about after the Love Canal. CERCLA cleans up areas that are toxic to humans. They list these areas on the web and other sources to inform the general public about them. They have a multiple-step cleanup of each site and keep records of all that they find. States now have their own versions of Superfund and try to clean up as many as they can without informing the federal CERCLA. The Superfund tries to hold polluters responsible for releasing hazardous wastes. Through the Superfund there has been a trust fund set up to clean up sites when the polluter can not be held accountable or the polluter is unknown. Individuals involved with this project push for stricter prohibitions and legislation on dealing with waste sites. CERCLA deals with sites that are of serious hazardous wastes and major health threats (EPA 2004a).

Bhopal, India

On Dec 3, 1984 in Bhopal, India at about 12:40 a.m. the Union Carbide pesticide plant began leaking MIC gas (methyl isocyanate). This gas is a cream colored gas and is heavier than air meaning it stays close to the surface and does not rise up into the atmosphere. This makes it a life and death problem for humans because the gas stays close to the ground and lungs. Forty-one metric tons of this gas breached the tank and entered the air and the town. Bhopal was a town of about 800,000 before the gas leak. 3,600 deaths occurred due to the leak. This gas kills by causing asphyxiation by pulmonary edema. Another 500,000 individuals were affected, suffering from chromosome alterations, spontaneous abortions, still births, physical handicaps, chronic health problems dealing with their vision, breathing and sleep patterns (Willard 1992: 14-24).

The Indian government or Union Carbide did not do the first response; it was composed of average citizens willing to do anything. “Immediately after the accident, while the immense government bureaucracy was still being mobilized for action, the major portion of relief was provided by volunteers from Bhopal and other parts of India…” (Shrivasta 1987: 63). Since volunteers provided the initial relief there was no agency taking control in the critical moments. There should be an alpha leader in every clean up, directing and keeping chaos to a minimum and productivity to a maximum. This implies that Union Carbide was not ready for an incident; they figured one would never happen or if it did it would not be of this magnitude. The Indian government did end up pulling through. “Although the government bureaucracy was slow to mobilize at first, it did turn out a massive effort – 95 percent of all the resources available for relief – that assisted thousands of people who otherwise might have starved or suffered more serious damage from the injuries. Because Bhopal was the state capital, the government was able to act with relative speed in providing relief. In fact, the state government established a separate Department of Relief and Rehabilitation for this purpose” (Shrivastava 1987: 64). After the accident, the government realized the importance of having a plan of action and a way to provide communities with relief when there is a massive technological disaster.

The government formed two sets of volunteer groups during the relief effort. “The first set consisted of social and charitable groups concerned primarily with medical and social rehabilitation. The second included social activists interested in the larger medical, social, and political questions raised by the crisis” (Shrivastava 1987: 64). These groups inspired a group of concerned citizens who protested the laziness and complacency of management of the crisis by the government and Union Carbide. They demanded to know exactly what they had been exposed to, the short term and long-term effects. It was later discovered that MIC was not the only poisonous gas that escaped in the leak. These citizens pointed out the government’s slow and, in their minds, inadequate response.

The aftermath is always a dirty tangled mess. By 1985 Union Carbide had only paid 7 million towards the disaster. Then there was the trial. The trial was shady from the beginning. Lawyers from the United States swooped in and landed many clients. The trial took place in the United States, in a different court system, with different rules. In 1989 there was an out-of-court settlement with the Indian government, and Union Carbide was to pay 470 million dollars. This was not nearly enough to cover the cost of clean up and the damages done to the people of Bhopal. In 1995 Union Carbide broke ground on a hospital in Bhopal that would specialize in the areas that the MIC gas and others would be most likely to have damaged. The hospital resulted from a court order. In 2001, only 17 years later, the hospital began treating patients. Union Carbide has since merged with Dow Chemical Company, and litigation is still in process.

Directly because of the incident at Bhopal Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, EPCRA. It is also known as Title III of SARA, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. SARA is the amendment to CERCLA or the Superfund. The EPCRA was designed to help communities’ public health and environment. It requires that each state appoint a state emergency response commission, SERC. It is then required that SERC divide the state up into emergency planning districts. Then for each district they need to name a local emergency planning committee, LEPC. These groups are there to inform and provide access to information about the area (EPA 2004b).

The next two disasters are very similar in what went wrong in the nuclear reactors. Both cases had a partial nuclear melt down in one of the reactors on each site. They were different reactors in their design. The one on Three Mile Island could not continually heat up like the reactor on the Chernobyl site. The actual incidents are very different in terms of damage and response. The Three Mile incident took place in the United States where everything is documented and recorded. Chernobyl took place in the Soviet Union where information was not released or available.

Three Mile Island

Wednesday 4 a.m. on March 8, 1979 the United States had a nuclear accident on Three Mile Island. The automatic operating valve that controlled the water supply to the main feed water system closed on Reactor No. 2. This caused the core to automatically shut down as a result. These two factors were compounded by equipment malfunctions and human errors causing even more loss of the water coolant around the core. This exposed part of the core then contacted steam, creating a reaction producing mass amount of hydrogen. A very small, non-health threatening amount of the radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere (“Three Mile Island” 1998).

The response was textbook in the beginning before it turned into media frenzy. Pennsylvania was far ahead of the nation in response efforts and planning. They had PEMA, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, which in this case also handled technological disasters. This agency was in operation before the federal version, FEMA. There was a state, county and local effort in the first two days. PEMA coordinated the response of all the agencies. There was a system to contact and inform federal and state offices. There was not any released radiation in the first two days but FEMA did examine possible evacuation plans just in case. On Friday morning a plant operator was transferring radioactive gases when some escaped. The operator responded properly. He ordered a helicopter to take radiation measures. He then reported the readings. The NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Committee, heard of the readings. The NRC’s own emergency planning was not a priority at this time and they did not have efficient plans. With only the reading and no information of whether it was and onsite or off site reading, if it was ground or a helicopter reading, the NRC recommended an evacuation. This is when things started to fall apart. PEMA was informed of the recommendation. They notified the governor that they would soon be starting their plan for evacuation. They also notified the Bureau of Radiation Protection, who disagreed with the NRC’s recommendation and reported to the governor. The governor was then confused and stirred up even more chaos when he tried to find the results from the original readings (Dynes 1982: 119-29) The media ate this up, a nuclear accident and a confused government and response team. The federal government heard of this confusion and stepped in. Recall that Pennsylvania was ahead of our federal government in planning for emergencies and their needed responses. The President even visited the site. The whole response changed after the first two days. “…the traditional emergency-management organization was bypassed. This caused additional confusion, frustration and resentment at the local level because decisions were being made with little knowledge of or concern for local circumstances -…”(Dynes 1982: 126). Within 15 miles of Three Mile Island 144,000 people were evacuated. People were not forced to leave but did so out of fear and precautions. Most people went to friends or family in the state. They did not utilize the facilities that were set up for evacuation. The governor advised pregnant women and children under the age of five to evacuate. This advisory was lifted on April 9th. Schools were closed in the area. The schools within 5 miles of the Island were reopened on April 11th. Most of the citizens who evacuated and left returned around April 4th. There was never enough radiation loose in the atmosphere to cause any health damages. It was equivalent to an x-ray or two (Flynn 1982: 149-161).

Chernobyl

On April 26, 1986 in Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Soviet Union the worst nuclear power accident in history occurred. Due to the limited amount of information that came out of the USSR there is not accuracy in figures about the incident. The Soviets did admit to there being an accident. Four sentences about it even were heard far into one of their news programs. The details still remain fuzzy. Part of the reason it is known about at all is due to the massive amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere. The winds carried these materials far. On April 28 the radiation was detected in Scandinavia. Sweden reported high levels of these air transported radioactivity materials. Sweden demanded to know what was causing them and where they were coming from. It was not a full melt down that caused the release of the radioactive material. Technicians at the plant were going to shut down reactor No.4 for scheduled maintenance. While it was shut doing they were going to run safety tests on the reactor. This way the reactor safety systems could be bypassed. “It is one of history’s ironies that the worst nuclear accident in the world began as a test to improve safety” (Snell 1988: 12). There was no major event that triggered the Chernobyl incident. It was few little errors that slowly worked together to cause a catastrophe. During one of the tests there was a power surge. This caused a gradual increase in boiling, which led to the steam pressure breaking the tubs. This destroyed the top of the reactor, everything above it and the sides of the reactor. The explosion set fire to asphalt roofs and other structures around the plant. A success was that the fires were contained and put out before they could interact with the other reactors. The fireman paid the cost for this success in ultimate form, many of whom died from the exposure to the radiation. The hydrogen explosion killed 31 people immediately. There was high radiation for a twenty-mile radius around the plant. A massive evacuation occurred of 30-kilometer zones, involving about 135,000 people. Two hundred thirty seven patients who were self-checked into hospitals were confirmed to suffer from radiation sickness after the incident. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had 4.5 tons of radioactive materials. 50 tons of radioactive materials were released in the accident (Marples 1988: 25-58).

The location of the Chernobyl nuclear power station reflected poor planning. It is only 3 kilometers from the reactor to Prypyat, home to 45,000 citizens, and 15 kilometers to the town of Chernobyl, which is home to 12,500 people. Chernobyl is 105 kilometers to the north of the Kiev, the Ukrainian capital and home to 2.4 million individuals. The ultimate mistake was to put the plant near water, a major river system like the Dnieper River that Kiev uses as their source for water (Snell 1988: 13).

All of these disasters occurred due to numerous errors. In all the cases except Three Mile Island, the response was poor. There was the need to place blame as there often is in the case in a technological disaster. Dr. Riki Ott commented, “These crises are going to happen all the time. They are the tip of the iceberg of social problems needing reform” (Ott 2004). She is correct. In the case of Exxon Valdez, why were we shipping oil out of Prince William Sound in the first place? The oil was being shipped to fuel cars, recreational vehicles and toys. This demonstrates our dependence on oil as a society. Perhaps we should look more seriously into alternate forms of energy to fuel cars. Hybrid cars are an option today; if society demands them they will be all we see on the road tomorrow. Today there are hoards of individuals driving empty gas guzzling SUV’s designed for off road activity on the paved city streets. In the case of Bhopal the social problem is that it is cheaper to have plants outside of the United States. Industry does not have to answer as many questions overseas. Therefore, other countries suffer from the United States’ industrial drive for an easier and cheaper production. In the case of the Love Canal, it shows the laziness and ignorance of companies. That one could really allow a school and homes to be constructed on top of toxic waste. Kelley Weaverling said it best, “Corporations have no souls, they have no face” (Weaverling 2004). In Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear power is harnessed. In the Soviet Union they use nuclear power as a way to run their country. Energy is expensive and nuclear energy is a cheaper alternative. In the United States nuclear power is used with other sources of power. There are underlying social problems with each disaster that surfaces. These problems will not be addressed unless the citizens push for them to be or crisis draw the media in to shine the light on these problems. Out of each disaster examined there have been citizens responding in desperation and outrage, legislation that has changed to help prevent future disasters and attention by the media and individuals are placed on the underlying social problems.

Dr. Riki Ott also noted that how we define our Gross National Product is questionable. The Gross National Product should have social and environmental aspects factored into it, not just purely economic concerns. Consider this, if an industry is exploiting a resource, polluting the air and releasing toxins into the atmosphere and a woman gets cancer. It helps our current economy when she pays for her treatments. It should not. The Gross National Product should be measured by how well we manage our natural resources not how quickly we can profit from them. It should matter how healthy our citizens are. If people are getting sick due to pollutants their health costs should not appear in the GNP as a positive money transfer (Ott 2004).

The bottom line is our problem. As a society, as a species we need to value our lives, our planet and others enough to treat them properly. Prevention is the only way to protect out environment and people from technological disasters. Once the disaster happens, it has simultaneously caused the damage. It will need to be cleaned up and studied. There will be trials that go on for decades and victims who never see justice. Animals and humans die needlessly for saving a dollar here and there. A life is something that does not come with a price tag. Neither should a mind. If people thought about effects and not checks maybe we would all be a little safer.

Dan Lawn mentioned that when a technological disaster strikes, FEMA responds. It is not a perfect response. It is far better than any technological response yet. With FEMA everyone works together to pull the community back on its feet. The polluter needs to react but only do what it is told. The polluter does not need to be the head agency in a clean up that it caused (Lawn 2004). It needs to foot the bill and the manpower. It should not be in charge of making decisions to clean up what it could not prevent. In a technological disaster they spend years debating who is to blame. The polluter is to blame, society is to blame, and relaxed government policy is to blame. The Exxon Valdez oil spill still has a reopener clause; the Bhopal trial is still unresolved. Prevention is a more efficient way of dealing with industry errors and industry while protecting lives and the environment.

Works Cited

“Chernobyl accident.” 1998. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed.

Dynes, Russell R. 1982. ”The contribution of the Social Sciences to Evaluation of Preparedness.” In David L. Sills, C.P. Wolf, and Viven B. Shelanski, (eds.) Accident at Three Mile: Island the Human Dimensions. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press: 119-29.

Daehler, Curtis C. and Shyamal K. Majumdar. 1992.“Industrial Disasters: Lessons from Bhopal.” In Shyamal K. Majumdar, Gregory S. Forbes, E. Willard Miller and Robert F. Schmalz (eds.) Natural and Technological Disasters Causes, Effects and Preventive Measures. Easton, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science: 310-22.

EPA. 2002. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/np/0201290.htm 22 May 2004.

EPA. 2004a. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/law/cercla.htm. 22 May 2004.

EPA. 2004b. http://www.epa.gov/region5/html/epcra.htm. 22 May 2004.

Flynn, Cynthia Bullock. 1982.“Reactions of Local Residents to the Accident at Three Mile Island.” In David L. Sills, C.P. Wolf, and Viven B. Shelanski, (eds.) Accident at Three Mile: Island the Human Dimensions. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press: 149-61.

Keeble, John. 1999. Out of the Channel: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound. 10th Anniversary Ed. Spokane: Eastern Washington University Press.

Lawn, Dan. 2004. Personal interview. Valdez, May 12.

Marples, David R. 1988. The Social Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Medvedev, Grigori. 1991. The Truth About Chernobyl. Trans. Evelyn Rossiter. Basic Books.

Miller, E. Willard. 1992. “Human Response to Natural and Technological Disasters.” In Majumadar, Shyamal, K., Gregory S. Forbes, E. Willard Miller and Robert F. Schmalz (eds.) Natural and Technological Disasters Causes, Effects and Preventive Measures. Easton, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science: 14- 24.

Ott, Riki. 2004. Personal interview. Cordova, 4 May.

Picou, Steven J., Duane A. Gill, and Maurie J. Cohen. 1977. The Exxon Valdez Disaster: Readings on a Modern Social Problem. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Ross, Ken. 2000. Environmental Conflict in Alaska. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

Shrivastava, Paul. 1987. Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Snell, Victor G. 1988. “Introduction.” In David R. Marples (ed.) The Social Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster. New York: St Martin’s Press: 1-24.

Steiner, Rick. 2004. Personal interview. Anchorage, May 1.

“Three Mile Island.” 1998. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed.

Weaverling, Kelley. 2004. Personal interview. Cordova, May 5.

Top of Page