The Defendants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
LInk Between Symptoms of Hinkley Residents and Chromium VI:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) argues that there is no link between Chromium VI and the symptoms that the citizens of Hinkley were experiencing. They claim that no one agent could cause such a variety of illnesses. The Hinkley residents complained of breast cancer, Hodgkin's disease, miscarriages, nosebleeds, and spinal deterioration (Fumento 2000). However, the company states that the (Environmental Protection Agency) EPA has only found a link between the toxin and cancer of the lung and septum (Fumento 2000). PG&E supports these arguments with studies done in communities adjacent to landfills packed with chromium VI. The people that lived in vicinity to the landfills had chromium VI detected in their urine but did not have any ill health effects that the citizens of Hinkley endured. In addition, they examined 52,000 workers at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century and found that the employees did not have any higher cancer rates that the general population of California (Fumento 2000). In both of these studies, none of the victims of chromium VI exposure experienced the symptoms that the plaintiffs claimed to have and to be linked to toxin in their water supply.
Inhalation v.s Ingestion of Chromium VI:
The Plaintiffs claim that their exposure to chromium VI occured through the ingestion of contaminated water. However, the defendants believe that chromium VI is only carcinogenic when it is inhaled (Fumento 2000). Researchers claim that the Pacific Gas & Electric Company was not to blame for the vicitim's symptoms due to the possiblity that the toxin “is more hazardous when inhaled than when ingested in drinking water” (Hinkley). The route of contamination the plaintiffs claim is through the water and since it was not being spread in the air the health problems experienced by the citizens could not have been caused by PG&E.
PG&E Provided Information to Hinkley:
PG&E met with the people of Hinkley on April 25, 1988. During the meeting, the defendants [PG&E] told citizens that there was "No risk at current levels" and "Generally, site groundwater is good and suitable for drinking and agriculture." (Plaintiffs' Trial Brief). They stated that it was fine to swim in the pools because chlorine and other pool chemicals "kill any contaminants in the pool, including chromium". They advised the community that the "water supply was completely safe and there were no toxic problems with their water". One of their officials from PG&E even said that "he and his children would gladly drink their well water." (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999]). The defandants disposed the information they had on the contamination of the water. The people of Hinkley were aware that the toxin was present in the water but remained in the town and therefore knowingly exposed themselves to chromium VI.
Case Study 1
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.