| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

The Plaintiffs

This version was saved 15 years, 5 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by katie griffith
on October 20, 2008 at 11:23:22 pm
 

The Plaintiffs:  The Citizens of Hinkley, California

 

      The initial seventy seven plaintiffs were residents of Hinkley, California that were exposed to chromium VI through the contamination of their water supply. The plaintiffs were unaware of the dangers of the chromium until Erin Brockovich exposed a connection between real estate documents and medical records. There were documents showing that PG&E bought up every piece of property in the community that was polluted by the chromium. 75% of the houses and buildings were destroyed and according to documents the destruction was due to the company’s response to vandalism. (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999]). These records caught Brockovich’s attention and convinced her to further investigate the issue.

 

     Additional documents from PG&E exposed that on December 7, 1987 officials from the company advised the State of California they had detected levels of hexavalent chromium (chrome VI) in a groundwater monitoring well north of the compressor station's waste water ponds. The levels were ten times greater than the maximum amount allowed by law.  Chromium VI has been considered a cancer causing chemical since the 1920s. Chromium VI is especially dangerous to the lungs and is linked to many respiratory problems.  Many of the residents were reporting respiratory problems and with the knowledge of the effects of chromium VI, a connection was made. (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999]) These facts should have be reveled to the people of Hinkley instead PG&E hid the documents and failed to prevent more toxin from leaking into the water supply.

           

     PG&E acknowledged the problem and attempted to inform people about potential exposure but their efforts were useless because the left out key facts. PG&E distributed flyers discussing the company's use of "chromium" to local residents. However, the flyer left what type of chromium was used and the extreme effects of the certain type they were using.  They stated that, “Chromium occurs in two forms. The form that is present in groundwater can cause health effects in high doses. The cleanup program, however, will result in chromium levels that meet the very conservative drinking water standards set by the EPA. In addition, the form of chromium that will be left on soils after irrigation is nontoxic. In fact, chromium in this form is a naturally occurring metal that is an essential ingredient in the human diet, one that is often included in multiple vitamin/mineral supplements” (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999]).The wording of this flyer would allow one to assume that PG&E's hexavalent chromium was almost beneficial.  It does not mention anywhere on the flyer, the negative effects that it can have on the citizens that could be exposed.  An actual plaintiff at the trial stated that, "the flyer might have invited a person to "sprinkle some on your morning cereal."  This is ironic because the opposite is true, sprinkling it on your cereal could possibly cause you to die. (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999])

 

PG&Es failure to properly label their flyer with the appropriate dangerous type of chromium was not the only information that they failed to communicate to the local community. The flyer implied that the detection of contamination at the compressor station was a new development. The contamination was not newly discovered because PG&E first knew about it at least by1965. They had been contaminating the water during the 60s, 70s, and 80s and did nothing to inform or prevent the exposure (Lasalandra and McCluskey 2004). Therefore, they willingly allowed the local community to be exposed to this dangerous level of chromium for numerous years.  They could have stopped it but neglected to do so. (Erin Brockovich ... [updated 1999])

           

     PG&E further attempted to corrupt the evidence against them by distorting a previous medical study on chromium IV’s carcinogenic effects in order to divert their responsibility for what happened to the victims. In their attempt to manipulate evidence PG&E persuaded a respected Chinese scientist to participate in an update of his 1987 study that found a link between chromium-contaminated water in rural China and an increase in villagers’ cancer rates (Smith 2006). In the new study paid for by PG&E environmental consultants wrote the article rather than the scientist that performed the study. The study found that there was no link between increased rates of cancer and chromium IV poisoning (Smith 2006). The results were questionable not only because it was paid for and the scientist didn’t write it but also because incorrect epidemiological terms were used and the research’s name was misspelled multiple times (Smith 2006).

 

Case Study 1

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.