54-DQ-8-1 The Love Canal site began a movement vital to the field of environmental health because it resulted in the establishment of superfund sites. The Love Canal incident, located in Niagara Falls, New York, became a home to the disposal of over 20,000 tons of hazardous waste ranging from dioxin, pesticides and other organic compounds (Friis, 2012, p. 333), which we learned over the course of this class are detrimental substances not only to the environment, but to human health as well. In1942 the Niagara Power and Development Company granted permission to the Hooker Chemical Company in 1942 to dump waste into the canal. Hooker was the primary company, however, the City of Niagara and the United States Army used the site as well (Gibbs, 2008). Needless to say, there were a few responsible parties, but they were granted permission under pretenses that it would be used for the disposal of waste only. The responsibility for the allowing this national emergency falls in the primary hands of the government agency: the Niagara Falls Board of Education. The land was sold to Board of Education who blatantly ignored the “warning” of the chemical wastes buried on the property (Gibbs, 2008) and Hooker even provided a disclaimer relieving any possible liability. Negligence on behalf of the Hooker Chemical Corporation did occur, however, the true failure came about when the Board of Education decided to build a school and housing on the land without investigating potential adverse health effects of chemical waste (i.e. miscarriages, birth defects, cancer and urinary tract diseases (Friis, 2012, p.334). Back in the 1970s, the concerns and complaints started to rise, and the city did nothing to protect its residents, except cover the substances with dirt and add a few window fans in homes that contained high levels of chemical residues (Gibbs, 2008). Residents were suffering and many organizations and agencies came about during this time frame (i.e. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Love Canal Homeowners Association, Love Canal Parents Movement, etc.). Although, there is speculation as to why the New York State Department of Health didn't interfere sooner, ultimately, the Board of Education doesn't report to the State Department of Health. It is a separate entity, yet they are both government agencies that share in the responsibility to safeguard the people one way or another. The responsible parties did pay their dues, but no amount of money can heal the terrible experiences these citizens faced. Both the Hooker Chemical Corporation and the City of Niagara Falls paid more than $20 million to the former residents of the Love Canal Site; and additionally, more than $200 million was paid to the New York State and the federal government for cleanup of the site (p.334). One positive result is the development of a superfund, administered by the EPA, which sustains regulations that hold liable parties accountable for their actions when it comes to .

1. 54-DQ-8-1
The Love Canal site began a movement vital to the field of
environmental health because it resulted in the establishment of
superfund sites. The Love Canal incident, located in Niagara
Falls, New York, became a home to the disposal of over 20,000
tons of hazardous waste ranging from dioxin, pesticides and
other organic compounds (Friis, 2012, p. 333), which we
learned over the course of this class are detrimental substances
not only to the environment, but to human health as well.
In1942 the Niagara Power and Development Company granted
permission to the Hooker Chemical Company in 1942 to dump
waste into the canal. Hooker was the primary company,
however, the City of Niagara and the United States Army used
the site as well (Gibbs, 2008). Needless to say, there were a few
responsible parties, but they were granted permission under
pretenses that it would be used for the disposal of waste only.
The responsibility for the allowing this national emergency falls
in the primary hands of the government agency: the Niagara
Falls Board of Education. The land was sold to Board of
Education who blatantly ignored the “warning” of the chemical
wastes buried on the property (Gibbs, 2008) and Hooker even
provided a disclaimer relieving any possible liability.
Negligence on behalf of the Hooker Chemical Corporation did
occur, however, the true failure came about when the Board of
Education decided to build a school and housing on the land
without investigating potential adverse health effects of
chemical waste (i.e. miscarriages, birth defects, cancer and
urinary tract diseases (Friis, 2012, p.334).
Back in the 1970s, the concerns and complaints started to
rise, and the city did nothing to protect its residents, except
cover the substances with dirt and add a few window fans in
homes that contained high levels of chemical residues (Gibbs,
2008). Residents were suffering and many organizations and
agencies came about during this time frame (i.e. The

2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Love Canal
Homeowners Association, Love Canal Parents Movement, etc.).
Although, there is speculation as to why the New York State
Department of Health didn't interfere sooner, ultimately, the
Board of Education doesn't report to the State Department of
Health. It is a separate entity, yet they are both government
agencies that share in the responsibility to safeguard the people
one way or another. The responsible parties did pay their dues,
but no amount of money can heal the terrible experiences these
citizens faced. Both the Hooker Chemical Corporation and the
City of Niagara Falls paid more than $20 million to the former
residents of the Love Canal Site; and additionally, more than
$200 million was paid to the New York State and the federal
government for cleanup of the site (p.334). One positive result
is the development of a superfund, administered by the EPA,
which sustains regulations that hold liable parties accountable
for their actions when it comes to environmental threats. Since
1970, the EPA has been responsible for handling incidents like
in the case of the Love Canal.
Lastly, Ms. Gibbs (2008) made a great point that the Love
Canal is not the only the severe situation that this country has
faced. In reality, chemical wastes and emissions occur every
day, which many of us have selected different threats and
written about them throughout this class for our final papers.
References
Friis, R. H. (2012). Essentials of Environmental
Health. Burlington, MA: Jones and

3. Bartlett Learning.
Gibbs, L.M. (2008). History: Love Canal: the start of a
movement. http://www.bu.edu/lovecanal/canal/
55-J-8-1
Please I like you to use the reference links to add up more facts
to this paper alone Thanks
Country
The country I chose to speak upon was Nepal, Asia. Nepal
is a South Asian country that is known for its temples and being
in the mountains. It holds a population around 29.3 million
people. Statistically Nepal would be considered a country in
poverty as 25.2% of the population lives below the national
poverty line (Elmer, 2019).
Statistics
In Nepal, around 1 million children under 5 years old suffer
from chronic malnutrition and 10% suffer from acute
malnutrition (UNICEF, 2019). Good nutrition is extremely vital
for not only the health of children but also their overall
survival. Statistics also show that:
· 95 per cent of children live in households that consume
iodized salt.
· Vitamin A prophylaxis coverage for children aged 6 to 59
months stands at 86 per cent.
· Nepal was recognized as an “early riser” by the Scaling Up
Nutrition (SUN) movement for successful nutrition programme.
Recommendations
Dealing with a scenario like these recommendations I
would look to make would include looking to have
organizations and volunteers start programs in Nepal that would
have nurses, doctors and just helpful individuals go out to
support. This would allow for not only these children to be
checked but could put them on some sort of program by having

4. them come to the program or clinic started every few weeks to
be checked and given resources to get those nutrition rates up. I
believe that having the proper resources of people and supplies
would be the best recommendation for Nepal as a whole.
References
Elmer. (2019, May 6). Poverty in Nepal.
https://www.adb.org/countries/nepal/poverty.
UNICEF. (2019). Nutrition.
https://www.unicef.org/nepal/nutrition.