Environmental justice and harm to humans - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 44

pesticides to prevent the spread of disease borne by mosquitoes, there
are 'hidden' costs that may not be factored in. For instance, children
and those with chemical sensitivities will suffer disproportionately if
chemicals are sprayed, since they are more vulnerable than others to
ill effects arising from the treatment. In such circumstances, the crucial
questions are not only, 'how many will be harmed?' but also, 'who
will be harmed?' (Scott 2005a: 56). To appreciate this, we need to be
conscious of differences within affected populations.
To take another example of how distribution of risk has an impact
upon different groups within at-risk populations, consider the case
of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards in the United
States that limit the level of dioxin releases from paper mills into rivers
and streams.
These releases are known to contaminate fish, and so the
EPA based its release levels on the average consumption of
such ish.Yet Native American consumption is well known
to be higher than the average American, making the dioxin
release a much greater health risk to Native Americans.
(Schlosberg, 2007: 60)
Vulnerability to environmental harm, therefore, is also due to social
differences in how people utilise or interact with nature. All those who
consume fish under the above circumstances may be at risk of dioxin
poisoning, but certain groups are more so because of their particular
cultural prescriptions and traditions.
On the other hand, it may well be that it is local residents, local workers
and laypeople generally who are more conscious of environmental risk
than the scientist or the politician. Some indication of this is provided
in a study of interaction between scientists and English sheep farmers
in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine
(Wynne, 1996). The study highlighted the accurate, detailed and
contextual knowledge of the local farmers, even though the scientists
considered this layperson knowledge to be lacking in precision. Those
who are closer to the 'coal face' and who have lived and worked in the
same area for years, are frequently those who notice the small changes
that are the harbingers of things to come.
Consciousness of risk is also influenced by the visibility of the
potential harm. For example, Beck (1996) observes that many risks
in contemporary society are largely invisible to human senses.
Radioactivity, for example, cannot be smelt, heard, seen, touched or
tasted. Often we do not really know what is in our drinking water.