Environmental justice and harm to humans - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 45

Nevertheless, over time many people have come to appreciate the risks
associated with radioactivity, and indeed nuclear energy generally, as well
as to be suspicious about everyday consumables such as water (hence,
the huge and growing market in bottled water). This reflexivity about
risk has been made possible by mediated sources of knowledge, whereby
people draw upon multiple sources in order to assess potential threats
(for example, TV programmes, government statements, campaigns by
environmental groups). They also draw upon their own experiences, as
indicated above (see also Macnaghten and Urry, 1998). There are more
ways in which to 'know' than simply through the direct senses per se.
Exposure to risk scenarios is an integral part of raising consciousness
about risk. In recent years this has occurred in ways that have seen the
globalisation of risk (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998) through the actions
of EJ organisations in many different cities and countries around the
world.
Who is a victim is also reflective of differing degrees of harm,
injury and suffering. Death from environmental catastrophe is only
one example of how victimisation is made manifest. Whether the
affliction is or incorporates a disease or permanent injury or prolonged
mental illness and psychological distress, a large proportion of 'victims'
are simultaneously 'survivors'. They sometimes sustain injuries that
significantly alter the course and quality of their lives and that are
economically onerous in terms of healthcare. So too, the breaking up
of communities, the displacement of individuals, the loss of economic
livelihood and dispossession of land all constitute varying forms and
degrees of harm and victimisation of human populations.
Environmental victimisation generally involves, on the one hand,
powerful players such as corporations and nation-states and, on the
other, less powerful groups such as indigenous people, ethnic minorities,
the poor and those less able to take care of their own interests (such as
the elderly and the very young). The practical outcome of corporate
and government action has been to ensure that disadvantaged groups
end up living in the most hazardous and environmentally poor areas
(Pellow, 2007). This is so whether it is in the United States (Bullard,
1994), Canada (Chunn et al, 2002), India (Engel and Martin, 2006) or
Australia (Walker, 2006). Moreover, it is these kinds of communities that
also suffer most from the extraction of natural resources. Specifically, in
many places around the globe where minority or indigenous peoples
live, oil, timber and minerals are extracted in ways that devastate local
ecosystems and destroy traditional cultures and livelihoods (Schlosberg,
2004, 2007).