Suppression of information concerning environmental safety


  • Cover-up of unsafe buildings
  • Cover-up of unsafe industrial installations
  • Cover up of unsafe equipment
  • Cover-up of unsafe transportation systems
  • Suppression of information concerning health hazards
  • Non-disclosure of threats to public safety
  • Concealment of environmental health risks

Incidence

In certain countries, such as the UK, information on the results of government safety tests on consumer products are not available to the public. Similarly information on the possible environmental hazards of toxic materials stored in a factory is not available to those living in the neighbourhood. Information on the results of safety tests on food additives or drugs is similarly classified. In 1993 a study indicated that the UK government had disguised the true level of automobile pollution by siting monitoring stations away from busy streets in direct contravention of the law. Actual results on such streets showed levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in breach of the upper safety limits set by the EEC/EU.

Governments sometimes prefer not to inform public about air or water pollution levels and potential ecological disasters. In the UK in 1992, a register of contaminated land sites was delayed indefinitely amid fears by property developers that it might erode the value of sites and bring public demands for an expensive clean-up. In 1993 the German government was obliged to admit that officials had suppressed information on hundreds of cases of HIV-contaminated blood during the 1980s. The laboratory responsible had also exported blood to other European countries. Files kept secret for many years until 1994 revealed that the former Soviet Union systematically slaughtered a large part of the world's protected whale population.

DuPont in the United States was the inventor and largest manufacturer of CFCs. When it was discovered that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, and for many years afterward, DuPont worked to delay and undermine efforts to phase out their use. DuPont's history shows well how within chemical companies emerging knowledge of potential risks is seen first and foremost as an impediment to profits, or even a harbinger of bankruptcy. The industry's approach is not geared to respect for human rights, but rather to what the company can get away with within the confines of government interventions.

Strategy

  1. Threatening public safety
  2. Threatening citizenry
  3. Suppressing information concerning environmental hazards
  4. Reporting groundwater pollution hazards
  5. Reducing industrial pollution
  6. Reducing industrial emissions
  7. Reducing cover-up of environmental pollution
  8. Providing public information on transport sustainable for health and environment
  9. Providing public information on transboundary water pollution
  10. Providing public health services
  11. Providing public access to environmental information
  12. Providing environmental information systems
  13. Maintaining secrecy
  14. Maintaining public safety
  15. Involving local communities in pollution control
  16. Inspecting safety of buildings
  17. Informing about unsafe buildings
  18. Extending producer responsibility
  19. Evaluating effects of world trade agreements on public health
  20. Ensuring a healthy environment
  21. Ending environmental secrecy
  22. Disclosing threats to public safety
  23. Covering up environmental pollution
  24. Applying polluter-pays principle


© 2021-2023 AskTheFox.org by Vacilando.org
Official presentation at encyclopedia.uia.org