Welcome to our new weblog (“blog”), which is essentially an on-line journal for HazMat Management magazine. With the introduction of this blog, we’re following an emerging trend set by several leading magazines. I think it will be especially useful for us since, more often than not, we have to edit back some interesting items in the print magazine due to space restrictions or because a news item will expire before the magazine goes to press. Since HazMat is a bimonthly publication, this blog allows us to provide more frequent reports.

With the help of our contributing writers and industry contacts, we’ll be able to provide up to date coverage of important issues, events, and even environmental emergencies as they unfold. I’m confident that the blog will provide another useful mode of communication for readers, but with a more interactive and personal element than our print magazine and other on-line content have provided in the past.

To start us off, I would like to discuss a story near and dear to me. Since writing my investigative feature about the toxic legacy of Inco’s nickel production in Port Colborne, Ontario in "Risky Business", I’ve paid close attention to updates on this matter. I was touched by the meetings I had with several residents who said they were experiencing health problems due to offsite emissions and financial difficulty because the value of their properties had plummeted. However, I was also empathetic for industry representatives who were doing their best to address environmental impacts, including free cleanups and community based risk assessments.

Most recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided to overturn two previous decisions, allowing 8,000 residents of Port Colborne to launch a class action against Inco for lost property value due to nickel oxide contamination that mostly occurred before 1960. Not surprisingly, Inco is going to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. As Dianne Saxe writes in her latest latest Legal Perspective column, if the decision stands, it could open the door to similar lawsuits wherever a smokestack used to stand. This is certainly scary news for some (and a breath of fresh air for others).

Did Inco intentionally compromise the environment downwind from its plant so many years ago? I’d like to believe it was a case of not knowing any better at the time.

This weekend, my friend and I were reflecting on how different children’s parties are nowadays. When we were children, we gulped litres of pop and ate any number of treats. We ran and rode freely up and down the street, without helmets or sunscreen. To top it off, we were driven home without wearing seatbelts as our parents smoked (albeit with the windows down). There were not carefully pre-planned allergy-free menus or politically correct games, or the extent of health and safety awareness that we now have today. So, perhaps our sons and daughters will be all the better for it. I have no doubt our parent’s generation did their best, but with each generation we seem to be more aware of our risks. And as the saying goes, when we know better, we can do better.

I’d like to think that HazMat – and our new blog -- will help raise further awareness about the risks to the environment and human health and how to address them, so that our readers can not only learn how to conduct their businesses better but also safer. That way, they can also hopefully avoid any number of worst case scenarios, whether it be a pesky class action lawsuit or a contaminated property.

Do you agree with the Port Colborne class action decision? Do you have any other comments or concerns you’d like to be known? Please take advantage of the opportunity to participate in this blog.

Connie

Editor
HazMat Management magazine