PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: RED LIGHT WARNING FOR LANDFILLS

January 15, 2025

Solid waste landfills can emit toxins, including hazardous air pollutants, methane, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and also leachate that can contaminate groundwater, surface water, and soil. Because of the wide range of pollutants, the different pathways of exposure, long-term low-level exposure, and the potential for synergism among the pollutants, there is no way any agency can say with certainty that those living in the area are safe from these threats.

So instead of placing the burden of proof on the public, and requiring indisputable proof of causation, the Precautionary Principle states that action should be taken to avoid harms to human health and the environment even amidst scientific uncertainty and especially when the threats are large if not undeniable, as they are in the case of landfills.

Here’s the basic four ideas behind the precautionary principle:

  1. 1
    Preventive action: If an activity, product, or technology has the potential to cause harm (especially if that harm is irreversible), action should be taken to prevent it, even if there is no conclusive scientific evidence proving that harm will occur.
  2. 2
    Burden of proof: The burden of proof should be on those proposing or engaging in the activity to demonstrate that it will not cause harm, rather than waiting for harm to occur and then addressing it.
  3. 3
    Take action in the face of uncertainty: In cases where there is uncertainty about the consequences of an action, it is better to take preventive measures rather than wait for full scientific certainty, particularly when the risks involved could be catastrophic or irreversible.
  4. 4
    Risk minimization: The principle encourages adopting measures to minimize risks when there is doubt, thus prioritizing human and environmental health over economic or other considerations.

The precautionary principle is especilly important here because the true and total health threats to area families from harmful air pollutants emitted into our air in massive amounts by the Seneca Meadows landfill have never been comprehensively or independently verified by anyone and, therefore, no one (including the EPA or NYSDEC) can legitimately guarantee our safety from Seneca Meadows’ Landfill’s off-site air pollution. In addition

  • Only a fraction of possibly thousands of chemicals dumped in the Seneca Meadows landfill have ever been tested for their human toxicity (if they are known about at all), and
  • Neither the EPA nor NYSDEC evaluates additive long-term health impacts of these individual chemicals and their synergistic combinations that are occurring 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on a massive scale.

As has been stated by one of the world’s foremost experts on landfills,

  • “It should never be assumed that a former landfill, or for that matter, a currently active landfill is not a significant threat to public health and the environment.” (emphasis added).(July 2004, Superfund Site Remediation by Landfilling - Overview of Landfill Design, Operation, Closure and Postclosure Care Issues1 G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE and Anne Jones-Lee, PhD).

So, Instead of asking, "How much waste can we put in the landfill before its outgassing makes us sick?" we need to start asking, "How can we grow and thrive in our communities without the need to put any pollution into the air at all?"

Conclusion: NYS must stop renewing expired permits for mega-landfills, and eventually extend this policy to all landfills.


Tags


You may also like