David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Of all the injuries from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, legal analysts have accorded the least attention to the health effects of exposure to toxic substances by workers, residents, and other community members in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Although the health issue was raised with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the immediate post-September 11 period, EPA showed surprisingly little concern for the potential health threats. In the years that followed, health studies have confirmed, however, that the fears of widespread contamination of the environment in and around Ground Zero were in fact warranted. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress enacted legislation that included a Victim Compensation Fund. The Fund was unavailable for the vast majority of persons exposed to the toxic substances in the WTC dust, however. Instead, these persons face an uncertain future in the tort system, much like other toxic tort claimants. There is now mounting evidence that the toxic collateral effects of the World Trade Center attacks have the potential for creating a legal - as well as human - cataclysm well into the future. This article is the first truly comprehensive examination of the difficult medical and legal issues that confront the Ground Zero toxic exposure claimants. I conclude that while the tort system is the best mechanism for resolution of the Ground Zero toxic exposure claims, it is far from perfect, and that lawmakers must give serious consideration to developing a discrete and workable management plan for toxic claims in the future.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jason Scott Robert & Andrea Smith (2004). Toxic Ethics: Environmental Genomics and the Health of Populations. Bioethics 18 (6):493–514.
Michael Arthur Simon (1992). Causation, Liability and Toxic Risk Exposure. Journal of Applied Philosophy 9 (1):35-44.
Carl F. Cranor (2005). The Science Veil Over Tort Law Policy: How Should Scientific Evidence Be Utilized in Toxic Tort Law? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 24 (2):139 - 210.
Mark Parascandola (1997). Chances, Individuals and Toxic Torts. Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (2):147–158.
Douglas MacLean (2009). Book Reviews:Toxic Torts. [REVIEW] Ethics 119 (3):558-561.
Susan L. Smith (2011). Toxic Legacy: Mustard Gas in the Sea Around Us. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (1):34-40.
Mark Parascandola (1996). Evidence and Association: Epistemic Confusion in Toxic Tort Law. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):176.
Valérie Lemesle, Ludovic Mailleret & Maurice Vaissayre (2010). Role of Spatial and Temporal Refuges in the Evolution of Pest Resistance to Toxic Crops. Acta Biotheoretica 58 (2):89-102.
Carl Cranor & Kurt Nutting (1990). Scientific and Legal Standards of Statistical Evidence in Toxic Tort and Discrimination Suits. Law and Philosophy 9 (2):115 - 156.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?