Maureen Reynolds, a former neighbor of Eastman Kodak's sprawling Kodak Parkfacility in Rochester, New York, suffers from more than her share of Kodakmoments – believing that Kodak poisoned her and her neighbors. She wasn'tsuspicious when her three-year-old son developed asthma. Rushing him to thehospital for adrenaline shots was traumatic, but these things happen. Shealso wasn't suspicious about the thin layer of ash on her car's windshield.She even noticed ash sometimes on her young son's glasses. Cities have dirtyair, however, and a little ash isn't uncommon.
Things started getting strange, however, when Reynolds' herself developedasthma at age forty. During the next ten years she developed cancer,neuropathy, fibromyalgia, arthritis and the autoimmune disease, PrimaryBiliary Cirrhosis (PBC) – a rare disorder that only affects one person in amillion.
Reynolds moved out of her Kodak Park neighborhood four years earlier, afterliving there for 23 years. As Reynolds began to confront the downturn in herhealth, she noticed that many of her old friends from the neighborhood weresuffering similar fates – plagued by fibromyalgia and a host of otherdiseases. Curious, Reynolds starting focusing on the rarest disease that shesuffered from – PBC. PBC, which primarily attacks women, is related toPrimary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC), which primarily affects men. What shelearned was startling. PSC is one of a host of ailments which Vietnamveterans exposed to Agent Orange suffer from. After a little more researchshe discovered that, like her Kodak Park neighbors, these same veterans alsosuffer from neuropathy, diabetes, asthma and cancers of the thyroid andpancreas.
#1 in Dioxin The most potent ingredient in Agent Orange is dioxin – which is often blamedfor health problems suffered by those exposed to the herbicide. Reynolds'former neighbor, Kodak, has been releasing massive amounts of the same toxicsubstance into the Kodak Park environment. A 1992 trial burn at Kodak'sincinerator released more dioxin into the environment than all of New York'sother tested hazardous waste incinerators combined. Dioxin is a sore subjectin Western New York since it was also found to be responsible for much ofthe sickness in Niagara Falls' Love Canal neighborhood.
According to the EPA, Kodak released more dioxin into New York's environmentin 2000 than any other source. Kodak isn't just number one in dioxinemissions, however. As of 1999, they've also ranked as New York State'sleading producer of recognized airborne carcinogens and waterbornedevelopmental toxicants. They've also gained notoriety as New York's numberone source for releases of suspected endocrine, gastrointestinal, liver,cardiovascular, kidney, respiratory and reproductive toxicants as well asneurotoxins. Kodak alone released more toxic chemical emissions listed inthe federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) than all of the 144 majorpolluters in Erie (Buffalo), Niagara (Niagara Falls) and Monroe (Rochester)counties combined.
During the 13-year period from 1987 to 2000, thanks primarily to Kodak'stoxic stew of emissions, Rochester ranked number one in the U.S. for overallreleases of carcinogenic chemicals, according to the U.S. Public InterestResearch Group (USPIRG). Kodak alone was responsible for over 90 percent ofthe 64.4 million pounds of carcinogens released during that period intoRochester's air and water.
Cancer in Kodak Park The end result of this dumping is a toxic-laden environment poisonous tohuman life. Hence, it should come as no surprise that according to theNational Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute, theRochester area is in the top ten percentile for death rates from 13different types of cancers. The New York State Department of Health foundthat "women living near Kodak Park had approximately an 80 percent greater[than average] risk of developing pancreatic cancer," which is often fatal.That rate increased to 96 percent among women who lived in the Kodak Parkarea for at least 20 years, leading the Department of Health to suggest thatthe longer people live near the Kodak facility, the greater their risk ofgetting pancreatic cancer becomes.
Children seem especially susceptible to toxins in the Kodak Park areaenvironment. One concerned area mother conducted a door to door survey inthe Kodak Park neighborhood, eventually documenting 33 cases of brain cancerin children living within five miles of the Kodak facility. Currently theparents of five of these children are suing Kodak for $75 million, holdingthe corporation responsible for poisoning their children. The concern aboutchildren's health is further exacerbated by the realization that there are21 schools located within three miles of the sprawling Kodak facility.
Kodak's Public Relations division has been active for generations working tokeep community protest at bay. Charlie Roemer, who lives two blocks from theKodak facility, remembers a time 40 years ago when the company used toplacate the community by offering to repaint cars whose finishes weredamaged by ash from their smokestacks. Roemer says the "persistent badsmells" that have continuously come from the plant since his family movedinto the community 51 years ago are just something people in the Kodak Parkcommunity learned to put up with. He recalls how his neighbors, duringparticularly bad air days in the 1960s, would chalk the stink up to "Kodakcleaning their stacks." On other days, especially during wind shifts, thestench of Kodak's effluent emissions into the Genesee River would overwhelmthe neighborhood. In an effort to demonstrate how safe the stinky water was,the company at one time maintained a small aquarium near its dischargepipes, with fish allegedly swimming in waste water.
Let Them Drink Methylene Chloride Groundwater studies conducted in and around Kodak Park in the late 1990sshow, however, that fluid wastes from the Kodak plant are anything butbenign. A 1996 study, for example, found methylene chloride concentrationsas high as 3,600,000 parts per billion. The permissible legal level is fiveparts per billion. In a self-congratulatory Earth Day 2003 press release,Kodak claims to have reduced methylene chloride emissions by 50 percent.They don't mention, however, that the New York State Comptroller's officepoints out that Kodak "only undertook serious remediation efforts afternumerous fines from New York State and the EPA." It's also no accident thatthe press release doesn't contain data about current emissions. GivenKodak's previous astronomical emissions levels, a 50 percent or even a 99percent cut still leaves an unacceptable amount of methylene chlorideentering the environment. The federal Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration classifies methylene chloride as a workplace carcinogen. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency labels it a "probable human carcinogen." ForCharlie Roemer, it's the probable cause of the advanced prostate cancer hewas diagnosed with three months ago.
Many of Kodak's workers, like the residents in the Kodak Park area, havesimilar health horror stories. Ramona Miller worked at Kodak for 21 years,including working in a lab during a period when she was breast feeding hernewborn baby girl in 1988. Miller blames her work at Kodak, which involvedmoving toxic samples in and out of drying ovens in what she describes as a"poorly vented environment," with the chronic health problems afflictingboth her and her daughter. Her daughter suffers from bi-lateral spasticity,a form of cerebral palsy which Miller believes was induced by toxinsaccumulating in her breast milk. Miller herself suffers from various nervoussystem disorders. She continued, however, to work at Kodak while conductingresearch about the various chemicals she was exposed to while breastfeeding.Eventually she started getting panic attacks when she approached Kodak Park,much like a crime victim would when revisiting the scene where she wasvictimized. Miller finally left her job a Kodak last year. Kodak hasn'tacknowledged any responsibility for Miller's health problems nor those ofher daughter.
The hazards of working at Kodak are widely known. A 1987 article in theJournal of Occupational Medicine cites one of Kodak's own studies showing"an elevated number of deaths due to pancreatic cancer in workers exposed atKodak Park to methylene chloride.
For workers and neighbors who believe they were injured by Kodak's legal andillegal dumping of toxics into the environment, finding lawyers willing tosue the politically powerful Kodak in what is essentially a company town isa difficult proposition.
Crime and Politics Politics is a game Kodak has learned to play well, contributing fundsgenerously to both Democratic and Republican war chests. In 1994 the EPAfined Kodak approximately $8 million for environmental violations at KodakPark. The EPA's laundry list of environmental crimes Kodak was guilty ofincluded illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, illegal use of incineratorsand waste piles, failure to notify the EPA of groundwater contamination,making undocumented shipments of hazardous wastes, and having a 20 yearhistory of leaky underground pipes, among other violations. In 1995,however, Governor George Pataki's Economic Development Commissioner, CharlesGargano, in a letter to Kodak's former CEO, George Fisher, wrote, "Yourleadership at Kodak is an inspiration to those of us trying to reengineerstate government and make it more responsive to the needs of our businesscustomers."
Such indifference to the criminal activities of, and tacit support for, thestate's largest industrial polluter is shocking. But the letter to Fisheralso had another purpose – that being to announce a $20+ million state aidpackage composed primarily of tax credits. As the state money and taxabatements poured in during 1996, Fisher's compensation package as CEOsoared to over $9 million.
Recidivism in Kodak Park Despite the generosity of the Pataki administration, Kodak remained thestate's number one industrial polluter. Showing no remorse for his company'spast criminal activity, in May of 1996, Senior Vice President Richard T.Bourns told the New York State Assembly Subcommittee on Manufacturing, "In1994 we believed that unjustified environmental regulations were thegreatest competitive disadvantage associated with manufacturing in New York.Simply put, regulations that did nothing to help the environment werecosting jobs." The upside for Kodak, according to Bourns, was that, "UnderGovernor Pataki, that is beginning to change." Still, for Kodak, this changewasn't coming fast enough. While complaining about the same state income taxthat partially financed the Pataki administration's handouts to Kodak,Bourne warned that "Unless New York makes significant changes to be morecompetitive, Kodak investment will increasingly go elsewhere."
For environmental and community activists, this is exactly what the problemis at Kodak: their investment is going elsewhere. Michael Schade, WesternNew York Director of New York's Citizens' Environmental Coalition (CEC)argues that pollution control efforts at Kodak are not up to date. Hisorganization is demanding that Kodak phase out emissions of extremely toxicchemicals. Kodak, despite modest investments in environmental safeguardsmade in lieu of fines, has still shown itself to be a serial environmentaloffender, being found guilty by the New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation of violations dating from 1993 to 1999, which included dumpingwastes into the Genesee River. Thanks in large part to Kodak, that river hasthe dubious distinction of receiving more toxic wastes than the HudsonRiver.
While continuing to poison the environment at Kodak Park, the company hasattempted to make rhetorical gains in the fight against the perception thatit is a polluter. One of Kodak's many Earth Day 2003 pronouncements boastedhow the EPA, now under the command of Bush appointee Christie Whitman,announced that "Eastman Kodak Company is a remarkable example of howorganizations can combine environmental concerns with smart businessstrategy." Both the Whitman EPA and Kodak point to the company's new motionpicture film cleaning technology which reduces the use of ozone depletingchemicals. Critics argue that Kodak is making small highly publicizedimprovements while maintaining a toxic status quo in Kodak Park. In animage-driven world, such a frontal assault against reality can be quiteeffective, hence environmentalists and public health advocates must be morevigilant than ever in working to expose Kodak's toxic legacy.
Just Say NO! to Kodak Things may be changing soon, however. CEC and a host of other groups locatedaround the world have been turning the heat up on Kodak. On May 7th, Kodakshareholders voted on a resolution that would have forced the company,literally, to clean up its act. Using neighboring Xerox, which saved $300million over three years by adopting a more environmentally friendlyclosed-loop production system, shareholder proponents of the resolutionargued that in the long run, a clean company exercising respect for theenvironment would be a more profitable company as well. The resolution wonthe support of the New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi's office, whichmanages the state's retirement fund. Hevesi, whose office pointed to Kodak's"long history" of releasing "bioaccumulative pollutants" at Kodak Park,argued that "Adopting and practicing sound environmental policies not onlypreserves our natural resources, but makes good business sense." Though itwas voted down, supporters see the six percent of the vote that it garneredas a success, arguing that such numbers are promising for a first-timeshareholder resolution.
Activist organizations also organized the first-ever National Day of Actionfor Clean Air at Kodak. Protestors from Washington State to Texas, Illinoisand New York, picketed drugstores selling Kodak film and related products.In this new Kodak moment, CEC's Schade argued that, "For the health andsafety of our communities, we need to raise our voices and expose the truepicture of Kodak's pollution. It is critical that we stand up and demand theright to a clean and safe environment for our children." Suddenly, afterdecades of suffering alone, this is no longer just the Kodak Parkcommunity's issue. Activists from diverse nations around the globe such asIndia, Norway and Malaysia are banding together bring the message to Kodakthat the global market will not tolerate what they are doing in Rochester.Given Kodak's international presence and their need to protect their brandimage around the world, continued community activism will mean it's only amatter of time before Kodak listens and cleans up its act.
To learn more about Kodak and toxic pollution, see Kodak's Toxic Colors. To volunteer to help CEC with this and other environmental struggles, call them at (716)885-6848.
Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College and a frequent contributor to AlterNet. His previous articles
are archived at
http://www.MediaStudy.com.
