the toxic truth - Greenpeace

52 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 5
Rachel Gogoua, resident of Akouédo where large quantities of toxic waste was
dumped. Photo taken during an Amnesty International research mission to Abidjan,
February 2009. © amnesty InternatIonal
Over the next few days and weeks, medical
centres and hospitals were flooded with
tens of thousands of people suffering from
neurological, digestive, respiratory, ear,
nose and throat (ENT), ophthalmological,
cutaneous, and other health problems. 191
The National Institute for Public Hygiene
recorded that 82 people were hospitalized
because they were suffering from more
severe symptoms linked to exposure to the
waste. 192 The Ivorian authorities also recorded
a number of deaths resulting from exposure
to the waste. Official reports documented that
between 15 and 17 deaths were caused by
exposure to the toxic waste. 193
In the first few hours of 20 August 2006, the
smell was so strong and all pervading that
many people were frightened and distressed,
triggering public panic. At this point people
had no idea of the cause. As news of the
nature of the waste emerged over the next few
days, confusion and anxiety turned to anger,
generating protests and violent demonstrations
across the city. 194 Those who could left the city
and many businesses and schools were shut
down for days. 195 People who could not afford to
leave their homes, though, had to continue to
live and work close to the sites where the waste
had been dumped. Lack of information about
the composition of the waste and its potential
effects also contributed to people’s anxiety and
hampered the medical response. 196
There were also fears about contamination
of food and water, since the initial analysis of
the waste by the national authorities indicated
that it contained organochlorines. 197 These
are organic pollutants that can accumulate
in the food chain and reach people through
multiple pathways (such as drinking water and
seafood), and may also be acutely toxic. 198
The government prohibited farming, fishing
and small commercial activities in areas next
to the contaminated sites. 199 The Ministry of
Agriculture destroyed fruit and vegetable crops.
It also ordered the destruction of livestock
and fish, and the closure of slaughterhouses
near the affected sites. 200 People’s access to
their livelihoods and work was undermined by
these government orders, and some people
have claimed that they have only been partially
compensated for the losses that they suffered.
Local communities have also pointed out that,
because of the financial pressures that small
farmers and fishermen were under, or because
of the lack of information, these orders were not
fully implemented, which led to further concerns
about people eating food from contaminated
sites. 201 All of these concerns were exacerbated
by delays in fully cleaning up the sites where
dumping occurred. These issues are discussed
in greater detail in this chapter.