Often, the first step in addressing any environmental or health issue is making sure the public is properly notified and informed. Several recent examples illustrate governmental failures, which too often occur, to perform even this basic informational task. In environmental issues, the old saying, "What you don't know, can't hurt you," gets turned on its head, because without knowing about potential exposures to toxic chemicals, members of the public are powerless to protect themselves and may well get hurt. Government has numerous responsibilities, both formal regulatory requirements and more fundamental ethical obligations, to keep people informed about potential health risks they or their children may face. Unfortunately, when government fails in its notification responsibilities, the rest of the environmental protection process suffers and often fails because the public is not sufficiently engaged. Three recent situations demonstrate the importance of public notification and awareness and the impact of insufficient information on environmental protection efforts. Toxic Schools Fox News reported in late September that the Information Technology High School in Queens, NY, is built on a toxic site, and that no one was informed of this fact. Information Tech opened in 2003 on the leased site of a former metal plating warehouse. Though tests show no air contamination, an expert review of the tests found thresholds too high for comfort. Parent and citizen groups are outraged that the city cut them out of determining whether or not the school is safe. "The city may have done its due diligence, but because it was hidden from us, I don't have full confidence," said Ivan Valle, who might be pulling his ninth-grade son from the school. City councilmen James Gannaro and Eric Gioia have accused the city of negligence in allowing public schools to be built on toxic property without disclosure. A loophole in state law exempts schools in leased buildings from public and environmental reviews. For any new school construction or addition plan, the School Construction Authority (SCA) must provide public notification of the proposed site, do an environmental review and obtain City Council approval of the plan. Because leased buildings are not city owned, and therefore, any renovations are not considered city construction, they are exempt from these requirements, a policy upheld by New York state courts. Unfortunately, Information Tech is not the only school of concern related to this issue. New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) became aware of the city's use of the loophole with the Soundview Education Campus in the South Bronx. The local community board was not informed about the site's previous use or any potential health risks associated with the location of the school. The community only discovered the issue because, after problems with odors from the site, a resident approached construction workers and found out that the location used to be a weapons manufacturing factory. NYLPI's research indicates that five out of 18 proposed leased sites have potential problems. Legislation is pending to change the law and make policies for leased buildings consistent with those that are city-owned. Missing Superfund Site The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to keep the communities near the Ringwood Mines site in New Jersey properly informed about the contamination and health risks associated with the site. In fact, for almost a decade, the EPA sent the wrong message. With the site's removal from the Superfund program in 1994, the agency essentially told residents that the site had been cleaned up to an acceptable level. But in 2004, the EPA, for the first time in the history of the Superfund program, re-listed a site — Ringwood Mines. The former iron mine was Ford's dumping ground for manufacturing wastes, including paint sludge, and was also a municipal landfill for a short stint until leaching to nearby water was detected in 1976. After 11,000 tons of sludge were removed and two five-year reviews were conducted showing restricted contamination, it was de-listed from Superfund's National Priority List. The reviews, which were supposed to be subject to public examination, were never disclosed, and the public notice of the delisting was not run in any local newspapers. Since being re-listed in 2004, another 24,000 tons of sludge have been removed from the site. EPA's Office of Inspector General released a Sept. 25 report criticizing the agency's inadequate clean-up plan for the 500-acre site. Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) requested the investigation when the site was re-listed. Air Fresheners Despite the widespread use of product labels to keep people informed about health concerns ranging from nutritional content to toxic chemicals, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have resisted the idea of labeling air fresheners. In the first study of the toxicity of American air fresheners, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found 86 percent of tested products to contain phthalates — more than half with two or more types of phthalates, which may have a more toxic cumulative effect. Phthalates are chemicals suspected to cause reproductive problems and birth defects and are associated with allergies and asthma. There are no labeling requirements for products containing phthalates, so consumers do not know when they are exposed. In addition to phthalates, air fresheners also harbor other chemicals of concern, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Air fresheners are used in 75 percent of U.S. households, and sales have increased 50 percent in the last four years, ironically fueled by associating scented air with a clean environment. NRDC, Sierra Club, the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the National Center for Healthy Housing filed a petition to EPA and CPSC on Sept. 19 to start comprehensively testing air fresheners, ban phthalates from all consumer products, require labeling and require manufacturers to research the human toxicity of phthalates. These three examples illustrate that environmental and public health notification failures occur at all levels of government. A system with stronger incentives for proper and timely public notification and more substantive oversight is imperative on all levels of government: federal, state and local. Without the right to know about health risks, the government is stripping members of the public of their ability to act and protect themselves.