h Amoco, their concentrations in the groundwater exceed the limits set by the EPA (Curtright 1). In the town of Sugar Creek there are more cases of cancer, including leukemia and brain cancer, than demographics would suggest (Orshal 1). This completely supports the Sugar Creek residents claim that the water is contaminated. This is the type of evidence that led Sugar Creek residents to file suit against Amoco. To no surprise, the company did everything to deny a link between themselves, the pollution, and worst of all the cancer. In Amocos post-trial motion, appealing the decision made in February 1999 in favor of Sugar Creek plaintiffs, Amoco says, There are no health issues in this case (Slayton v. Amoco). If there were no health issues plaguing the Sugar Creek area there would be no case to begin with. The filing of suit is almost solely based on the fact that plaintiffs have suffered or are suffering serious illness (including cancer) and have every right to believe it is in relation to the toxic chemicals once used by Amoco Oil. Everything would be much better if companies like Amoco and PG&E would simply admit their guilt and cease contributing to the continuing contamination of the worlds natural water resources.The battle against cancer society is fighting is hard enough without companies like PG&E and Amoco adding to the problem. While medical experts strive to develop cures for the disease, companies who pollute our water with cancer causing toxins act as impediments to their cause. It is easy to see that companies who pollute our groundwater with waste products are completely aware of the severe consequences of their actions. It only takes common sense to realize that dumping toxic waste directly into the ground will inevitably pollute the natural resources in existence nearby. The solution is ironically simple, yet very complicated to enforce. Groundwater contamination is so widespread that most cases are un...
