Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation Hardcover – March 19, 2013

A very deserving Pulitzer prize winner on a shameful chapter of industrial neglect in late 20th century New Jersey. It was painstakingly researched, and if some minor aspects of the science are arguable, the essential picture is entirely and undeniably correct. The community and environment of what is today Toms River, NJ was criminally contaminated by toxic industrial waste over a period of years, while the responsible company parties repeatedly avoided that responsibility both during and after that poison was dumped into the ground.An exceptional narrative of a stunning series of failures by not only that chemical company, but also the state & federal regulatory agencies and the town government itself.

The book seemed to be written in two very distinct parts. The first, a fascinating, highly informative, somewhat troubling but generally even-handed examination of many aspects of our vast industrial expansion of the previous century and a half. The second, a somewhat cumbersome, sad and harder to digest probe into the minutiae of a massive class action lawsuit built upon statistically weak data.As a former resident of both the industrial northern tier of NJ in the 1960's-1970's and of the seemingly more "pristine" Toms River, NJ for a short period in the mid 1980's, the first part of the book held me spellbound as it not only recalled events and attitudes that I personally remember vividly but also illustrated well the inherent flaws of lax regulatory oversight on entities whose sole existence is predicated on the absolute maximization of financial profit. Fagan does a commendable job in both his facts and his prose in relating the events that led to the polluting of Toms River.I thought however that the subsequent extensive focus on litigation based primarily upon the existence of chemical agents at the parts per billion concentration in the public water supply weakened the overall "cautionary tale" effect that the author claims as motivation for writing the book. Clearly, had the specific laboratory analyses been done decades earlier the toxicity of the water (and probably the air) would have been evident, but here's the rub, they weren't done because there were little to no regulations in place and no means of enforcing them if they had been in place. As laws changed so too, begrudgingly, did the practices of industry. And obviously, with time the water became less contaminated as fewer pollutants were introduced to the surrounding soils. By the time the extensive water testing was done, pollutant levels were much lower than in the past, and these results are what the regulatory agencies reported to the public and what the lawyers worked with in the lawsuit. The author's implication that a significant part of the blame for Toms Rivers' health problems rested with lax or arrogant regulatory agencies seems weak based upon the evidence he presents. It also seems to be pointing the finger in the wrong direction, and may provide encouragement to the many today who have been conditioned to believe that government is ineffective and therefore unable to regulate for the common good--an ironic viewpoint which if acted upon would likely return us to a similar state of affairs that led to the health and environmental problems encountered in Toms River and thousands of other unnamed places throughout this country. With respect to the industrial dumping of the past it would seem that the best we as a society can do is to clean up what we can, learn from our mistakes and not make them again.

I grew up in New Jersey in the 1940's and, in those years, before the Garden State Parkway, the stretch of South Jersey "down Barnegat Bay" was rural and remote, populated year round by a handful of farmers and baymen, and in the summer by a few recreational sailors and fishermen.But that was about to change.The Parkway brought civilization, in the form of real estate development and hordes of summer tourists, and paved the way for industrial development and environmental degradation.."Toms River" is a very fine book that documents the arrival of a large chemical plant in the small South Jersey town of Toms River. Like many such rural initiatives, the plant was initially welcomed by the locals because it brought badly needed jobs to a depressed economy. But, as the years passed, it became increasingly clear that it also brought chemical pollution of the local river and toxic changes in the Toms River underground water supply.Toms River documents these events , which occurred and were exposed over several decades, beginning with a slowly evolving awareness of an increased cancer risk in the local population, especially children. It goes on to describe the role of local activists in exposing the problem, and the shortcomings of the local politicians, State of New Jersey and the federal government in correcting it. It also treats such obscure but interesting topics as the epidemiology of cancer clusters and the chemistry of various industrial pollutants.i can't recommend this book too highly. it is somewhat long but very well written and holds the reader's attention, even when describing technical subjects such as the statistical analysis of cancer clusters.Toms River could have used a few more maps and tends to get bogged down towards the end; I would fault it for not being specific enough when categorizing childhood leukemia and brain tumors, since there are many forms of each, and not all may be related to industrial pollution.But these are relatively minor quibbles and shouldn't detract from an otherwise fine and important book. It should be read by anyone interested in protecting our fragile environment, and especially by local politicians interested in attracting industry to their communities.

The combination strikes the right balance for someone who is not an expert though interested in a compelling story that unfolded over many years. Having grown up in New Jersey made it personal in an unexpected way. Well written, absorbing and constrained so that the wide range of players in this long drama almost speak for themselves. Highly recommended.

Very interesting. Gave me a lot of insight into the hard work that goes into trying to persuade large companies/corporations to change their practices. A very human story about the very long battle a community went into to prove their intuitions about the effects of pollution on their health. I was astounded at the time and effort they put in and staggered at how the contamination of the people, surrounding land and waterways wasn't investigated sufficiently for decades. Also gave me a real and connected insight into the work of Greenpeace.

This book is an incredible synthesis of the many disparate strands that is the story of Toms River and the seeming cancer cluster that occurred there. It is exceptionally well-written, with even the esoteric statistical concepts put across clearly. Ultimately it's the story of the doomed attempt of expecting justice in this world. Highly recommended.

I found this book fascinating, and full of supporting information. Absolutely unable to put this down.

This is one of those complex environmental "who done it's" without a resolution of "who done it". Well, we do know "who done it" -- the chemical companies, the waste disposal contractors, dye manufactures, politics, and the "economic life" of Tom's River. It is a lesson story in the environmental ills of many communities. The basic theme you will soon follow is this contrast. If I poison you then I am liable for your demise. My action, your death, my fault. If, however, you are poisoned over time by multiple parties, lack of government oversight, failures of your water company, all supported by banks of lawyers, then no one becomes liable for your cancer or demise.I have read a number of environmental issue books. A common theme is this: If you take a substance and die quickly there seems to be an "issue" but, if you are exposed to a substance over a long period of time (arsenic, silicone, asbestos, tobacco, and so on) then these poisons are not an "issue".Have we reduced ourselves to the point where an industry thinks it is okay to poison an employee a bit at a time so the worker is happy having a job, he can support his family, and the community feels economically stable?