The PCB Dilemma of the Hudson River D9 No unread replies.No replies. Winding through upstate New York, the Hudson River Valley comprises some of the most beautiful country in the Northeast. But serious problems lurk below the glimmering surfaces of the Hudson’s blue water. From 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company released over 1.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the river from facilities in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, New York. PCBs were commonly used in transformer boxes, capacitors, and cooling and insulating fluids of electrical equipment manufactured before 1977. PCBs are no longer used in manufacturing in the United States, and they have been banned in most of the world. PCBs are very toxic to humans and wildlife because these fat-soluble chemicals gradually accumulate in fatty tissues. Hudson River fish are contaminated with PCBs at concentrations in excess of safe levels. Consumption of fish from most areas of the Hudson is banned or restricted, but some people ignore these publicized restrictions because the water looks so clear and the fish do not look polluted. PCBs present serious health threats to humans, and prolonged exposure to PCBs is known to cause cancer, reproductive problems, and other medical conditions affecting the immune system and thyroid gland. Children are particularly susceptible to the health effects of PCBs. High concentrations of these chemicals still lurk in the Hudson River and other environments. In the Hudson River, most PCBs are located in the sediment at the bottom of the river. To get rid of these persistent chemicals, environmental groups and the EPA have proposed dredging the 175-mile-long riverbed to remove over 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment, which would remove more than 100,000 pounds of PCBs. Critics of the dredging plan suggest that such operations would only release more PCBs into the water by stirring up the sediment. Instead of dredging, many believe that leaving the sediment in place and letting natural current flows disperse the chemicals, combined with bioremediation through bacterial degradation of PCBs, is the best way to reduce the load of PCBs in the long run. PCB-degrading anaerobes have been detected in Hudson River sediments. Some anaerobic bacteria are involved in the first step of breaking down PCBs by cleaving off chlorine and hydrogen groups. Aerobic bacteria in the water can further modify PCBs, and others can then convert them into water, carbon dioxide, and chloride. Some predictions suggest that even after dredging, PCB levels in fish will not drop to levels acceptable for human consumption until after 2070. Even if dredging is a good plan, where will the dredged sediments go? How will these chemicals be cleaned up? Some people believe that placing PCB-laden sediments in a sealed landfill, a completely anaerobic environment, will slow down the degradative processes. Should these chemicals be left in the mud to be broken down slowly over time through natural bioremediation, or should humans intervene in an effort to speed up nature’s cleanup effort? What are the pros and cons of taking action or doing nothing?
The PCB Dilemma of the Hudson River D9
Winding through upstate New York, the Hudson River Valley comprises some of the most beautiful country in the Northeast. But serious problems lurk below the glimmering surfaces of the Hudson’s blue water. From 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company released over 1.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the river from facilities in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, New York. PCBs were commonly used in transformer boxes, capacitors, and cooling and insulating fluids of electrical equipment manufactured before 1977. PCBs are no longer used in manufacturing in the United States, and they have been banned in most of the world. PCBs are very toxic to humans and wildlife because these fat-soluble chemicals gradually accumulate in fatty tissues. Hudson River fish are contaminated with PCBs at concentrations in excess of safe levels. Consumption of fish from most areas of the Hudson is banned or restricted, but some people ignore these publicized restrictions because the water looks so clear and the fish do not look polluted. PCBs present serious health threats to humans, and prolonged exposure to PCBs is known to cause cancer, reproductive problems, and other medical conditions affecting the immune system and thyroid gland. Children are particularly susceptible to the health effects of PCBs. High concentrations of these chemicals still lurk in the Hudson River and other environments. In the Hudson River, most PCBs are located in the sediment at the bottom of the river. To get rid of these persistent chemicals, environmental groups and the EPA have proposed dredging the 175-mile-long riverbed to remove over 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment, which would remove more than 100,000 pounds of PCBs. Critics of the dredging plan suggest that such operations would only release more PCBs into the water by stirring up the sediment. Instead of dredging, many believe that leaving the sediment in place and letting natural current flows disperse the chemicals, combined with bioremediation through bacterial degradation of PCBs, is the best way to reduce the load of PCBs in the long run. PCB-degrading anaerobes have been detected in Hudson River sediments. Some anaerobic bacteria are involved in the first step of breaking down PCBs by cleaving off chlorine and hydrogen groups. Aerobic bacteria in the water can further modify PCBs, and others can then convert them into water, carbon dioxide, and chloride. Some predictions suggest that even after dredging, PCB levels in fish will not drop to levels acceptable for human consumption until after 2070. Even if dredging is a good plan, where will the dredged sediments go? How will these chemicals be cleaned up? Some people believe that placing PCB-laden sediments in a sealed landfill, a completely anaerobic environment, will slow down the degradative processes. Should these chemicals be left in the mud to be broken down slowly over time through natural bioremediation, or should humans intervene in an effort to speed up nature’s cleanup effort? What are the pros and cons of taking action or doing nothing?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
