By Karen Dougherty
In January 2008, a disturbing article appeared in the Northeastern Naturalist. Written by Dr. David L. Strayer, a freshwater ecologist, it portrayed an unsettling picture of New York’s Ramapo River ecosystem. Dr. Strayer studied the mussel population in several New York locations between 1992 and 2006 and found significant deformities in all three species of the Ramapo River’s freshwater unionid mussel population. Deformities of this magnitude are often indicative of pervasive water pollution.
The National Park Service says that mussels serve important functions in aquatic ecosystems. They are an important part of the food chain and help maintain water quality. The US Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that “70% of our freshwater mussels are extinct, endangered, or in need of special protection. Many of their problems stem from how they live and changes that have occurred to their habitat during the past 200 years. Pollution, especially non-point source pollution, causes the greatest threat to native mussels.”
Deformed mussels are easily recognized. According to Dr. Strayer, the mussels have “severely shortened posterior ends. The posterior margin of the shell is irregular or ragged, the periostracal layers often are thick and distorted, and the two valves often do not fit together well at the posterior end of the shell, resulting in a marked gape. The deformation of the shell may be so severe that it is difficult to identify the species. I have not observed the soft tissues of animals affected by this deformity, but they presumably are distorted as well.”
Dr. Strayer found this mussel deformity at four other New York sites but none seemed to be as pervasive as those found in the Ramapo River. The examination of area mussel specimens prior to 1990 did not reveal deformities of this nature. Therefore, Dr. Strayer concludes that this is a recent phenomenon, possibly caused by a chemical associated with agricultural or residential use.
Today, large amounts of chemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are finding their way into our waterways, where they are wreaking havoc among aquatic ecosystems. Mussels are an important food source for many fish, birds and mammals. Based on this information, it is easy to imagine that the demise of such an important species as the freshwater mussel may trigger a cascade of detrimental consequences which we will be unable to rectify.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Agent Orange: Hidden Health Warnings
By Katie Lukshis
When Agent Orange was first used as a defoliant in Vietnam, the government and chemical companies were fully aware of the health risks that were caused by exposure. The herbicide used contained a higher concentration of dioxin than the ‘normal’ version, but because it was being used on “enemies,” no one was overly concerned. However, the reality was that thousands of veterans and even more Vietnamese civilians were being directly exposed to this herbicide over a span of about six years. The Chicago Tribune recently uncovered these long-kept secrets in order to provide social justice to the veterans and civilians that needed it most.
There are records dating back as early as 1955 that show Boehringer, a German chemical company, had started contacting US based Dow Chemical Company about chloracne and liver problems showing up in a plant that made 2,4,5-T – which was the ingredient in Agent Orange contaminated with dioxin. Once Boehringer discovered its workers were getting sick, production was brought to a halt and parts of the factory were dismantled; they remained closed for three years to study the problem before resuming production of 2,4,5-T. By completing this study, Boehringer was able to determine “that dioxin was the culprit and that they could limit contamination by cooking the chemicals at lower temperatures, which would slow production,” (Grotto, Jones 2009). US chemical companies did not follow the actions of this German chemical company, and remained open despite Boehringer’s findings.
There had been more than 300 million gallons of the chemical compounds found in Agent Orange used domestically since 1947, and the formulations for Vietnam were even more concentrated and contained more dioxin. Dow Chemical Company had been sharing the information they had about health issues with the military and the potential hazards it posed to workers as early as 1949, but the military failed to share this information with the personnel responsible for overseeing the defoliation in Vietnam. It wasn’t until 1970, after a study for the National Institutes of Health showing birth defects in laboratory animals as a result of being exposed to 2,4,5-T, did the military stop using Agent Orange.
Vietnam veterans have had very little luck during their legal battles for compensation for health issues they’ve had to deal with as a result. Not only are Vietnam veterans speaking out against the chemical companies, but Vietnamese citizens are looking for compensation as well. Since the first of the lawsuits that were brought to court, chemical companies have argued they are immune from legal action under laws protecting government contractors. Companies are still trying to avoid involvement, and the question of whether health costs associated with birth defects seen in children of veterans will be covered is still being debated.
For More Information:
Grotto, Jason, and Tim Jones. "Agent Orange's lethal legacy: Defoliants more dangerous than they had to be." Chicago Tribune. 19 Dec. 2009. http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-agent-orange-dioxindec17,0,2121785,full.story.
When Agent Orange was first used as a defoliant in Vietnam, the government and chemical companies were fully aware of the health risks that were caused by exposure. The herbicide used contained a higher concentration of dioxin than the ‘normal’ version, but because it was being used on “enemies,” no one was overly concerned. However, the reality was that thousands of veterans and even more Vietnamese civilians were being directly exposed to this herbicide over a span of about six years. The Chicago Tribune recently uncovered these long-kept secrets in order to provide social justice to the veterans and civilians that needed it most.
There are records dating back as early as 1955 that show Boehringer, a German chemical company, had started contacting US based Dow Chemical Company about chloracne and liver problems showing up in a plant that made 2,4,5-T – which was the ingredient in Agent Orange contaminated with dioxin. Once Boehringer discovered its workers were getting sick, production was brought to a halt and parts of the factory were dismantled; they remained closed for three years to study the problem before resuming production of 2,4,5-T. By completing this study, Boehringer was able to determine “that dioxin was the culprit and that they could limit contamination by cooking the chemicals at lower temperatures, which would slow production,” (Grotto, Jones 2009). US chemical companies did not follow the actions of this German chemical company, and remained open despite Boehringer’s findings.
There had been more than 300 million gallons of the chemical compounds found in Agent Orange used domestically since 1947, and the formulations for Vietnam were even more concentrated and contained more dioxin. Dow Chemical Company had been sharing the information they had about health issues with the military and the potential hazards it posed to workers as early as 1949, but the military failed to share this information with the personnel responsible for overseeing the defoliation in Vietnam. It wasn’t until 1970, after a study for the National Institutes of Health showing birth defects in laboratory animals as a result of being exposed to 2,4,5-T, did the military stop using Agent Orange.
Vietnam veterans have had very little luck during their legal battles for compensation for health issues they’ve had to deal with as a result. Not only are Vietnam veterans speaking out against the chemical companies, but Vietnamese citizens are looking for compensation as well. Since the first of the lawsuits that were brought to court, chemical companies have argued they are immune from legal action under laws protecting government contractors. Companies are still trying to avoid involvement, and the question of whether health costs associated with birth defects seen in children of veterans will be covered is still being debated.
For More Information:
Grotto, Jason, and Tim Jones. "Agent Orange's lethal legacy: Defoliants more dangerous than they had to be." Chicago Tribune. 19 Dec. 2009. http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-agent-orange-dioxindec17,0,2121785,full.story
Saving A Swamp: Something for Everybody
By Amanda Valenti
Saving a swamp is a wonderful idea. New Jersey needs to preserve more land and be more respectful of the beauty it still has. Though we generally do not hear much about saving land in New Jersey, it is something that should get more attention.
Landowners who make a conscious effort to preserve their woodlands do get a tax break, which is a wonderful incentive for people to take extra care in the land around them. I personally think more needs to be done in the way that landowners should be motivated more to conserve the land that surrounds them.
Whether the land is beautiful grass and trees or a muddy swamp, land is land and if we do not do anything now to protect it, someday we will not have the pleasure of seeing it any longer. Land is precious and once buildings and homes go up, the chances are slim to none to ever getting that beautiful land back, as homes would have to be knocked down.
Governors of New Jersey tend to make some decent decisions on how the residents can keep the land they have and stop companies from building. Slowly but surely New Jersey is taking back control of the land.
Keeping the water clean is also a very important topic that needs to be touched on. Many people tend to throw their garbage away on the streets, and out car windows. When it rains, garbage can find its way into a our storm water systems, polluting what could be pretty clean water.
How hard is it to find a garbage can to dispose of waste? It is almost as easy as tossing it on the street. Garbage cans are usually readily available in order to stop this from happening, but many times people just cannot wait to get rid of the extra baggage.
New Jersey has several beautiful natural parks where people can walk around and look at the beautiful scenery. It is not much to look at in the winter, but during the other seasons it is beautiful. This is in large part due to the time and energy put into saving this land and ensuring it stays the way it was intended.
Some of these places have wildlife in large caged areas to add to the environmental feel. The employees take much care in the land that surrounds them, and though they get paid to look after the land, if people took care of just a portion of what the employees do, our land would be much better off.
There is so much everyone can do in order to preserve New Jersey’s land. If everyone just took a little time and put in a little effort, altogether citizens could really make a difference in New Jersey. Every little bit counts, especially when it comes to lessening the impact on our land. Everyone does the work and everyone gets to benefit; it is a win/win situation.
Saving a swamp is a wonderful idea. New Jersey needs to preserve more land and be more respectful of the beauty it still has. Though we generally do not hear much about saving land in New Jersey, it is something that should get more attention.
Landowners who make a conscious effort to preserve their woodlands do get a tax break, which is a wonderful incentive for people to take extra care in the land around them. I personally think more needs to be done in the way that landowners should be motivated more to conserve the land that surrounds them.
Whether the land is beautiful grass and trees or a muddy swamp, land is land and if we do not do anything now to protect it, someday we will not have the pleasure of seeing it any longer. Land is precious and once buildings and homes go up, the chances are slim to none to ever getting that beautiful land back, as homes would have to be knocked down.
Governors of New Jersey tend to make some decent decisions on how the residents can keep the land they have and stop companies from building. Slowly but surely New Jersey is taking back control of the land.
Keeping the water clean is also a very important topic that needs to be touched on. Many people tend to throw their garbage away on the streets, and out car windows. When it rains, garbage can find its way into a our storm water systems, polluting what could be pretty clean water.
How hard is it to find a garbage can to dispose of waste? It is almost as easy as tossing it on the street. Garbage cans are usually readily available in order to stop this from happening, but many times people just cannot wait to get rid of the extra baggage.
New Jersey has several beautiful natural parks where people can walk around and look at the beautiful scenery. It is not much to look at in the winter, but during the other seasons it is beautiful. This is in large part due to the time and energy put into saving this land and ensuring it stays the way it was intended.
Some of these places have wildlife in large caged areas to add to the environmental feel. The employees take much care in the land that surrounds them, and though they get paid to look after the land, if people took care of just a portion of what the employees do, our land would be much better off.
There is so much everyone can do in order to preserve New Jersey’s land. If everyone just took a little time and put in a little effort, altogether citizens could really make a difference in New Jersey. Every little bit counts, especially when it comes to lessening the impact on our land. Everyone does the work and everyone gets to benefit; it is a win/win situation.
The Great Swamp's Near Demise
By Dave Ragazzo
The Great Swamp campaign is something that I do not understand. It seems foolish that the states of New Jersey and New York wanted to destroy this natural swamp that is a symbol of environment life in the area to build yet ANOTHER airport in a small diameter that already has three major airports. Why would these states need another airport? It’s not like New Jersey is a great tourist attraction; in fact many people who don’t live here would like to stay away from the state. I understand that the Port Authority is very powerful and often gets its way when it comes to bulldozing environmental habitats, but building a new airport doesn’t even make sense, in my personal opinion.
Now of course there are always two sides to every story, and there would definitely be positives to building this airport. It could easily boost the economy of the area as, there would be frequent travelers to the area, and it could cause less congestion in the three airports that we have in the area (the area of the Great Swamp is only 20 miles from Newark International Airport, and 30 miles from New York City). For that reason, I actually do understand why this airport could be pushed for, because a lot of people live in this small area and there is congestion in the airports, particularly at Newark. However, destroying natural habitats for animals who cannot voice their opinion on the matter seems very wrong. If the Port Authority wants an airport that badly, they could have very easily found another location to build this on, not a piece of land that many forms of wildlife call home.
I really admire the people who stood up against the Port Authority plan to put this airport over the Great Swamp, because they truly are heroes in their own respect. When this was going on, Earth Day was not yet a day of celebration, and the environment was not looked at as a number one priority in the views of many. These people were the outcasts, especially in the New York City area, which has very little environmental beauty to admire. If I was alive during this time, I would be with these people standing up for the Great Swamp, because as I have mentioned a few times in this blog, I feel another airport for the Metropolitan area would be a total waste of time. Also, voicing my opinion and standing up for other living creatures that do not have a voice is something that is very important. Because the animals cannot stand up for themselves, someone has to do it for them.
The Great Swamp campaign is something that I do not understand. It seems foolish that the states of New Jersey and New York wanted to destroy this natural swamp that is a symbol of environment life in the area to build yet ANOTHER airport in a small diameter that already has three major airports. Why would these states need another airport? It’s not like New Jersey is a great tourist attraction; in fact many people who don’t live here would like to stay away from the state. I understand that the Port Authority is very powerful and often gets its way when it comes to bulldozing environmental habitats, but building a new airport doesn’t even make sense, in my personal opinion.
Now of course there are always two sides to every story, and there would definitely be positives to building this airport. It could easily boost the economy of the area as, there would be frequent travelers to the area, and it could cause less congestion in the three airports that we have in the area (the area of the Great Swamp is only 20 miles from Newark International Airport, and 30 miles from New York City). For that reason, I actually do understand why this airport could be pushed for, because a lot of people live in this small area and there is congestion in the airports, particularly at Newark. However, destroying natural habitats for animals who cannot voice their opinion on the matter seems very wrong. If the Port Authority wants an airport that badly, they could have very easily found another location to build this on, not a piece of land that many forms of wildlife call home.
I really admire the people who stood up against the Port Authority plan to put this airport over the Great Swamp, because they truly are heroes in their own respect. When this was going on, Earth Day was not yet a day of celebration, and the environment was not looked at as a number one priority in the views of many. These people were the outcasts, especially in the New York City area, which has very little environmental beauty to admire. If I was alive during this time, I would be with these people standing up for the Great Swamp, because as I have mentioned a few times in this blog, I feel another airport for the Metropolitan area would be a total waste of time. Also, voicing my opinion and standing up for other living creatures that do not have a voice is something that is very important. Because the animals cannot stand up for themselves, someone has to do it for them.
Saving a Swamp: The Remarkable Efforts of the Grassroots Movement
By Stephanie Noda
The Great Swamp Campaign revolutionized the grassroots campaign movement in New Jersey. The efforts that people made to preserve nature and prevent land from being destroyed by corporate greed are very commendable. According to Jan Barry, who wrote A Citizen’s Guide to Grassroots Campaigns, the NY-NJ Port Authority wanted to create an airport on a marshland, but citizens were able to prevent this construction from taking place, despite the fact that Port Authority “for decades had bulldozed wherever it wanted to build tunnels, bridges, seaports, and airports to boost the metropolitan region’s economy.” Although this itself is an impressive feat, even more remarkable is the fact that the citizens group that fought against Port Authority were not just from New Jersey; people from other parts of the country become involved as well. Over the course of five years, the people in this group were able gain the support of “more than four hundred civic organizations in twenty-nine states,” Barry noted.
Being able to reach all these different states and get over four hundred groups to help save a marshland in New Jersey is incredible, especially considering many of these groups have never and probably will never actually come into contact with the marshlands themselves. The passion that the New Jersey citizens protesting the airport had was so poignant that those who would never experience the beauty of the land or any of the creatures living in it felt moved to help save it regardless. Another impressive part of this campaign deals with the amount of money that was raised to save the marshland. Through the efforts of the hundreds of civic organizations, four million dollars was raised to purchase “the core of the land they sought to save, and saw it was dedicated as a national wildlife refuge,” wrote Barry. This ability of the citizens to raise this enormous amount of money, without the aid of any government subsidies, is an amazing feat.
One of the most interesting parts of the whole Great Swamp Campaign is the fact that after the whole scenario was over and Port Authority had lost their case, they were still able to “service millions of travelers by modernizing its original three major airports in Newark and New York,” wrote Barry. The plan to create a fourth airport ended up being unnecessary; Port Authority did not lose any business by not being able to go through with their plan.
This got me thinking… how many of the developments of companies and infrastructures today are actually needed? If people protested against the construction of these buildings, perhaps the companies would realize that expansion is not really needed; they could work with the buildings they already have in business. With the reduction of expansion, perhaps more wilderness and natural land can be saved, instead of being turned into industrialized wastelands. However, this would probably not be feasible without the help of grassroots campaigns, such as the Great Swamp Campaign, to fight against big industry and forcible prevent this ever increasing expansion.
The Great Swamp Campaign revolutionized the grassroots campaign movement in New Jersey. The efforts that people made to preserve nature and prevent land from being destroyed by corporate greed are very commendable. According to Jan Barry, who wrote A Citizen’s Guide to Grassroots Campaigns, the NY-NJ Port Authority wanted to create an airport on a marshland, but citizens were able to prevent this construction from taking place, despite the fact that Port Authority “for decades had bulldozed wherever it wanted to build tunnels, bridges, seaports, and airports to boost the metropolitan region’s economy.” Although this itself is an impressive feat, even more remarkable is the fact that the citizens group that fought against Port Authority were not just from New Jersey; people from other parts of the country become involved as well. Over the course of five years, the people in this group were able gain the support of “more than four hundred civic organizations in twenty-nine states,” Barry noted.
Being able to reach all these different states and get over four hundred groups to help save a marshland in New Jersey is incredible, especially considering many of these groups have never and probably will never actually come into contact with the marshlands themselves. The passion that the New Jersey citizens protesting the airport had was so poignant that those who would never experience the beauty of the land or any of the creatures living in it felt moved to help save it regardless. Another impressive part of this campaign deals with the amount of money that was raised to save the marshland. Through the efforts of the hundreds of civic organizations, four million dollars was raised to purchase “the core of the land they sought to save, and saw it was dedicated as a national wildlife refuge,” wrote Barry. This ability of the citizens to raise this enormous amount of money, without the aid of any government subsidies, is an amazing feat.
One of the most interesting parts of the whole Great Swamp Campaign is the fact that after the whole scenario was over and Port Authority had lost their case, they were still able to “service millions of travelers by modernizing its original three major airports in Newark and New York,” wrote Barry. The plan to create a fourth airport ended up being unnecessary; Port Authority did not lose any business by not being able to go through with their plan.
This got me thinking… how many of the developments of companies and infrastructures today are actually needed? If people protested against the construction of these buildings, perhaps the companies would realize that expansion is not really needed; they could work with the buildings they already have in business. With the reduction of expansion, perhaps more wilderness and natural land can be saved, instead of being turned into industrialized wastelands. However, this would probably not be feasible without the help of grassroots campaigns, such as the Great Swamp Campaign, to fight against big industry and forcible prevent this ever increasing expansion.
Monday, March 1, 2010
New Jersey's "Keep it Green" Environmental Campaign
By Katie Lukshis
An interesting environmental campaign is
In November 2009, a majority of
What’s great about this campaign is the strong citizen support that has been provided and is still being provided in order to ensure proper funding and preservation happens. Citizens truly care about
One of the most interesting aspects of this campaign is that both Corzine and Christie supported this campaign, despite opposing views they may have when it comes to the protection of
Toxic Legacy: The Golden Years Lose Their Luster
By Jon Lindenauer
Among the shocking articles and interviews I witnessed on the “Toxic Legacy” website, one video in particularly caught my eye. The video was centered on a 45 year old man from Ringwood, NJ named Wayne Mann. With the interview forebodingly coming to a climax as a storm surges into the area, Mann discusses a disturbing trend that has occurred in the decades since Ford has failed to clear the toxic paint sludge left over from the Ford Plant that once stood in Mahwah, NJ. The interview, which begins unassumingly in Mann’s garden – where he describes the tradition of gardening in his family and community – lays the foundation of the community setting that has since been ravaged a grave injustice.
From the garden, the interview drifts to discussion regarding past generations, in which an astonishing revelation comes to the forefront: in past times it was not unheard of for individuals living in his Ringwood neighborhood to live to the ages of eighty or ninety or even one hundred. However, assumedly due to the effects of Ford’s leftover toxic paint sludge deposits which have wrought unfathomable havoc upon the Ringwood community as well as other neighboring communities, it is now rare for a Ringwood resident near Ford’s dump site to live past the age of seventy; obviously a stark contrast to the century mark.
Representatives for the Ford Industry would certainly argue against any correlation between the toxic paint sludge that they have neglected to remove from the Ringwood area and the declining ages of the community’s elderly individuals. However, a drop of approximately thirty percent in the ages of the oldest members of a town no doubt speaks for itself. This is especially clear given the fact that continued advancements in modern medicine would surely mitigate any other minor causes in the apparently sagging health of Ringwood’s senior citizen population. Therefore, even giving the Ford Industry the benefit of the doubt is beyond reasonable.
In the interview, Mann goes on to compare what Ford has done – regarding the eradication of the town’s eighty years old or older population – to murder. Of course, for the term “murder” to be properly applied to this particular situation there must be a smoking gun, or a direct connection between the dumping of Ford’s paint sludge and the prematurely abbreviated golden years of the Ringwood’s senior population. A trove of evidence draws the parallel between the death of older, more environmentally sensitive individuals, and the dangers of the Ford’s paint pollution.
Possible factors linking Ford’s sludge and the deaths of Ringwood’s elderly include: Ford clean-up crew members having to show up to removal sites in moon-suits to properly shield themselves from the toxic airborne debris resulting from the sludge, and untold toxicity making its way into local freshwater sources as a result of paint sludge covered rock and mud surfaces. These are only a few possibilities amongst many, but from these examples alone it is easy for any person to understand the full scope of the danger that Ringwood community members face. Their daily lives are under constant assault from both hidden and painfully obvious toxic waste left behind by the Ford Motor company, and nowhere is the result of this assault more painfully clear than with the dwindling ages of their elderly.
Among the shocking articles and interviews I witnessed on the “Toxic Legacy” website, one video in particularly caught my eye. The video was centered on a 45 year old man from Ringwood, NJ named Wayne Mann. With the interview forebodingly coming to a climax as a storm surges into the area, Mann discusses a disturbing trend that has occurred in the decades since Ford has failed to clear the toxic paint sludge left over from the Ford Plant that once stood in Mahwah, NJ. The interview, which begins unassumingly in Mann’s garden – where he describes the tradition of gardening in his family and community – lays the foundation of the community setting that has since been ravaged a grave injustice.
From the garden, the interview drifts to discussion regarding past generations, in which an astonishing revelation comes to the forefront: in past times it was not unheard of for individuals living in his Ringwood neighborhood to live to the ages of eighty or ninety or even one hundred. However, assumedly due to the effects of Ford’s leftover toxic paint sludge deposits which have wrought unfathomable havoc upon the Ringwood community as well as other neighboring communities, it is now rare for a Ringwood resident near Ford’s dump site to live past the age of seventy; obviously a stark contrast to the century mark.
Representatives for the Ford Industry would certainly argue against any correlation between the toxic paint sludge that they have neglected to remove from the Ringwood area and the declining ages of the community’s elderly individuals. However, a drop of approximately thirty percent in the ages of the oldest members of a town no doubt speaks for itself. This is especially clear given the fact that continued advancements in modern medicine would surely mitigate any other minor causes in the apparently sagging health of Ringwood’s senior citizen population. Therefore, even giving the Ford Industry the benefit of the doubt is beyond reasonable.
In the interview, Mann goes on to compare what Ford has done – regarding the eradication of the town’s eighty years old or older population – to murder. Of course, for the term “murder” to be properly applied to this particular situation there must be a smoking gun, or a direct connection between the dumping of Ford’s paint sludge and the prematurely abbreviated golden years of the Ringwood’s senior population. A trove of evidence draws the parallel between the death of older, more environmentally sensitive individuals, and the dangers of the Ford’s paint pollution.
Possible factors linking Ford’s sludge and the deaths of Ringwood’s elderly include: Ford clean-up crew members having to show up to removal sites in moon-suits to properly shield themselves from the toxic airborne debris resulting from the sludge, and untold toxicity making its way into local freshwater sources as a result of paint sludge covered rock and mud surfaces. These are only a few possibilities amongst many, but from these examples alone it is easy for any person to understand the full scope of the danger that Ringwood community members face. Their daily lives are under constant assault from both hidden and painfully obvious toxic waste left behind by the Ford Motor company, and nowhere is the result of this assault more painfully clear than with the dwindling ages of their elderly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)