By Lorraine Metz
In order to complete the experiential component for this class, I decided to learn more about an environmental issue that I find most appealing. In recent years I’ve become more educated on the food choices I make daily and the results and consequences that it brings. After reading “Food Inc.”, a companion guide to the documentary, I was horrified at the way we raise not only our livestock, but also our crops. I continued researching the possible consequences of food, including crops and products that are genetically altered. After getting a new job, keeping up with studies and other demands, I was researching less and less. This semester, with an opportunity to explore environmental and health issues, I decided to continue my research. While I had read numerous books on the subject, and seen a movie or two, it only seemed logical to view more films that could condense statistics and information on the subject in a simple but effective manner.
One of the films I watched this semester was a documentary called “Genetically Modified Food: Panacea or Poison?” Directed by Josh Shore, this movie was released in 2005. Although I’m watching it a few years late, the information and controversy are still just as pertinent today. Facts and statistics were plenty thanks to an array of speakers that ranged from politicians, FDA representatives, activists, farmers and scientists. While I had basic knowledge on the subject, questions were raised that had me hooked and concerned.
Genetic modification of DNA for food came with the idea that by cross-breeding plants, they could survive in various climates and situations. In the 1970’s, the U.S. agricultural company, Monsanto, developed and sold a herbicide called Roundup. Being the world-wide seller of herbicide since 1980, Monsanto took to bioengineering and created genetically modified crops including soybeans. Monsanto was not the only company experimenting with GM crops, but they are now the most popular and own patents to seeds that will produce crops resistant to Roundup.
Controversial debates on this topic are numerous. People around the world are suspicious of the GM foods on their supermarket shelves and the consequences that it might have on their health. Studies on the subject are scarce and despite any results from tests, there has been confusion about the honesty of the results. While U.S. regulators such as the Food and Drug Administration have stated that there are no known health risks, FDA documents as well as some FDA scientist have revealed their concerns on this issue.
Monsanto, one of the largest and more aggressive owners of seed patents, argues that GM crops will help the world to overcome food issues such as starvation and malnutrition. By adding useful genes into a certain crop, they can not only become resistant to poor weather and pests, but can become more nutritious for those in need. While I had heard this argument before, I was surprised to hear a new response from the GM food opposition. A canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, explained his story through this documentary. As a farmer in Canada for 53 years, not only has he dealt with Monsanto in court when sued for infringement but he has also countersued for their pollution of his crops. He also explains that other canola farmers are hurting, but for a different reason. GM foods are regulated differently in places like Europe, Russia and South Korea, and Canadian farmers lost 25% due to Europe’s tighter regulation of the product.
As consumers, it’s our responsibility to take a close look at the foods we’re buying. If a product is purchased, it will continue to be produced. With the increased knowledge of this topic I am angered yet excited to start making smart choices that could benefit me, my family and even those around me. Besides watching this documentary and viewing some short videos, I’ve also been expanding my research through books and online media. My final article, which is also on the topic, has been expanded and edited to include the new information and I’m certain that the safety and health of our food will constantly be on my mind. This experience outside the classroom has provided me with an abundance of information as well as the momentum to start making changes and educate those around me.
As a final note, the documentary also mentioned some topics that had been referenced in class. It mentioned that Monsanto produced Agent Orange and was one of the major chemical companies that had contracts with the U.S. government for use during the Vietnam War. DuPont’s toxic legacy was also discussed in class, mentioning the destructive effects of contamination in the Pompton Lakes area. I was unaware until the film that DuPont, like Monsanto, held patents to seeds. After learning about previous mistakes that the company had made, discovering that they hold the patents on genetically altered seeds made me even more concerned about the possible health risks these large corporations may be taking. With a reputation for mistakes that have killed and hurt in the past, it’s necessary to question the intentions and statements presented by these companies.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Dumont Arbor Day Celebration on April 30
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 15, 2011
Contact:
Lorraine Metz
lmetz@ramapo.edu
Dumont Arbor Day Celebration on April 30
Dumont, NJ- Residents of this Bergen County community have been taking initiative in making sure that their town is being environmentally smart. Although small, suburban and at a close proximity to New York City, the people of Dumont are making sure that the town is heavily populated by trees.
The first Dumont Arbor Day Celebration took place in April 2006 when a red oak was planted at the Dixon Homestead Memorial Library. This year, the Dumont Arbor Day Celebration will take place on April 30, 2011 at the Dumont Shade Tree Arboretum on West Shore Avenue between 1 and 3 pm.
All Dumont citizens are invited to come out and celebrate. Festivities include an art, poetry and photography contest where applicants can creatively tell the viewers what they love about trees. All contestants receive a Dumont Arbor Day T-shirt, a certificate and a baby evergreen tree. One winner from each category will receive a prize and all applicants will have their art on exhibit at the town library for a month. Residents may purchase a T-shirt in celebration of the day to help benefit the Dumont Shade Tree Commission.
At the Shade Tree Arboretum, attendees will learn about New Jersey’s watersheds from a Watershed Ambassador and the roles that the trees have in keeping their drinking water clean. Also discussed at this event will be the development projects for 2011. According to dumontshadetree.org, after receiving two grants for tree planting, soils, a flagpole and signage, Dumont will prepare for a number of positive additions to the town including a brick walkway from Madison Ave that will be nestled between trees in an effort to spruce up the more commercial area. There are also plans for a gazebo to be built for the arboretum and the education events it holds, as well as gardening around the town near trees and shrubs as well as the arboretum walk and the parking areas.
For further information and contestant entry:
http://www.dumontshadetree.org/PDF/2011FunFlyer_Arboretum.pdf
http://www.dumontshadetree.org/PDF/2011ContestFlyer2p.pdf
APRIL 15, 2011
Contact:
Lorraine Metz
lmetz@ramapo.edu
Dumont Arbor Day Celebration on April 30
Dumont, NJ- Residents of this Bergen County community have been taking initiative in making sure that their town is being environmentally smart. Although small, suburban and at a close proximity to New York City, the people of Dumont are making sure that the town is heavily populated by trees.
The first Dumont Arbor Day Celebration took place in April 2006 when a red oak was planted at the Dixon Homestead Memorial Library. This year, the Dumont Arbor Day Celebration will take place on April 30, 2011 at the Dumont Shade Tree Arboretum on West Shore Avenue between 1 and 3 pm.
All Dumont citizens are invited to come out and celebrate. Festivities include an art, poetry and photography contest where applicants can creatively tell the viewers what they love about trees. All contestants receive a Dumont Arbor Day T-shirt, a certificate and a baby evergreen tree. One winner from each category will receive a prize and all applicants will have their art on exhibit at the town library for a month. Residents may purchase a T-shirt in celebration of the day to help benefit the Dumont Shade Tree Commission.
At the Shade Tree Arboretum, attendees will learn about New Jersey’s watersheds from a Watershed Ambassador and the roles that the trees have in keeping their drinking water clean. Also discussed at this event will be the development projects for 2011. According to dumontshadetree.org, after receiving two grants for tree planting, soils, a flagpole and signage, Dumont will prepare for a number of positive additions to the town including a brick walkway from Madison Ave that will be nestled between trees in an effort to spruce up the more commercial area. There are also plans for a gazebo to be built for the arboretum and the education events it holds, as well as gardening around the town near trees and shrubs as well as the arboretum walk and the parking areas.
For further information and contestant entry:
http://www.dumontshadetree.org/PDF/2011FunFlyer_Arboretum.pdf
http://www.dumontshadetree.org/PDF/2011ContestFlyer2p.pdf
To Drill or Not to Drill? Offshore Oil Drilling and How it Can Affect You
By Brittany Shann
It has been no secret that gas prices are unstoppably on the rise. In fact, they’ve consecutively gone up each week for the past five weeks. In our rough economy, it gets hard to shell out fifty bucks a week (if not more) to fill our gas tanks. What’s worse, there’s seemingly nothing we can do about it. There are no coupons or discounts and you certainly can’t find any clearance racks at gas stations. So what are our options? What direction do we turn?
Offshore oil drilling seems to be the most common answer to those questions. People are calling on President Obama to “drill, baby, drill” and stop depending on the Middle East for our resources. In a time of economic crisis, it seems as though we will make environmental sacrifices in order to keep a few bucks in our pockets. Desperate times call for desperate measures, some will say. But will offshore oil drilling really lower gas prices? And what types of consequences are we looking at?
The creation of jobs is a common defense of drilling. Getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil is another. Some advocate the use of alternative energy sources (like electric cars) in order to stop using oil altogether. These issues will be addressed throughout this article, but the ultimate question only concerns easing the pain of the pump – will drilling save us money?
Job Creation: Will Drilling Give Americans More Jobs?
Those in favor of offshore drilling often say that jobs will be created if we were to go through with this.
The American Energy Alliance, an affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, conducted a study that was able to estimate the amount of jobs that would be created if a state decided to drill. The projections are based on how many oil barrels they estimated to be off the coast. The more oil they estimated, the more jobs would be created.
Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University who was part of the study, estimated that drilling for oil off every coastal state could produce 870,000 jobs nationwide. Virginia alone would gain about 15,000 jobs.
Though there were no projections for New Jersey, it can be safe to assume that since we are a coastal state, there would be many new jobs available if we decided to drill. The numbers give a good insight as to how we would be benefitting from all of this, but is it worth an environmental tradeoff?
What Does Drilling Mean for Our Foreign Dependence on Oil?
Clearly, if we tap into our own resources, we can slowly start to deviate from dependence on foreign oil, specifically in Middle Eastern countries. Being directly dependent on foreign countries provides us with virtually no benefits, aside from conserving our environment. By using the resources from overseas, we are spending money we don’t have and we are possibly jeopardizing our national security.
According to MaxTechOil.com, there are four risks that come with the dependence on foreign oil. These risks are:
- National deficit is widened (gap between imports and exports)
- About a billion dollars a day are being invested in other countries
- Ties to oil producing countries can negatively impact national security
- US demand drives oil prices up
The main concern here is clearly a financial one. Our national debt is soaring and has reached record levels - $14 trillion. By utilizing other countries for our oil supply, we are seemingly sinking money into foreign markets when we could be investing in our own resources. Additionally, many Middle Eastern countries breed terrorism, which is what the United States is currently battling. If we were to sever our ties with foreign oil companies, we would potentially be able to increase our national security by reducing our relations with prospective terrorists.
In this instance, offshore drilling may be the way to go.
How Will the Environment be Impacted?
It’s now about one year after the much talked about BP oil spill. This catastrophe has not only damaged the environment but tainted the reputation of BP. It’s also been a very common argument against offshore oil drilling.
It’s very clear that with drilling, comes environmental risks. How detrimental can these risks be and what is the likelihood of another oil disaster occurring?
According to LiveScience.com, oil retrieval from the ocean floor also stirs up other harmful chemicals, like arsenic, lead, and mercury. These chemicals can harm the inhabitants of the ocean once they are released. However, experts say that the chemicals are released at such a minimal level that it ultimately wouldn’t be harmful.
Also, they use seismic waves to help locate oil and this can lead to disorientation of whales and sea mammals. About 100 whales beached themselves in Madagascar after the use of seismic waves. Destruction of marshland is also possible due to the actual drilling and canals used for oil transportation, which has led to erosion.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there has been a 99.999% safety record in offshore drilling since 1975. The amount spilled has decreased from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the '90s.
Based on these numbers, the possibility of another oil spill occurring is very low. But, if it does happen, will the effects be just as harmful as the last one?
Finally, Will Our Gas Prices Be Lowered?
On July 14, 2008, President Bush got rid of the ban on offshore drilling in an effort to reduce oil prices. Some say it didn’t do anything but just as prices began to reach $4 a gallon, they started to go down. Prices stayed generally consistent at around $2.50 per gallon for about two or three years until recently. President Obama has replaced the ban of drilling and now we’re starting to see it at the pump.
Some say it’s just a coincidence; that it would take years, if not decades, for us to see any change in prices if we started drilling. Experts say that the process of actually obtaining the oil, refining it, dispersing it, and using it takes an extreme amount of time and money, so that we wouldn’t see any relief in the near future. The Energy Information Association found that increased drilling would have a very small, if any, impact before 2030. They also found that even once the oil starts flowing, it would only bring in about 0.2 million barrels per day.
Others argue that just by lifting a ban on drilling, it would influence the market to lower prices. This is what seemingly happened between 2008 and 2010 with President Bush’s decision. However, other economists argue that the oil industry is part of a global market and since the United States would only be contributing less than one million barrels per day, it wouldn’t do much for the prices. How would one explain what happened after Bush’s decision? The theory of supply and demand seems pretty fitting, which would directly benefit us in this situation.
It’s been all laid out – from employment to gas prices. Drilling would ultimately create jobs, lower our spending on foreign oil, and it has potential to lower prices at the pump. The environmental impact is lower than one would imagine. It’s essentially all about priorities – does financial preservation outweigh environmental preservation? It’s only up to you.
For further information:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling-controversy1.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling-controversy2.htm
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/big-risk-big-boon-offshore-drilling-could-create-15000-jobs
http://www.maxtechoil.com/us-dependency-on-foreign-oil/
About the Author
Brittany Shann is a graduating Communication Arts major with a concentration in Writing. Her academic focus is mainly on the relationship between media and politics and she’s experienced in the journalistic reporting of politics. She aspires to work in the field of political communication, and her main dream is to be a speechwriter.
It has been no secret that gas prices are unstoppably on the rise. In fact, they’ve consecutively gone up each week for the past five weeks. In our rough economy, it gets hard to shell out fifty bucks a week (if not more) to fill our gas tanks. What’s worse, there’s seemingly nothing we can do about it. There are no coupons or discounts and you certainly can’t find any clearance racks at gas stations. So what are our options? What direction do we turn?
Offshore oil drilling seems to be the most common answer to those questions. People are calling on President Obama to “drill, baby, drill” and stop depending on the Middle East for our resources. In a time of economic crisis, it seems as though we will make environmental sacrifices in order to keep a few bucks in our pockets. Desperate times call for desperate measures, some will say. But will offshore oil drilling really lower gas prices? And what types of consequences are we looking at?
The creation of jobs is a common defense of drilling. Getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil is another. Some advocate the use of alternative energy sources (like electric cars) in order to stop using oil altogether. These issues will be addressed throughout this article, but the ultimate question only concerns easing the pain of the pump – will drilling save us money?
Job Creation: Will Drilling Give Americans More Jobs?
Those in favor of offshore drilling often say that jobs will be created if we were to go through with this.
The American Energy Alliance, an affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, conducted a study that was able to estimate the amount of jobs that would be created if a state decided to drill. The projections are based on how many oil barrels they estimated to be off the coast. The more oil they estimated, the more jobs would be created.
Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University who was part of the study, estimated that drilling for oil off every coastal state could produce 870,000 jobs nationwide. Virginia alone would gain about 15,000 jobs.
Though there were no projections for New Jersey, it can be safe to assume that since we are a coastal state, there would be many new jobs available if we decided to drill. The numbers give a good insight as to how we would be benefitting from all of this, but is it worth an environmental tradeoff?
What Does Drilling Mean for Our Foreign Dependence on Oil?
Clearly, if we tap into our own resources, we can slowly start to deviate from dependence on foreign oil, specifically in Middle Eastern countries. Being directly dependent on foreign countries provides us with virtually no benefits, aside from conserving our environment. By using the resources from overseas, we are spending money we don’t have and we are possibly jeopardizing our national security.
According to MaxTechOil.com, there are four risks that come with the dependence on foreign oil. These risks are:
- National deficit is widened (gap between imports and exports)
- About a billion dollars a day are being invested in other countries
- Ties to oil producing countries can negatively impact national security
- US demand drives oil prices up
The main concern here is clearly a financial one. Our national debt is soaring and has reached record levels - $14 trillion. By utilizing other countries for our oil supply, we are seemingly sinking money into foreign markets when we could be investing in our own resources. Additionally, many Middle Eastern countries breed terrorism, which is what the United States is currently battling. If we were to sever our ties with foreign oil companies, we would potentially be able to increase our national security by reducing our relations with prospective terrorists.
In this instance, offshore drilling may be the way to go.
How Will the Environment be Impacted?
It’s now about one year after the much talked about BP oil spill. This catastrophe has not only damaged the environment but tainted the reputation of BP. It’s also been a very common argument against offshore oil drilling.
It’s very clear that with drilling, comes environmental risks. How detrimental can these risks be and what is the likelihood of another oil disaster occurring?
According to LiveScience.com, oil retrieval from the ocean floor also stirs up other harmful chemicals, like arsenic, lead, and mercury. These chemicals can harm the inhabitants of the ocean once they are released. However, experts say that the chemicals are released at such a minimal level that it ultimately wouldn’t be harmful.
Also, they use seismic waves to help locate oil and this can lead to disorientation of whales and sea mammals. About 100 whales beached themselves in Madagascar after the use of seismic waves. Destruction of marshland is also possible due to the actual drilling and canals used for oil transportation, which has led to erosion.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there has been a 99.999% safety record in offshore drilling since 1975. The amount spilled has decreased from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the '90s.
Based on these numbers, the possibility of another oil spill occurring is very low. But, if it does happen, will the effects be just as harmful as the last one?
Finally, Will Our Gas Prices Be Lowered?
On July 14, 2008, President Bush got rid of the ban on offshore drilling in an effort to reduce oil prices. Some say it didn’t do anything but just as prices began to reach $4 a gallon, they started to go down. Prices stayed generally consistent at around $2.50 per gallon for about two or three years until recently. President Obama has replaced the ban of drilling and now we’re starting to see it at the pump.
Some say it’s just a coincidence; that it would take years, if not decades, for us to see any change in prices if we started drilling. Experts say that the process of actually obtaining the oil, refining it, dispersing it, and using it takes an extreme amount of time and money, so that we wouldn’t see any relief in the near future. The Energy Information Association found that increased drilling would have a very small, if any, impact before 2030. They also found that even once the oil starts flowing, it would only bring in about 0.2 million barrels per day.
Others argue that just by lifting a ban on drilling, it would influence the market to lower prices. This is what seemingly happened between 2008 and 2010 with President Bush’s decision. However, other economists argue that the oil industry is part of a global market and since the United States would only be contributing less than one million barrels per day, it wouldn’t do much for the prices. How would one explain what happened after Bush’s decision? The theory of supply and demand seems pretty fitting, which would directly benefit us in this situation.
It’s been all laid out – from employment to gas prices. Drilling would ultimately create jobs, lower our spending on foreign oil, and it has potential to lower prices at the pump. The environmental impact is lower than one would imagine. It’s essentially all about priorities – does financial preservation outweigh environmental preservation? It’s only up to you.
For further information:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling-controversy1.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling-controversy2.htm
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/big-risk-big-boon-offshore-drilling-could-create-15000-jobs
http://www.maxtechoil.com/us-dependency-on-foreign-oil/
About the Author
Brittany Shann is a graduating Communication Arts major with a concentration in Writing. Her academic focus is mainly on the relationship between media and politics and she’s experienced in the journalistic reporting of politics. She aspires to work in the field of political communication, and her main dream is to be a speechwriter.
Experiential Journal: In-Depth Insight from a Documentary
By Brittany Shann
For my experiential component, I viewed the PBS Frontline documentary called “The Spill” that told the story of BP’s horrible track record in the events leading up to the infamous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year. The documentary outlined all of the catastrophes that the oil company helped to cause throughout the past decade. These calamities claimed the lives of twenty-two workers and caused unspeakable environmental destruction.
As consumers of the media, we were delivered the story of the spill in a manner that provided only a small insight into the magnitude of what actually happened. Without doing further research, I was able to gather that BP was responsible for one of the largest oil spills in our country’s history. Though that says a lot for itself, the documentary also provided more information about the carelessness that BP had with most of their facilities. By showing this carelessness, it caused me to place more blame on the company than I had been doing. Initially, I had come to the conclusion that it was pure human error and wasn’t too quick to place blame on BP as a company. In viewing the documentary, I learned that BP has a track record of ignoring serious, dangerous problems until they were essentially forced to deal with them. Unfortunately, in doing this, it cost many lives of BP workers and their management didn’t do much to correct their problem. Money was the most important thing to them, which seems to be the case in most of these types of instances.
Perhaps the event that “sealed the deal” for me was the destruction of the oil rig during Hurricane Dennis in 1999. BP sunk billions of dollars into the development of this oil rig and it was sure to be a durable, dependable structure at the very least. The destruction that occurred appeared to be the result of the storm, in which case it wouldn’t have been as embarrassing. However, further investigation proved that it was the fault of the workers who assembled the rig; they didn’t properly install the valves that were responsible for getting rid of excess water. Instead, the rig took on more water, which brought it to the lopsided, almost entirely-destroyed position that it was in after the hurricane. Anybody can make mistakes, but BP is a huge company that has a history of careless, unsafe errors that have led to catastrophes and death. There is ultimately no excuse for a company that has the financial means to correct their mistakes and to make their facilities safe and secure for its workers. Based on everything they caused in the past, it is no surprise that they were responsible for an oil spill that was one of the worst in United States history.
Additionally, the United States government placed very light consequences on those companies who were responsible for catastrophes like the ones BP caused. Essentially, a company could cause death and destruction, pay a small fine, and carry on like nothing ever happened. There wasn’t even an additional penalty for repeat offenders, so BP was in the clear despite the many problems they caused.
My final writing project assessed offshore oil drilling and the environmental impacts it could have. I didn’t address the inner workings of the BP oil spill or get too in depth with the problems it could cause. This documentary clearly outlines how detrimental drilling could be in regards to oil spills, but BP is an exception. The company was poorly run for years and it didn’t improve even with a change in management. They were careless in the way they ran things. Theoretically, if they paid more attention to their work and the way the facilities were run, there wouldn’t be as many problems. Unfortunately, it did happen and it is possible again in the future.
Ultimately, the documentary provided me with an insight into BP and it showed me that they were very careless in they were doing. The information given throughout the documentary is extremely useful and powerful and I recommend it to anyone.
Pompton Lakes Haunted by the Ghost of DuPont
by Dan Savino
In the early 1900s, DuPont opened and operated a munitions factory in Pompton Lakes, NJ. The plant closed in 1994, but it left a mark that scars residents to this day. As a result of poor environmental oversight and regulations, DuPont has taken advantage of the land and its people. Somewhere along the way, making a buck became more important than the health and livelihood of the human race. DuPont has had twenty years to cleanup its mess, yet the residents caught in the contaminated area known as “The Plume” are still living under very hazardous conditions.
Back in the 1980s, a DuPont explosives plant in Pompton Lakes N.J., was found to have contaminated the environment around it, polluting a stream, a river and many backyards with lead and mercury, and groundwater with toxic solvents that have spread under a nearby neighborhood. For a while, most residents were unaware that chemicals in the groundwater were seeping into homes. Documents detailing the contamination were locked away and not spoken of until former mayor John Sinsimer stumbled upon them. His findings led to the first public hearing on the issue. More than two decades have passed since DuPont assured residents their health wasn’t in danger and that “the contamination would be cleaned up within five years.” But groundwater in Pompton Lakes is still contaminated to this day.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pledged to work closely with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to make sure any contamination from the DuPont Pompton Lakes Works site is “properly addressed and that people living in the community are protected, informed and involved in site cleanup decision-making.
The contaminated area otherwise known as “The Plume,” was large enough to affect 439 homes as of July 2010. Members of an action group called “Citizens for a Clean Pompton Lakes,” worked to secure a list of contractors who would install vapor mitigation systems that keep harmful vapors from rising out of the groundwater and seeping into their homes. DuPont, the EPA and the DEP of New Jersey all encouraged residents of “The Plume” to have these systems installed. It was concluded that levels of harmful vapors were unsafe and hazardous to health.
Last month, debate began over whether “The Plume” should be a federal or state regulated cleanup site. The Borough Council voted unanimously that it didn’t want The Plume to be a federally run Superfund site. Superfund is a federal law “designed to clean up sites with hazardous substances.” It was due to this law that reports of industrial pollution from Dupont’s operations were made public in the 1980s. The cleanup effort is currently run by both the DEP and EPA. Members of the council didn’t see any advantages to the Superfund designation.
In the early 1900s, DuPont opened and operated a munitions factory in Pompton Lakes, NJ. The plant closed in 1994, but it left a mark that scars residents to this day. As a result of poor environmental oversight and regulations, DuPont has taken advantage of the land and its people. Somewhere along the way, making a buck became more important than the health and livelihood of the human race. DuPont has had twenty years to cleanup its mess, yet the residents caught in the contaminated area known as “The Plume” are still living under very hazardous conditions.
Back in the 1980s, a DuPont explosives plant in Pompton Lakes N.J., was found to have contaminated the environment around it, polluting a stream, a river and many backyards with lead and mercury, and groundwater with toxic solvents that have spread under a nearby neighborhood. For a while, most residents were unaware that chemicals in the groundwater were seeping into homes. Documents detailing the contamination were locked away and not spoken of until former mayor John Sinsimer stumbled upon them. His findings led to the first public hearing on the issue. More than two decades have passed since DuPont assured residents their health wasn’t in danger and that “the contamination would be cleaned up within five years.” But groundwater in Pompton Lakes is still contaminated to this day.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pledged to work closely with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to make sure any contamination from the DuPont Pompton Lakes Works site is “properly addressed and that people living in the community are protected, informed and involved in site cleanup decision-making.
The contaminated area otherwise known as “The Plume,” was large enough to affect 439 homes as of July 2010. Members of an action group called “Citizens for a Clean Pompton Lakes,” worked to secure a list of contractors who would install vapor mitigation systems that keep harmful vapors from rising out of the groundwater and seeping into their homes. DuPont, the EPA and the DEP of New Jersey all encouraged residents of “The Plume” to have these systems installed. It was concluded that levels of harmful vapors were unsafe and hazardous to health.
Last month, debate began over whether “The Plume” should be a federal or state regulated cleanup site. The Borough Council voted unanimously that it didn’t want The Plume to be a federally run Superfund site. Superfund is a federal law “designed to clean up sites with hazardous substances.” It was due to this law that reports of industrial pollution from Dupont’s operations were made public in the 1980s. The cleanup effort is currently run by both the DEP and EPA. Members of the council didn’t see any advantages to the Superfund designation.
Silent Spring: Birds Are Just the Beginning
By Dan Savino
Silent Spring is a piece of speculative literature by Rachel Carson that warns of the dangers associated with chemical poisons used as insecticides to kill insects on American lands. She argues that these chemicals only kill insects in the short term. Meanwhile, insects slowly become immune to the insecticides. Soon, there are more insects than ever and the poisons will instead, start to kill off natural predators meant to balance the insect population. She paints a picture of two worlds. There is one where people and nature work together to respect and enjoy the natural world, listening to the sound of birds chirping in the distance. The other world is completely silent because the harmful chemical insecticides have backfired and destroyed the environment to the extent that there are no more birds chirping or signs of life in sight.
The environment is not the only victim either. Unfortunately, these poisonous chemicals also affect wildlife and even human beings. These poisons “deposit themselves in fatty tissues,” worsening over time. The effects are felt all the way up the food chain. This leads to diseases such as hepatitis, liver disease, cancer, and others.
There are a number of ways that these insecticides damage our environment. First, these chemicals run-off into bodies of water, and even find their way into our own water supply. These chemicals mix with other chemicals and end up in our drinking water. These poisons also find their way into the soil, which is made up of living creatures. Essentially, the soil is a springboard for life. These chemicals end up staying in our soil years after they are used. Another victim of chemicals is plant life. Utility companies often used weed killers to clear land for power lines and other projects. These weed killers end up damaging plants as well. Carson explains that there are other ways to kill weeds that are far more responsible and don’t destroy the environment.
Carson goes on to discuss the affects of “massive spraying campaigns.” The worst part about these needless campaigns is that they are very inefficient and inaccurate. While they are meant to target insects, they end up killing birds, animals and anything in their path. Often times, we choose to ignore evidence that other methods are not only more effective, but also much safer for the environment. For example, Carson talks about reducing Japanese beetle populations by introducing natural enemies in the affected areas. This method was used in eastern states but states in the Midwest chose to ignore what was proven to be successful. Instead, they unleashed a massive spray campaign that killed lots of wildlife, including birds and other animals. One of the reasons this happens is because there tends to be very little funding for natural methods of killing insects. The human cost is overlooked. Birds are particularly threatened by spray campaigns because they eat worms and other insects in the soil. One particular disease among birds is due to DDT sprayed to kill a fungus that causes dutch elm disease which killed massive amounts of birds.
In Chapter 10, Carson talks about the massive spraying campaign against the gypsy moth. The worst part about this case is that airplanes not only sprayed chemicals over forests, but also over cities. In effect, unsuspecting people were sprayed with poisonous chemicals while going about their day. Dairy and vegetable farms were ruined because their produce became unfit for human consumption. Carson suspects that everyone has been contaminated at some point by chemical residue.
The human cost is a silent, but deadly one. These harmful chemicals specifically target cells. Radiation and chemical poisoning turns cells cancerous, leading to life-threatening illnesses. There has been plenty of research, as noted in Chapter 14, which directly links these chemicals to cancer. Scientists have also been able to link these poisons to diseases like Down’s Syndrome.
Perhaps the worst part of all of this is that these insecticides don’t even work! In the short term, it may appear that they are affective but in fact, insects only grow immune and adapt to these chemicals. In the long run, these insects thrive while their natural predators die off. In the end, we are left with a worse problem than when it all began. We pay such a tremendous cost and all the while, these insecticides only worsen insect and weed problems.
We live in a fast-paced, competitive society in which patience and concern for the future takes a backseat to instant gratification and giant profit margins. As Rachel Carson suggests, the consequences of acting without consideration for long-term effects and inherent dangers of our decisions, will be severe. We tend to act only after it is too late. Much of this has to do with the nature of politics in this country. De-regulation has allowed huge corporations to do as they please with little or no oversight. The end result is a situation such as the catastrophic BP oil spill, in which irreparable damage was done to our oceans. The worst part is it could have all been avoided. If the EPA and other government regulatory agencies had been doing their jobs they would have been able to notice the signs and prevented the spill from ever happening. BP knew there were problems but decided to ignore them. Profit is the only concern. The environment means nothing to big oil.
This kind of attitude is not limited to the oil industry. In the same way, the companies that manufacture chemical poisons are trying to make a profit. If restrictions are placed on the amount of insecticides and chemicals that can be used, the chemical company loses money. Their only goal is to sell as much of their product as possible. They could care less what they are used for or any damage they might cause to the environment.
Technology continues to advance with one particular, consistent trend I’d like to highlight. I am referring specifically to the attention paid to making everything we do as people faster, easier and of course, cheaper. If there is a more convenient way out of any chore or commitment, we tend to exploit it. In the end, we are only exploiting ourselves. Without a sustainable environment, no one and nothing will survive. There will be no use for money because there will be no more people. It is sickening how easily we take for granted the most basic, yet crucial gift we have been given. The earth is all we have. It is a miracle that it sustains life. It is a miracle that I can wake up and walk outside on a nice, sunny day and just enjoy the weather. One day, we may no longer have the privilege to enjoy a nice day. I hope we wake up before the day comes when spring is forever silenced.
Silent Spring is a piece of speculative literature by Rachel Carson that warns of the dangers associated with chemical poisons used as insecticides to kill insects on American lands. She argues that these chemicals only kill insects in the short term. Meanwhile, insects slowly become immune to the insecticides. Soon, there are more insects than ever and the poisons will instead, start to kill off natural predators meant to balance the insect population. She paints a picture of two worlds. There is one where people and nature work together to respect and enjoy the natural world, listening to the sound of birds chirping in the distance. The other world is completely silent because the harmful chemical insecticides have backfired and destroyed the environment to the extent that there are no more birds chirping or signs of life in sight.
The environment is not the only victim either. Unfortunately, these poisonous chemicals also affect wildlife and even human beings. These poisons “deposit themselves in fatty tissues,” worsening over time. The effects are felt all the way up the food chain. This leads to diseases such as hepatitis, liver disease, cancer, and others.
There are a number of ways that these insecticides damage our environment. First, these chemicals run-off into bodies of water, and even find their way into our own water supply. These chemicals mix with other chemicals and end up in our drinking water. These poisons also find their way into the soil, which is made up of living creatures. Essentially, the soil is a springboard for life. These chemicals end up staying in our soil years after they are used. Another victim of chemicals is plant life. Utility companies often used weed killers to clear land for power lines and other projects. These weed killers end up damaging plants as well. Carson explains that there are other ways to kill weeds that are far more responsible and don’t destroy the environment.
Carson goes on to discuss the affects of “massive spraying campaigns.” The worst part about these needless campaigns is that they are very inefficient and inaccurate. While they are meant to target insects, they end up killing birds, animals and anything in their path. Often times, we choose to ignore evidence that other methods are not only more effective, but also much safer for the environment. For example, Carson talks about reducing Japanese beetle populations by introducing natural enemies in the affected areas. This method was used in eastern states but states in the Midwest chose to ignore what was proven to be successful. Instead, they unleashed a massive spray campaign that killed lots of wildlife, including birds and other animals. One of the reasons this happens is because there tends to be very little funding for natural methods of killing insects. The human cost is overlooked. Birds are particularly threatened by spray campaigns because they eat worms and other insects in the soil. One particular disease among birds is due to DDT sprayed to kill a fungus that causes dutch elm disease which killed massive amounts of birds.
In Chapter 10, Carson talks about the massive spraying campaign against the gypsy moth. The worst part about this case is that airplanes not only sprayed chemicals over forests, but also over cities. In effect, unsuspecting people were sprayed with poisonous chemicals while going about their day. Dairy and vegetable farms were ruined because their produce became unfit for human consumption. Carson suspects that everyone has been contaminated at some point by chemical residue.
The human cost is a silent, but deadly one. These harmful chemicals specifically target cells. Radiation and chemical poisoning turns cells cancerous, leading to life-threatening illnesses. There has been plenty of research, as noted in Chapter 14, which directly links these chemicals to cancer. Scientists have also been able to link these poisons to diseases like Down’s Syndrome.
Perhaps the worst part of all of this is that these insecticides don’t even work! In the short term, it may appear that they are affective but in fact, insects only grow immune and adapt to these chemicals. In the long run, these insects thrive while their natural predators die off. In the end, we are left with a worse problem than when it all began. We pay such a tremendous cost and all the while, these insecticides only worsen insect and weed problems.
We live in a fast-paced, competitive society in which patience and concern for the future takes a backseat to instant gratification and giant profit margins. As Rachel Carson suggests, the consequences of acting without consideration for long-term effects and inherent dangers of our decisions, will be severe. We tend to act only after it is too late. Much of this has to do with the nature of politics in this country. De-regulation has allowed huge corporations to do as they please with little or no oversight. The end result is a situation such as the catastrophic BP oil spill, in which irreparable damage was done to our oceans. The worst part is it could have all been avoided. If the EPA and other government regulatory agencies had been doing their jobs they would have been able to notice the signs and prevented the spill from ever happening. BP knew there were problems but decided to ignore them. Profit is the only concern. The environment means nothing to big oil.
This kind of attitude is not limited to the oil industry. In the same way, the companies that manufacture chemical poisons are trying to make a profit. If restrictions are placed on the amount of insecticides and chemicals that can be used, the chemical company loses money. Their only goal is to sell as much of their product as possible. They could care less what they are used for or any damage they might cause to the environment.
Technology continues to advance with one particular, consistent trend I’d like to highlight. I am referring specifically to the attention paid to making everything we do as people faster, easier and of course, cheaper. If there is a more convenient way out of any chore or commitment, we tend to exploit it. In the end, we are only exploiting ourselves. Without a sustainable environment, no one and nothing will survive. There will be no use for money because there will be no more people. It is sickening how easily we take for granted the most basic, yet crucial gift we have been given. The earth is all we have. It is a miracle that it sustains life. It is a miracle that I can wake up and walk outside on a nice, sunny day and just enjoy the weather. One day, we may no longer have the privilege to enjoy a nice day. I hope we wake up before the day comes when spring is forever silenced.
Experiential Journal: Carbon Nation
By Lindsey de Stefan
In order to fulfill my experiential requirements, I viewed the documentary “Carbon Nation.” This 2010 film by Peter Byck explains how we can reduce the vast carbon footprint we are leaving on our planet and our environment.
As we all know, carbon and fossil fuels are creating a number of problems environmentally. Yet dwelling on the numerous problems they cause is not what this particular documentary does. Instead, it focuses on solutions. Our planet, with its billions of inhabitants, requires a tremendous amount of energy. “Carbon Nation” points out that there are ways to meet these energy requirements in a way that uses less carbon-based sources or eliminates them completely.
This documentary taught me a lot of things that I didn’t know. First of all, I had no idea that concern for climate change and the state of our environment, which has been such a big issue, is dwindling. That is why this film was created in the first place. Second, I learned that there are many environmentally friendly alternatives that are not only good for the environment, but are potential jackpots for those looking to profit from green technology.
I also had no idea that, through some of the solutions suggested by “Carbon Nation,” we can actually improve our country in a variety of ways that are outside the realm of environmental concern. We can save money, as well as provide cleaner air and water for the citizens of the United States. This is certainly something worth striving for in these difficult economic times. And a clean and pollution-free country is something we all deserve.
In order to fulfill my experiential requirements, I viewed the documentary “Carbon Nation.” This 2010 film by Peter Byck explains how we can reduce the vast carbon footprint we are leaving on our planet and our environment.
As we all know, carbon and fossil fuels are creating a number of problems environmentally. Yet dwelling on the numerous problems they cause is not what this particular documentary does. Instead, it focuses on solutions. Our planet, with its billions of inhabitants, requires a tremendous amount of energy. “Carbon Nation” points out that there are ways to meet these energy requirements in a way that uses less carbon-based sources or eliminates them completely.
This documentary taught me a lot of things that I didn’t know. First of all, I had no idea that concern for climate change and the state of our environment, which has been such a big issue, is dwindling. That is why this film was created in the first place. Second, I learned that there are many environmentally friendly alternatives that are not only good for the environment, but are potential jackpots for those looking to profit from green technology.
I also had no idea that, through some of the solutions suggested by “Carbon Nation,” we can actually improve our country in a variety of ways that are outside the realm of environmental concern. We can save money, as well as provide cleaner air and water for the citizens of the United States. This is certainly something worth striving for in these difficult economic times. And a clean and pollution-free country is something we all deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)