He explored form Nova-Scotia to the Chesapeake. During the Industrial Revolution, the Hudson was used to ship goods to and room New York City to Albany. Many factories and industrial plants discharged refuse into the river. This was because of the people’s ignorance to the effects of the pollution. The Hudson River has continued to deteriorate for over one hundred years. During the 1 ass’s, many people began to realize the damage that had been done to the Hudson. In an effort to bring it back to its previous state, Scenic Hudson and Clearwater, Hudson River conservatory organizations were formed.
Since then many other organizations have been formed to help clean up the Hudson. Even with these organizations, many impasses have continued to dump chemicals into the river. One of the main chemicals that have been dumped into the river is BPCS. BPCS, polycarbonate phenyl, are a group of 209 synthetic oil-like chemicals of the organogenesis family. They share a common structure but vary in the number of attached chlorine atoms. They were widely used as insulation in electrical equipment, particularly transformers, until their toxic nature was recognized and their use was banned in the sass’s.
BPCS are serious poisons, testing shows that that can cause sever damage to the reproductive, neurological and immune systems of wildlife and humans, hey are most commonly known to cause cancer. Because when BPCS enter the body they mimic estrogen, women of childbearing age and their young children are particularly venerTABLE to many reproductive and developmental disorders BPCS have gotten into the river by legal dumping. Between 1946 to 1979, before the dangers of BPCS were known, General Electric legally dumped some 1. 5 million pounds into the Hudson.
BPCS seeped into the bedrock and are constantly seeping out and re-contaminating the Hudson. Many times since then, the DCE has asked General Electric to reduce their discharges into he river. Every time this happened, GE threatened to leave the state, which would cause a high loss in the economy, mainly by many people losing their jobs. BPCS don ‘t contaminate the entire river. Actually, they are really only a problem in the forty hot spots of the river. They are spread by bottom dwelling organisms that absorbed them and pass them up through the food chain.
The BPCS are stored in the fatty tissue of fish and stays there as they grow. One of the effects of BPCS is that a once very prosperous 540 million a year fishing industry in the Hudson has died. The NY State Department of Health has issued a warning advising people to limit their consumption of fish caught in the river. The most common solution to the PC problem is dredging. There are multiple types of dredging; the one that would most likely be used for the Hudson would be environmental dredging. Environmental dredging is used to remove contamination from targeted areas… This process is much more controlled than navigational dredging, using technologies like the hydraulic dredge, which functions like a large vacuum cleaner to remove contaminated sediments with strong suction General Electric has tried to stir up a lot of speculation about dredging, to avoid having to pay for the expensive project. The truth is, that dredging really isn’t dangerous. The successful dredging of Lake Champlain in Plasterer’s, NY proved this.
The area was undisturbed, and the local beaches even stayed open during the three-year process. Dredging will not stir up the river as commonly thought. New technology allows specific hot spots to be sucked up very accurately, without disturbing the bottom of the river. If dredging was to occur and the Hudson was ridded of BPCS, it is possible hat it could be used s a source of fresh drinking water. This would only be possible at the northern end of the river where the freshwater is unmixed with the salt ocean water.
Being TABLE to use the Hudson as a source of fresh water would be very good, especially since our area has experienced periods of droughts over each of the last three years. The removal of BPCS and other chemicals in the Hudson would return it to the recreational spot it once was. The tourism and recreational income would increase drastically. In northern New York State, were the river is cleaner, any recreational activities are enjoyed like white-water rafting, swimming fishing, and boating take place. If the river were to be dredged, activities like this would be possible all over the Hudson.
Dredging the river would also make it safe to consume its fish with-in three years of its completion; if left alone the river would take over 50 years to clean itself. It would bring back a huge industry to New York and New Jersey. It would also be an excellent source of fresh fish for local restaurants. One of the main reasons that people give for not wanting the river dredged is hat if we leave it alone, the river will heal itself. Studies have shown that this is not true. Even though certain areas may get better, the BPCS are just moving to other areas.
BPCS don’t disappear; they just spread out farther into the ocean. Traces of BPCS have been found in the fat of humans and animals as far as the Arctic Circle. The high cost of dredging the river wouldn’t be paid by taxpayers. Superfine Law states that the polluter must pay for the clean up of the area they polluted. Dredging the Hudson would cost GE a total somewhere between $500 million to $1 billion dollars. Economists believe the economic effect of cleaning the river will be that $8 is made for every dollar that is spent.
This money would come from the hundreds of locals that would be employed to work on the project. As well as the new business that would be brought to the area because of a clean Hudson River. Currently, the possibility of the Hudson being dredged is very good. Christie Whitman has decided to go ahead and begin the process of cleaning up the BPCS in the river. The decision means removing more than 100,000 pounds of BPCS from certain hot spots in the upper Hudson. This would be done using environmental dredging. Reasonably think that dredging the Hudson River would be a good idea. Economically it couldn’t make more sense. By dredging the Hudson, many things would be made possible like fishing, recreational activities, and the possibility of a fresh drinking water supply. I personally enjoy many recreational activities in the northern part of the Hudson River and it would be great if those were possible all over the river. Another reason I believe the river should be dredged is that once it spreads out into the ocean it will be almost impossible to clean up.