+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ (/showthread.php?tid=275808)
Pages:
1
2
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - Tiangou - 03-26-2023
JoeH wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
other ocean bottom disturbances would presumably mean any attempts to siphon, dredge or otherwise remove the contaminant.
Yep! Any attempt to remove the contaminated sediment would have to take that into account and take measures to minimize further spreading.
I am reminded of the arguments GE made against cleanup of the PCBs they contaminated both the Hudson and Housatonic RIvers from their manufacturing operations in the region. They argued with the EPA that the riverbed locations contaminated with PCBs should be left alone, the PCBs would remain in the sediment. The counterargument that finally was followed was that Spring floods and other changes in water flow would disturb the sediments anyways, so better to remove as much as feasible. Environmentally PCBs are not as persistent as DDT, so breakdown of the remaining PCB contamination will take much less time.
FYI: The Hudson has been at the top of the EPA's "most contaminated" list since the 1980s.
Dredging of the Hudson was completed in 2016, but that's only the second phase of cleanup (which took about 15 years) on the upper portion of the river above Albany/Troy. The easiest part.
The EPA renewed the superfund cleanup agreement with GE in 2022 for the as-yet untouched contaminated floodplains and lower river-basins down to New York Harbor, and have no firm plans about the timing or scope as GE has managed to prevent the EPA from accurately measuring the contamination in those regions or submitting final reports/plans. Those regions are expected to be contaminated far worse than the upper-river, and since PCBs are persistent throughout the food-chain, they are NOT going away.
The initial superfund agreement was signed in 2002. GE has pledged to start testing the sediments in those areas some time in 2023.
When/if cleanup of the lower half of the Hudson begins (which isn't expected to start until the 2030s), it's likely to take another two decades or more to make significant progress.
This is with a company that's ostensibly cooperating with the cleanup.
That DDT will probably be around longer than the human race.
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - JoeH - 03-26-2023
Tiangou wrote:
This is with a company that's ostensibly cooperating with the cleanup.
Yeah, GE has actively deflected responsibility for a good portion of the time as well. I grew up in Pittsfield, MA. There they used to give away PCB contaminated soil as "clean" fill up until th 1970s. It ended up being used as fill on private housing lots, public playgrounds, and I don't recall where else. Once the PCB contamination was revealed as a problem and PCB banned, they delayed responses to landowners for years to run out statute of limitations for lawsuits. GE was dragged kicking and screaming "it wasn't us or not just us" into making an agreement with the EPA on cleanup.
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - pdq - 03-26-2023
Seems like the "pure" in the headline is kind of misleading. First of all, it suggests, like, a pool of, well, pure DDT, rather than high concentrations of DDT in ocean floor sediments.
Secondly, it sounds like it's probably mixed with other nasty stuff.
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - hal - 03-26-2023
pdq wrote:
Seems like the "pure" in the headline is kind of misleading. First of all, it suggests, like, a pool of, well, pure DDT, rather than high concentrations of DDT in ocean floor sediments.
Secondly, it sounds like it's probably mixed with other nasty stuff.
Technically - it's ok.
It didn't say 'Scientists uncover pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast' - they said they found it in 'high concentrations'.
That's kinda like OWC saying that they sell SSDs as large as 20TB at prices starting at $19. It's attention grabbing, but not technically wrong.
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - pdq - 03-27-2023
hal wrote:
[quote=pdq]
Seems like the "pure" in the headline is kind of misleading. First of all, it suggests, like, a pool of, well, pure DDT, rather than high concentrations of DDT in ocean floor sediments.
Secondly, it sounds like it's probably mixed with other nasty stuff.
Technically - it's ok.
It didn't say 'Scientists uncover pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast' - they said they found it in 'high concentrations'.
But the headline is taken directly from the article: Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast
The "pure" in that title is redundant/meaningless at best, and clickbait at worst. "Scientists discover high concentrations of pure sodium in seawater" doesn't make sense either (to me).
Re: ‘ Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast ‘ - Diana - 03-27-2023
pdq wrote:
[quote=hal]
[quote=pdq]
Seems like the "pure" in the headline is kind of misleading. First of all, it suggests, like, a pool of, well, pure DDT, rather than high concentrations of DDT in ocean floor sediments.
Secondly, it sounds like it's probably mixed with other nasty stuff.
Technically - it's ok.
It didn't say 'Scientists uncover pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast' - they said they found it in 'high concentrations'.
But the headline is taken directly from the article: Scientists uncover startling concentrations of pure DDT along seafloor off L.A. coast
The "pure" in that title is redundant/meaningless at best, and clickbait at worst. "Scientists discover high concentrations of pure sodium in seawater" doesn't make sense either (to me).
Especially since commercially available DDT exists as a mixture containing about 65-80% DDT. The reaction used to make the product produces three other compounds as well. Depending on the method of concentration, it is rather unlikely to be “pure”, at least to the standards I’m used to. It doesn’t dissolve in appreciable amounts in water and has high affinity for other organic (carbon containing) substances.