Jacqueline Tosto

This week in seminar we learned about the water pollutions in various bodies of water including the Rio de Janero Bay. The Bay is one of the most polluted ecosystems in the world and little is doing to fix it. All measures so far have failed. It seems amazing to me that a country so full of wildlife and natural resources can let such an important ecosystem be destroyed. I hope that the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 will give an incentive for the government to clean up the Bay. Something needs to be done just to maintain any form of wildlife left in it. Between the rainforest and the bay, Brazil should be more careful about their rich resources before they loose them all.
We also discussed the pollution in New York Harbor and the New York Bight. The Harbor is very important to the economy of New York. It provides a port, commercial fishing, recreation, as well as a very important estuary for the city. It is good to know that there are some things the EPA is trying to do to fix the ecosystem. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Hazardous Waste Management Program do have important initiatives about managing the disposal of wastes and keeping the amount of waste produced low, but more needs to be done. The government may need to be more forceful, but at least there is something being done. I do think the “cradle to grave” incentive is a great measure. This will make sure that companies correctly handle waste from the production of them, the use of them, and the disposal of them.
We also learned how the EPA characterizes toxic contamination, through either the ecosystem approach or the chemical specific approach. I think both systems are rather faulty but have some minor advantages. The ecosystem approach is affective and has proved that many bottom dwelling organisms are dying due to the toxic sediment at the bottom of the harbor. However it only identifies the problem when damage has already been done, instead of preventing the problem from the beginning. The chemical specific approach has brought to light the dangerous affect PCB on fish and those who eat the fish. However this system makes it difficult for the results to be very accurate. Having humans as subjects leaves a lot of variation. I think that for now these systems will manage but in the future a new way needs to be created in order to prevent the damage the chemicals are causing.
In particular, we studied the PCB contamination in the Hudson River and of Arthur Kill. I feel like there should be a better solution to this then just leaving it for future generation. I feel like people are just trying to hide the problem, first dumping it and now burying it. There is a set amount of PCB in the world, therefore the problem, once fixed will be permanent. There should be some solution that is better than burying it somewhere in Texas. PCBs are dangerous chemicals and just leaving them by citizens is not a logical solutions.
Waterways are very important to not only the environment but also the economy. We have made mistakes in the past by not protecting them, but now that we know what we have done wrong, we have to make changes. Dumping any form of waste into rivers, lakes, and other waterways is not a solution. It just causes more problems. The EPA must work with companies to find permanent solutions to dispose of their chemicals.