Dave Martindale has more credibility than most of these naysayers and has been involved longer than most people in the river issues.

Dave Martindale seems knowledgeable thats for sure. He writes with authority and information that makes scientific sense. My husband and I were ipressed by the way out laid out the issue. We have found him to be the most believable of any posters on this issue here on this website. Which again, has done a great job covering this.

For the post about GE lies. They have been lying ever since.
We have a copy of this published document.

Here is Dr Peter Montague

This is the story of when GE first started talking about PCBs

In 1937–just eight years after Swan Chemical began manufacturing PCBs in commercial quantities–the Harvard School of Public Health hosted a one-day meeting on the problem of “systemic effects” of certain chlorinated hydrocarbons including “chlorinated diphenyl” (an early name for PCBs).[8] The meeting was attended by representatives from Monsanto, General Electric, the U.S. Public Health Service, and the Halowax Corporation, among others.

Before World War I, the Halowax Corporation began manufacturing chlorinated naphthelenes as a coating for electric wire and companies like General Electric began using it. The president of Halowax, Sandford Brown, told the meeting that they had observed no problems in their workers until “the past 4 or 5 years… Then we come to the higher stages [greater number of chlorine atoms in the mixture], combined with chlorinated diphenyl and other products, and suddenly this problem is presented to us.”[8] By the mid-1930s, workers at Halowax and at GE, and even some of their customers, were breaking out with chloracne–small pimples with dark pigmentation of the exposed area, followed by blackheads and pustules. In 1936 three workers at the Halowax Company died, and Halowax then hired Harvard University researchers to expose rats to these chlorinated compounds, to see if they could discover the underlying cause. The Harvard researchers made “a number of estimates of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the air of different factories,” then designed experiments to expose rats to similar levels. They reported that “the chlorinated diphenyl is certainly capable of doing harm in very low concentrations and is probably the most dangerous [of the chlorinated hydrocarbons studied].”[8] And, they said, “These experiments leave no doubt as to the possibility of systemic effects from the chlorinated naphthalenes and chlorinated diphenyls.”[8]

From a brief report on the one-day conference, we can gather that problems caused by PCB exposures were serious and widely known. Mr. F.R. Kaimer, assistant manager of General Electric’s Wireworks at York, Pa., said, “It is only 1 1/2 years ago that we had in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 men afflicted with various degrees of this acne about which you all know. Eight or ten of them were very severely afflicted–horrible specimens as far as their skin conditions was concerned. One man died and the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that….”[8]

GE’s medical director, Dr. B. L. Vosburgh of Schenectady, N.Y., attended the meeting. He said, “About the time we were having so much trouble at our York factory some of our customers began complaining. We thought we were having a hysteria of halowax mania throughout the country.”

Monsanto Chemical Company was represented at the meeting by R. Emmett Kelly. Mr. Kelly told the meeting, “I can’t contribute anything to the laboratory studies, but there has been quite a little human experimentation in the last several years, especially at our plants where we have been manufacturing this chlorinated diphenyl.” He went on to describe the results of Monsanto’s human experiments: “A more or less extensive series of skin eruptions which we were never able to attribute as to cause, whether it was impurity in the benzene we were using or to the chlorinated diphenyl.”[8]

GE’s F.R. Kaimer described the HUMAN reaction of GE executives to the disfigurement and pain of GE workers exposed to PCBs: “[W]e had 50 other men in very bad condition as far as the acne was concerned. The first reaction that several of our executives had was to throw it out–get it out of our plant. They didn’t want anything like that for treating wire. But that was easily said but not so easily done. We might just as well have thrown our business to the four winds and said, ‘We’ll close up,’ because there was no substitute and there is none today in spite of all the efforts we have made through our own research laboratories to find one.”[8] And so GE executives–contrary to their personal ethics–reached a business decision to continue using PCBs.

–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Citations can be found at http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn327.htm

===============

Dan I would like to contribute a few thoughts. First of all most everyone knows I have spent my life trying to reverse the toxic mess GE left behind. My property is contaminated. Our river is contaminated. And lots of other GE toxic sites exist. I took the first independent samples in the river in 1976 when GE’s line was there is no contamination. In 1992 the Housatonic River Initiative formed and has been working for a comprehensive clean up for years. Many other groups agree on a clean river goal. We have never thought a clean river agenda is a radical notion but some seem to think this way.
PCBs were discovered in the food chain of the earth about 1966. They are one of the most pervasive toxic chemicals and reside in most humans and wildlife. Over several decades many world health organizations, independent scientists, and universities have studied them and consider them highly toxic. Thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies have been published. It is well documented that mothers pass doses of PCBs to their babies during breast feeding. Studies on wildlife have been equally alarming. Whales, polar bears, birds, fish, amphibians are a few being impacted. Nations around the world are cleaning PCBs up. Why? Because it is a prudent public and ecological health policy.
Just to add some local information to the mix. Mr. Martindale has worked for years to get as much of this toxic mess cleaned up as possible. His knowledge about PCBs is very valuable to having a competent discussion. In 1988 a study by Mass Dept of Public health was published pointing to very elevated levels of bladder cancer in Pittsfield. This was not internet data. Dave Gibbs, who Mr. Bubriski decided to slur on this blog, has spent decades helping neighbors whose families grew up on contaminated land get proper clean ups. He helped fight Hill78 and the clean up at Allendale School. His family has suffered from health issues all the while he was pushing for better clean ups.
To answer another post, Mr. Cook is a Board member of 1 Berkshire. After 1Berkshire denied in public that GE has funded this group, the Berkshire Record/Boston Globe printed stories to the contrary. Mr. Cook has a right to his opinion but lets be sure where the GE money goes.
GE has led the fight to make everyone believe that PCBs are safe and they shouldn’t be responsible for their mess. This has been the case on the Housatonic and Hudson Rivers. They fan the fire that no environmentalist could possibly be right about any environmental problem. “Don’t destroy the river to clean it”, they say. Take a ride to the East Side Café and look south at the bridge. This part of the river was dredged and banks dug up to remove the PCBs 10 years ago. It’s looking pretty good. Rip rap is almost covered over, insects on the river bottom have returned, fish are migrating back in, and native shrubs and trees have made impressive growth on the banks. The river wasn’t destroyed but cleaned of some of the highest levels of PCBs ever found in the world.
It has taken twenty years for many active citizens to get the EPA to order GE to clean the river. Here are positions put forth by many environmental groups. First there should be no more toxic PCB dumps. Hill 78 is the poster boy for this no brainer. GE has proposed over three dumps in Berkshire County. On the Hudson they are taking them to a
hazardous waste landfill down south. We have supported testing new technologies that destroy PCBs that could make the need for dumps obsolete. We hosted two companies last spring at a forum in Lenox. The same technologies have the potential to be used in the floodplain and possibly could minimize the clean up impact. We need some in -river pilot studies.

We believe that if we’re going to clean the river that removing the maximum amount of PCBs as possible should be the goal. It makes sense to us to do the best job. We are not dredging fans as one post seems to imply, but this is a construction project and it may be part of the decision. Instead of being fanatical we have looked at dredging and hosted forums on companies and their affiliates that have innovated low impact surgical dredging heads, with shrouds to minimize re-suspension. One company had low impact dewatering facilities that are measured in feet instead of acres. It doesn’t have to be huge clamshell dredges as GE wants you to believe. Innovative companies have come along way but better technology comes with cost. One of the most promising companies called Biotech Restorations have offered free testing to get the ball rolling. Google them up and read. We also think the decision needs flexibility to Modify Clean-up Plans as needed. The consent decree was written on stone.
GE’s most aggressive published option number eight says 2,250,000 cu. yards will need to be removed. The states says they would remove 25% of the PCB load with their plan. Does this mean 1,700,000 cu.feet are being ignored by the state? If GE’s numbers are right aren’t we leaving huge PCB levels upstream? The state wants to remove 286,000 cu. yds. from Wood’s Pond. PCBs left upstream will re-contaminate the pond during flood events. The state has stated the pond might have to be re-dredged someday. Public health goals will be met by putting up signs warning of the contamination. This was the plan in the 1980’s. We now will have more signs warning of the toxicity of the river. It’s starting to sound very strange. DEP, EPA, and GE present different numbers. Sit tight folks as the EPA has not even released their plan.

Tim, in the portion of the river between the confluence and the pond how would one come into contact with chlorinated diphenyl? And how long would one have to stay in contact with it in order to experience what these workers experienced in 1937? For those in the ward 4 area that’s close to the river how much danger would you say we are in? If the river were dredged as you think it should be how much would the risk cancer or any other disease decrease? Thanks? What’s the story on those worms that you felt held so much promise? Are they still being studied?

BC says…..“Radical” was used to describe PEOPLE….

I did not use the word radical to describe PEOPLE…..it was used to describe dredging