My understanding is that someone suggested that if his name was written in for councilor at large would he serve and his answer was yes but he would not actively seek the seat.

Regarding the PCB issue in Pittsfield and down the river. It makes no sense to me that such a huge “plume” of the stuff was never touched at Silver Lake and other places. So, as things stand now, regardless of how much dredging or other “remediation” occurs downstream, the PCBs left in place will over time re-contaminate the cleaned areas.
How is this a good thing? How is this any kind of solution that makes sense?
So, to do this cleanup right, Pittsfield HAS TO REOPEN THE CONSENT DECREE and reset the scope and objectives of a proper cleanup. Anything short of this is not a solution at all.

Dan regarding your PCB post this morning. The words are mine and not Jeff’s but we are both closer in opinion to the State’s position than that of the EPA. And like Mr. Gibbs I encourage people to attend the Oct. 12 meeting in Lenox. For more information on Ward 4 Rest Of River Watch’s perspective e-mail us at Ward4RestofRiverWatch@hotmail.com

Ward4RestOfRiverWatch is on facebook and we would like to have all those interested join the group

http://www.facebook.com/groups/205606522835300/

joe, as a newbee to pittsfield politics and seeing the way its run, i figured you would run for the hills after your run for mayor. i think youd make a good at large councilor. so good luck… if you dont get in how about writing about your two years on that council….kind of like a tell all of the way things went that we dont see or hear…. i bet the g.o.bs would shit their pants!!!!!

GE doesn’t want to do the most invasive way because it’s also the most expensive. They should have to do whatever they can to remove most of the PCB’s with out harming nature.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.housatonicoptions.com%2Ffate-of-a-river%2F&h=cAQDChQopAQDr9j9RBy7MIjL3B7KLyWfeDgRXve7RV0KTfw

My Aunt Shirley died two years ago she lived on Tennyson Ave. Pancreatic cancer.

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.

We have spent a-lot of years on a proper clean up and have tried to elevate the discussion by hosting clean up companies and world class scientists. Sit tight folks as the EPA has not even released their plan.