EPA to spend 36 million to cap vast ocean deposit of DDT

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._on_re_us/us_ocean_ddt

A plan to cap a vast, long-neglected deposit of the pesticide DDT on the ocean floor off Southern California got its first public airing Tuesday ? nearly four decades after the poison was banned from use.

The estimated $36 million proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls for a cover of sand and silt to be placed over the most contaminated part of the estimated 17-square-mile area declared a Superfund site in 1996.

The cap won't clean the site, but it could reduce the health risks for people who eat fish caught off the Palos Verdes coast, said Mark Gold, executive director of the watchdog group Heal the Bay.

"I think it's a huge development," he said. "We have the worst DDT hotspot in the entire U.S."

In 2000, the now-defunct Montrose firm and three other chemical companies agreed to pay a total of $73 million to help restore the ocean environment off Palos Verdes, located southwest of the Port of Los Angeles.

Another $64.5 million came from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which operated the sewers, about 150 municipalities that used the sewers and three other companies that passed DDT into the ocean.





Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
yea, the government should run everything, that way there would be someone to hold them accountable...

o wait...
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
The EPA is forcing an almost 1 billion dredging of the Hudson river to get to PCB's under many years of silt, mud etc. Here they are spending money to cover the same in silt.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,789
4,882
136
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
The EPA is forcing an almost 1 billion dredging of the Hudson river to get to PCB's under many years of silt, mud etc. Here they are spending money to cover the same in silt.

No, it is not the same.

DDT is not PCB's
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: techs
Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

Or, you know, it could be that their actions were 100% legal at the time they were actually occurring.

This has nothing to do with corporations or things like that. The company obeyed the applicable laws at the time; why should any company or individual be retroactively punished for obeying the law?

ZV
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: techs
Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

Or, you know, it could be that their actions were 100% legal at the time they were actually occurring.

This has nothing to do with corporations or things like that. The company obeyed the applicable laws at the time; why should any company or individual be retroactively punished for obeying the law?

ZV

Legal doesn't mean ethical. Civil damages apply in cases where nothing crimnal occured if damages can be proved.

And please don't say that dumping waste in the ocean is "obeying the law".
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
12,088
701
126
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)

sure, because accountability for actions that destroy the environment is only for eco-kooks.
i guess yo udont give a rats ass about corporate responsibility either because its a waste of $
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: techs
Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

Or, you know, it could be that their actions were 100% legal at the time they were actually occurring.

This has nothing to do with corporations or things like that. The company obeyed the applicable laws at the time; why should any company or individual be retroactively punished for obeying the law?

ZV
Even if I do something perfectly legal but I harm someone in some way, I am still liable for the damages.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: techs
Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

Or, you know, it could be that their actions were 100% legal at the time they were actually occurring.

This has nothing to do with corporations or things like that. The company obeyed the applicable laws at the time; why should any company or individual be retroactively punished for obeying the law?

ZV

'It could be that'. That's what you have? It shouldn't be 'legal', and you have to define legal - criminal? Civil?

One of the major areas of corruption in our nation's corporate-political system is in the area of corporations passing along their pollution costs to taxpayers.

Sometimes they do it 'illegally', sometimes they look for loopholes, sometimes they get the laws changed to allow them to pollute, but it's problem in any of those scenarios.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)

/facepalm
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)

/facepalm

 

imported_inspire

Senior member
Jun 29, 2006
986
0
0
Originally posted by: evident
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)

sure, because accountability for actions that destroy the environment is only for eco-kooks.
i guess yo udont give a rats ass about corporate responsibility either because its a waste of $

I agree with him, and I am concerned about corporate responsibility. Tell me which one of your boxes I fit into?

The truth of the matter is that DDT is the most effective deterrent against malaria we have, but due to ancillary environmental concerns, we can't use it. It's an observation, which doesn't speak to the isssues here, but is no less true.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._on_re_us/us_ocean_ddt

A plan to cap a vast, long-neglected deposit of the pesticide DDT on the ocean floor off Southern California got its first public airing Tuesday ? nearly four decades after the poison was banned from use.

The estimated $36 million proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls for a cover of sand and silt to be placed over the most contaminated part of the estimated 17-square-mile area declared a Superfund site in 1996.

The cap won't clean the site, but it could reduce the health risks for people who eat fish caught off the Palos Verdes coast, said Mark Gold, executive director of the watchdog group Heal the Bay.

"I think it's a huge development," he said. "We have the worst DDT hotspot in the entire U.S."

In 2000, the now-defunct Montrose firm and three other chemical companies agreed to pay a total of $73 million to help restore the ocean environment off Palos Verdes, located southwest of the Port of Los Angeles.

Another $64.5 million came from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which operated the sewers, about 150 municipalities that used the sewers and three other companies that passed DDT into the ocean.





Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

That's right, let's have town-square hangings of the shareholders in public companies. Maybe that way we can satisfy your bloodlust for the "wealthy" out there - let's start off by killing the old ladies and orphans, the classic owners of utility company stocks, and move on from there.
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
yea, the government should run everything, that way there would be someone to hold them accountable...

o wait...

they're called elections. Perhaps you've heard of them?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: techs
Whenever I read about something like this, I always wonder how come the people who owned the Montrose Company can get away without paying all the money to clean up their mess?
Oh, that's right. They're a CORPORATION and we don't hold the owners responsible.

Or, you know, it could be that their actions were 100% legal at the time they were actually occurring.

This has nothing to do with corporations or things like that. The company obeyed the applicable laws at the time; why should any company or individual be retroactively punished for obeying the law?

ZV

'It could be that'. That's what you have? It shouldn't be 'legal', and you have to define legal - criminal? Civil?

One of the major areas of corruption in our nation's corporate-political system is in the area of corporations passing along their pollution costs to taxpayers.

Sometimes they do it 'illegally', sometimes they look for loopholes, sometimes they get the laws changed to allow them to pollute, but it's problem in any of those scenarios.

Two of the three items that I bolded are not illegal. The people (via there elected representatives) set the rules - the companies followed it.

Notice that LA County itself is being held to blame

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Use DDT in Africa, eliminate malaria.
Use...excuse me, speak of DDT in America, deal with eco-kooks.
Net result---absolutely nothing (outside of a few deaths in Africa...but hey, the animals!!!)

/facepalm

Dude, birth defects are helping us evolve as a species to form a more perfect universe.

Get with the program.