Tag: Gordon Boyd

In 2000 and 2001, Conservative/"Democratic" Saratoga Springs mayoral candidate Gordon Boyd wrote a series of letters to The Schenectady Gazette explaining his reasoning for opposing the upcoming dredging of the Hudson River. Much of his reasoning, though, appears to be severely misguided and somewhat flawed.

Below is a passage from a letter Boyd wrote on January 14, 2001 in The Gazette, where he attempts to explain why he feels the PCBs pose virtually no severe health risk to the people of our region:

"Until 2070, and probably longer, average concentrations of PCBs in Upper Hudson fish will make them unsafe for unrestricted human consumption. By then, the fishing and consumption restrictions will have been in place for nearly a century.

In short, the "benefit" of dredging the Hudson is this: no foreseeable change in the fishing rules for the lifetimes of most people alive today.

And to be at risk from PCBs you MUST eat the fish; there is no other way. EPA says none of the other ways people could be exposed to the PCBs pose a risk, whether drinking river water, coming in contact with sediments or breathing the air nearby. Only from eating fish, a voluntary activity, easily avoided."

Boyd's reasoning concerning PCB levels in fish appears to be quite a bit off track in regards to the real problem. The levels of PCBs in fish warn us about our health, what happens to the fish has little or nothing to do with it. Since toxins are bio-concentrated as they move up the food chain, we are most at risk, not the fish, which people do eat anyway, by the way, despite the restrictions.

To rebuke Boyd's claim, the FAQ page of the Clearwater website has an informative passage on the continuing consequences the PCBs will likely pose if the status quo continues to be maintained:

"Once bottom-dwelling organisms absorb the material it is passed up the food chain.  Insoluble in water, PCBs are not readily excreted and remain, in ever-increasing concentrations, lodged in the fatty body tissues of fish as they grow. As one consequence, aonce-thriving commercial fishing industry in the Hudson Valley, earningabout $40 million annually, is now all but dead. Almost all of theriver-dwelling fish are migratory, and the effects are such that the New York State Department of Health has issued an advisory telling people to severely limit their consumption, even of fish caught recreationally in
the Hudson."

In addition, extensive EPA studies in 1999 showed that by leaving the contaminated PCBs in the Hudson River, it will only likely lead to increased cancer rates throughout our region.

Here's a passage from "Toxic Flow" by Tim Gordon in the May 4, 2000 Chronogram:

"Last spring, the EPA announced findings that up to 40 percent of the PCBs, as much as half a million pounds, had left the hotspots and migrated into the surrounding ecosystem. They say that their studies show that this will lead to elevated cancer rates, with increased disease most pronounced north of Troy, near the GE plants, where the river ismost contaminated."

Once again, this research makes Boyd's argument that PCBs would only harm people through consumption of the fish another fallacy.

In addition, data currently shows that the current cancer rate (especially colorectal) is already much higher in communities along the Hudson River than in other communities with similar demographics throughout the region. The New York State Department of Health website displays that Hudson River towns, such as Waterford, South Glens Falls, and Schuylerville all experience colorectal cancer incidences at rates much higher than the federal average (and also much higher than the rest of the towns in Saratoga County, for that matter).

Besides this, Boyd also argues that instead of forcing a complete cleanup of the contaminated portions of the river, GE's proposed "source control" program should be used instead:

"The alternative to all this is certainly not to do nothing. No one, not even GE, is proposing that. The company's source control program, costing $200 million and not disrupting the upper Hudson landscape, should go forward. And unless EPA can show the area's communities a better cost-benefit from dredging, it should allow the PCBs to remain in place until and unless a less disruptive, less costly removal technique emerges."

But why shoud we trust GE with their source control program? After all, they were the ones who contaminated the river in the first place. What gives us any evidence that they would do anything differently this time? (Especially when money is at stake)

Boyd even goes on further to attack former Rep. John Sweeney's 2000 Democratic opponent, Kenneth McCallion for his support of dredging:

"Public opinion in upper Hudson communities is firmly against dredging. We know this from, among other sources, this month's election results. Dredging advocate Ken McCallion, running on both Democratic and Green Party lines, received 27 percent of the vote in Washington County, and 29 percent in Warren County against incumbent Republican Congressman John Sweeney, who opposes dredging. Two years ago, Democrat Jean Bordewich, who did not make dredging an issue, received 50 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in Washington and Warren counties."

Boyd's reasoning on public opinion once again appears to be faulty too. For all practical purposes, the substantial drop in the Democratic congressional performance in 2000 in the two counties in question was much more likely related to McCallion being an underfunded, token challenger to Sweeney, and not so much due to dredging issues, as Boyd likes to emphasize. Looking at the 2000 election results, compared to 1998, the Democratic vote margin actually dropped by substantial margins district-wide, and was not just an isolated affair in the two counties most affected by the Hudson River dredging.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

"Saratoga Springs, like many small cities, is run by a cozy group of men, related to each other not by party affiliation, or even profession, but by business interests and opportunistic aspirations. They pay lip service to the principles and values they claim to represent, but sweep aside ant existing restrictions or regulations if they maintain their short term desires, or challenge their power base."

"It would seem obvious that the city Democratic Party would stand by their incumbent elected officials. Not so. Mayor Keehn faces within her own party an entrenched old guard, that has put forward a candidate to challenge her in a primary."

Here's what Ullmann had to say about Boyd's endorsement from the Conservative Party:

"For 30 years, no Republican candidate has won in New York without the support of the Conservative Party. The leaders of the Conservative Party must believe the candidate is really Republican. And he seems like to everything Republican, except the name."