Reports that south tip of Manhattan was built on landfills are disturbing - what about the toxics?

[wordpix]

In all the reports I've listened to all day, no one has stated anything but, "The river is reclaiming places like the Battery in lower Manhattan." I would imagine the river is also reclaiming toxic waste. Is no one concerned?

[Shivering Jemmy]

1. Doesn't necessarily mean what you think

May simply mean sand dumped there.

[wordpix]

2. "landfills" do not say "sand dumping" to me

[HooptieWagon]

4. Considering when it was filled...

Mid to late 1800s? It probably isn't toxic... Just dirt, rock, old building debris, and the like.
A while ago I read a story about a construction site near the Hudson River that uncovered several old wooden ship hulls. Apparrently they had been sunk and filled with debris as the base to extend the shore farther out.

[gkhouston]

7. Wouldn't old building debris include lead? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

13. Probably not. Metal was recycled in olden days.

If a building burned, the ashes would be combed for nails, hinges, hasps, anything that could be reused. If there was any lead, like used for flashing, I'm sure it was salvaged.

[wordpix]

9. hope you're right but large swath of NY/NJ coast is filled with toxics, not to mention landfills

and there are LOTs of landfills that are likely leaching, including those that were filled after WWII

[HooptieWagon]

14. Yes, but not Manhatten.

Probably biggest toxics released during flooding there was from underground fuel tanks and submerged cars.

Outlying areas , NJ like you said, probably have some toxic landfills that could pose a threat.

[Shivering Jemmy]

11. Didn't claim it meant anything to you

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill

A landfill also may refer to ground that has been filled in with rocks instead of waste materials, so that it can be used for a specific purpose, such as for building houses

[bluedigger]

3. That land was reclaimed a couple hundred years ago.

So no, I'm not particularly concerned about the threat of toxics in this case.

[KT2000]

5. toxic materials are most likely leaching

into the water constantly and flooding would increase it. They will not talk about it because they need to protect everyone from liability issues. They will not even warn people because that in itself would open parties to liability.
Toxic events are invisible and the legal system has been worked to protect liable parties.

The damage and illnesses that show up years later will be blamed onslioppy lifestyle habits.

[Cal Carpenter]

6. Toxic materials are always a concern in floods like this

because of fluids in vehicles and other machines (oils, gas, anti-freeze) along with a gazillion other chemicals (cleaning supplies, paint, etc) in stores, shops and factories, residential and commercial garages, and so on.

I don't know that those old landfills would be a specific concern right now though.

[Submariner]

8. During the Boston Harbor cleanup a decade ago

it was decided NOT to dredge out the inner harbor as planned because test dredging and sediment cores showed the sediments to be heavily contaminated with mercury from the hat making business (where the term Mad Hatters came from), and the carcasses and bones from the horse/cow hide tanning business.

The decision was made to leave it all in place and let mother nature build up a sediment layer to cover it rather than re-suspending the toxics in the sediment and polluting every living thing for miles.

I have seen the documentary from the NYC sand hogs operations and I expect lower Manhattan has the same or similar toxicity issues.

[Chorophyll]

10. Built on landfills a hundred years ago or more.

So it may not be the kind of toxic waste you're thinking of.

[brooklynite]

12. These landfills date to the 17th Century.