♪♪

>> Lead funding for "Peril and

Promise"

is provided by Dr. P.

Roy Vagelos and Diana T.

Vagelos.

Major support is provided

by the Marc Haas Foundation.

>> Hello, and thank you

for joining us.

I'm Jim Paymar with the "Long

Island Business Report."

Chemical pollution is pervasive

in Long Island's environment,

from carcinogens

used in manufacturing, cars

and trucks spewing exhaust

into our air,

pesticides sprayed

on crops and yards

and the waste that seeps

into our ground water.

What toll is chemical pollution

taking on our quality of life?

"Peril and Promise"

is an ongoing series of reports

on the human impact of

and solutions

for climate change.

As part of that series,

we're taking a look at chemical

pollution on the island,

and here to talk about this is

Patricia Wood,

executive director of Grassroots

Environmental Education,

and Adrienne Esposito,

executive director

of the Citizens Campaign

for the Environment.

Pat and Adrienne, thank you

so much for being with us today.

Really appreciate it.

>> Thank you for having us.

>> Well, you know, we talk

about chemical pollution.

And, you know, you don't kind of

feel it on a day-to-day basis

unless, you know,

you have one of those

air-pollution-alert days

or, you know, something comes up

in the newspaper where you hear

about some new chemical

in our water supply,

but chemicals are everywhere.

Everything that we do has some

kind of chemical formula in it,

from the clothes

that we're wearing,

the showers that we're taking,

the shampoos we put on our head.

Adrienne, how serious is

chemical pollution on the

island?

>> Well, we really believe that

chemical pollution on the island

is extremely serious,

and I don't believe

that's an overstatement.

As you said, we do have

chemicals in our water.

Our water is treated.

However, we still have

trace amounts of chemicals

in our drinking water.

Forty thousand people drink from

private wells on Long Island,

which means they're not treated.

We also have chemicals

in the air we breathe.

We have pervasive chemicals

in the food.

We -- Suffolk County is

the largest agricultural county

on Long Island, which means

there's a lot of pesticides

applied as well, so

we have constant exposure

of a myriad of different

chemicals, even if

they're in low quantities,

but there are numerous numbers

of them

that we're exposed to.

>> Patricia, you know,

everyone has got their pristine

yard right about now.

>> Right.

>> But when we make our lawns,

you know, green

and flowers are everywhere,

we're also putting a lot

of fertilizer

and other chemicals

into our lawns.

Is that a problem for us?

>> Well, of course it is.

I mean, we're basically living

on a sandbar on Long Island.

So everything that you put

on your lawn, in your gardens

and on your trees and shrubs,

eventually winds up

either into our aquifers --

We have three aquifers

underlying Long Island.

Or it runs off when you have

heavy rainfall

into our surface waters,

our bays and ponds and so on.

But going back to the chemicals,

I mean, there are about

80,000 chemicals that

are registered with the EPA.

>> What?

Say that again.

>> About 80,000 chemicals that

are registered with the EPA,

many of which are untested,

and this is problematic.

>> How does that happen?

>> How does that happen?

It's almost like the fox

guarding the henhouse.

I mean, basically, the EPA

has limited resources.

They don't do a lot

of third-party testing,

so they rely

on the manufacturers

or the chemical industry

to provide them

with testing data.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And basically that's it.

If that testing data shows,

you know, that it's a chemical

that there's no real concern

for human health

or the environment,

it gets an EPA registration

number, and off it goes into

industry.

>> Speaking of human health, I

mean, we're all concerned about

that.

And if we have chemicals

that are kind of intrusive

everywhere, what

is the impact on our health?

Do we have any kind of metrics

that kind of give us a sense of

how serious the problem is,

Adrienne?

>> Well, you've asked the

multi-billion-dollar question,

Jim,

and the straight-up answer

to that is no.

For instance, Pat is saying --

And, absolutely,

we have 80,000 chemicals

that are on the market today.

And the vast majority are not

only not tested,

but they're not tested

when they are found

in combination with each other.

In other words,

if you eat a peach,

which there's about six to eight

different pesticides

on that peach,

nobody knows

what the interaction of those

pesticides are on your body

or a child's body.

It's called the synergistic

effect, simply means

in combination with each other.

Nobody knows what the impact is.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So we don't know,

and ignorance isn't bliss.

Ignorance is dangerous.

And so our jobs,

as environmentalists,

is to limit and restrict

and reduce and hopefully,

one day, eliminate the exposure

to the public in the water,

air and the food we eat.

>> And, Patty,

how are we going to do that?

You mentioned

the EPA a moment ago,

and President Trump is --

I think the reduction

in EPA expenditures

for the proposal

is about 35 percent less than

under the Obama administration.

So if we're not testing

chemicals now,

what does the future look like?

>> Bleak.

And I'm just, you know,

being honest here.

We are, you know, very concerned

about the EPA

and other regulatory agencies

in Washington -- USDA,

the FDA, the FCC,

so on and so on,

that are not being funded.

I mean, prior

to the Trump administration,

we already had questions

about whether or not, you know,

the industry was having

too much influence

on these agencies.

You know, product protection,

you know, or product

preservation is really what

the industry is interested in,

and they're very influential

in Washington as you know.

But you had asked, how do we

know

whether or not we're getting

sick from all these chemicals?

I mean,

if you look at statistics

on children's health,

it really gives you

a very good indication,

and Adrienne mentioned that,

you know, children, especially

children, are vulnerable.

And why is that?

Because of their rapidly

developing bodies

and because, pound for pound,

they take in more of these

chemicals

than we do as adults.

But if you look at

the statistics,

we've had a one percent increase

for the past 25 years

in childhood cancer,

so that's a 25 percent increase

in 25 years.

We have one in five children

with a neurobehavioral

or developmental problem,

ADD, ADHD, learning disorders,

you know, behavioral problems,

autism and so on.

And then we have asthma.

One in seven school children

in America is asthmatic today.

And all of these things are

responses to the environment

that these children

are being brought up in.

>> And weren't we the breast

cancer capital of the country?

>> Well, we still are.

>> We still are?

>> Well, actually, we have a lot

of breast cancer on Long Island.

>> Yes.

>> But, actually,

those numbers have --

We really have to understand

that better.

The place in the United States

that has the highest breast

cancer rate is Marin County,

which is on the other side

of the Golden Gate Bridge

from San Francisco

by a long shot,

and then the state that has

the highest breast cancer

is Connecticut,

and in New York, we have,

by county, the highest level.

So Monroe County,

upstate New York,

is number one for breast cancer

in the state and then Rockland

and then Westchester

and then Nassau and Suffolk.

But if you look at --

Let's say, for instance,

if you compare

Westchester and Nassau,

you'll see that Nassau County

has, what, a million

and some people

living in a land area

one-third the size

of Westchester County,

which has less than

a million people living in it.

So you actually have more people

concentrated on Long Island.

So you're going to see...

>> But I think

the main point is...

>> ...high levels.

>> ...that there's

too much breast cancer.

>> Yeah.

>> You know, to have one

in seven women

get it or one in eight or one

in nine, at some point,

the statistic becomes irrelevant

because the prevalence of cancer

is what is relevant.

And there's not enough money

towards the research.

They're still, you know,

not doing enough on prevention

and prevention of exposure.

And when you look

at the scientific data, Jim,

you can see that many cancers

are related to toxic exposure.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And yet science

is very resistant

to drawing a direct correlation

between somebody's cancer

and their exposure.

But if we look at the chemicals

on Long Island --

I mean, this is

about Long Island.

So if we look at 1,4-Dioxane,

if we look at Hexachromium 6,

if we look at the new chemicals

called PFOAs,

all of the scientific data

associates those chemicals

with liver cancer,

kidney cancer,

thyroid disruption,

hormone disruption, all of that.

And yet when you go to a doctor

or you look at the statistics,

they don't necessarily associate

your exposure

with the disease,

although the science does,

but in practice,

there's still a resistance.

>> You mentioned

1.4-Dioxane.

>> 1,4-Dioxane.

>> I guess

there's a lot of Dioxanes.

>> Yes.

>> And this is just one of them,

and I know that you've been a

champion to limit this

and to stop the input of this

into our atmosphere

on Long Island.

Tell me about the danger.

>> This is a very serious

situation

we have on Long Island.

1,4-Dioxane is a man-made

chemical.

Unfortunately for us, it's found

in 46 percent

of household products,

including shampoos,

dish detergents,

laundry soaps, things like Tide.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Tide Free and Clear

has the highest levels

of 1,4-Dioxane

of any laundry soap.

I guess it's free and clear of

everything except 1,4-Dioxane.

But the importance of this is

that our research shows that,

out of all the drinking

water supplies in America --

And we used EPA data

to come out with this report.

4,400 water supplies were

tested.

Long Island?

The highest levels

of 1,4-Dioxane of anywhere

in the nation.

That's very serious.

>> And what disease

does that cause?

>> 1,4-Dioxane is listed by

the EPA

as a likely human carcinogen.

It's associated with liver

cancer, testicular cancer

and also thyroid disease,

are the three main diseases,

but it also is associated

with others as well,

nasal cavity cancer.

So the problem

is we're drinking it.

We know that.

Some areas have high levels.

Some areas have no detect.

We have an interactive map

on the website,

citizenscampaign.org.

People can go on

and see their area and what was

the highest level detected.

>> And when you take a shower

and this is coming out of your

showerhead

and hitting your skin,

you're absorbing this.

Is that right, Patty?

>> That's correct.

If it's in your water,

even at parts per billion

or parts per million,

you would have some concern

about being in the shower

for any length of time where,

you know, you're in warm water.

So your pores are open,

and so you're absorbing

those chemicals into your body.

Actual skin absorption

is a little bit more problematic

than actually drinking something

because something

that you drink will go

through your digestive system.

When it's absorbed through

your skin, it goes directly

into your bloodstream.

>> I mean, who would ever think

about that?

>> Well, you wouldn't.

>> We do.

>> Yeah.

You know, I wanted to just --

If I could backtrack

your attention,

I mean, 1 second on the

Long Island breast cancer study,

which was actually

the only federally funded study

that was done on the environment

and breast cancer.

It was done several years ago.

And they looked

for three things.

They looked for higher cancer

rates in the presence

of high-tension power lines.

They looked for two different

pesticides, the Chlordane,

which had already been banned,

and DDT,

which had already been banned,

and its breakdown product, DDE.

And the third thing

that they looked at was PAHs,

which are polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, which are key

combustion byproducts.

Anything that's burning creates

PAHs, so it could be, you know,

diesel exhaust, you know,

truck fume, automobiles and so

on burning fuel as well

as cigarette smoke, you know,

backyard barbecues, anything.

So they looked at all three of

those things,

a period of several years

that this breast cancer study

was being conducted, and they

found one positive association,

and that one

positive association

was with PAHs,

or polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons.

So, you know,

you can look at Long Island

and the amount of --

>> There's a correlation.

>> There's a correlation.

Look at the amount of vehicular

traffic on Long Island.

And those women

who were in close proximity

to some of the major

highways on the island

had a higher risk of this.

>> Speaking of

air pollution, you know,

we are

a very car-centric society.

>> You think?

>> Yeah.

I think so.

>> Especially on Long Island.

Yeah.

>> I mean, unless you're coming

into New York, there's really

basically no way to get around.

You know?

>> Right.

And the way

that our railroads

have been operating,

there's really

no other way to get around.

>> And our public

transportation system is...

>> Right.

>> ...very lame.

So this is

why Long Island

has a lot of cars.

>> Well, they started building

the Long Island Railroad

in the 1830s, I believe,

and we're still

using some of the same routes.

>> You'd think they'd be done.

>> But you mentioned

the ozone factor here on

Long Island and air pollution.

I mean, we think we've got

all these crosscurrent

breezes coming from the sound

and coming from the ocean,

but we have an ozone issue here.

>> Yes.

Every year, unfortunately,

Suffolk County

is on an ozone alert,

which means that

for ozone air pollution is --

>> Why Suffolk?

>> Well, you know,

the funny thing is Nassau

doesn't monitor.

So although Suffolk gets a bad

rap,

we actually think it

could be even worse in Nassau,

but they don't monitor.

>> Uh-huh.

>> So I would say it's not

just Suffolk.

Evidence would tell you

that Nassau,

being between Suffolk

and also New York City,

they're going to be just as bad

or perhaps if not worse.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So across Long Island,

I would say here

that we have an ozone problem.

It's a lot of air emissions,

obviously, car, transportation.

You know, we are, as you said,

addicted to our cars.

>> Yeah.

>> But you know what?

I want to give a little bit

of good news on 1,4-Dioxane.

>> Okay.

>> After the release of --

Because I don't want people

to think everything

is gloom and doom.

>> Yeah.

>> There is work

being done on it.

It is being addressed.

The water suppliers have come

together

and said they will filter.

They need some financial help

from the state.

After we released our report,

the governor

and the health department

and the DEC got together,

and they said,

"We will establish a drinking

water standard for this chemical

by the end of the year,

by the end of 2017."

The water suppliers said,

"When it's established, we will

filter the drinking water."

So this is moving expeditiously,

and we're happy to say the state

is responding proactively.

So I don't want people to think

it's just not going to happen.

It is going to happen.

We are making sure

it's going to happen,

and that will be progress.

So we're hoping, by next year,

this chemical will be addressed,

and it will be at least one less

thing for people to worry about.

>> And, Patty, you mentioned

that there were three

major aquifers on Long Island.

>> Right.

>> And we all get --

You know, close to three million

of us draw our water

from those aquifers.

And there are so many water

districts on Long Island,

and everyone is doing

their own thing

and sucking

the water out of the ground.

I mean, how safe

is our water supply?

I mean, we're not having

any kind of Flint, Michigan,

kinds of situations.

But, you know, how safe is it,

you know?

>> Well, we might actually be

having a few Flint, Michigan,

situations,

and that has to do with lead

in the pipes, primarily.

But that's another whole issue

is replacing aging,

you know, distribution pipes

in homes that have been there

for many, many, many years,

and they have lead

solder on them.

>> And schools.

>> And schools, too.

This is also --

Probably the priority

should be to address

that at schools, number one.

>> But how safe

are the aquifers?

>> Well, the aquifers -- Okay.

So we have the Upper

Glacial Aquifer,

which is the most shallow

aquifer, the closest,

you know, to the surface,

and this aquifer

is so highly polluted

in some places

that we don't even allow people

to irrigate their lawns with it

or water their lawns with it.

So what's in it?

Well, you know, we've got human

waste,

you know, from septic systems

and cesspools.

We have pesticides

and fertilizers,

a lot of talk

about pesticides on Long Island.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> This is something

that is crazy.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> I mean, when you can have

a perfectly beautiful lawn

without the use of any chemical

inputs, why wouldn't you do it

when you're putting your water

supply at risk?

And then you've got, you know,

industry.

You've got industry

on Long Island.

We have some, you know,

pretty significant plumes

of chemicals coming off industry

like the Northrop Grumman site,

Lake Success,

the Sperry Rand site.

And these things are --

You know, they're primarily

in the Upper Glacial Aquifer,

but, you know,

things move downward

all the time, so it's not

only in the Upper Glacial.

We're beginning to see it

in the middle aquifer,

which is the Magothy Aquifer,

which is where we get,

by the way,

most of our water from

on Long Island.

>> Eighty percent

on Long Island.

>> Eighty percent is

from the Magothy.

>> But Grumman has been closed

for decades.

>> Well, yeah.

But these things are --

You know, these are legacy

chemicals

just like the chemical

that we were using for --

Aldicarb we were using

on potato farms out on

the north fork of Long Island.

I mean, those chemicals

are still in the water.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> They're very persistent.

We find them in the soil.

We still find them in water,

especially in wells,

private wells and so on.

>> What about people's

recognition

of these problems,

especially in government?

Do you see that the local

governments,

county governments, state

governments are taking action?

>> Well, I will say it's better.

I mean, as someone who's been

doing this work 3 decades,

it's better than it was.

So there has been a growing

awareness

and a growing willingness

to tackle these problems.

You know, I have to give county

executive Steve Bellone credit.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> He's made protection

of drinking water

one of his top priorities.

That's a good thing.

You know, we are one of the only

places that call ourselves

a developed nation, and yet,

particularly in Suffolk County,

70 percent

of us still have septic tanks,

which means we're mixing

sewage, untreated,

with our drinking water supply.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You don't do that

in a developed nation.

So it's not just sewage.

It's all those household

hazardous chemicals

that go into the septic tank.

Those are volatile

organic chemicals,

the toxics that mix with the

drinking water,

pharmaceutical drugs,

household, you know, products.

So we have a lot of work to do.

We really do.

But I will say I've seen

a little bit of the ship turn

with the mentality

of elected officials

to being willing to address

this very critical issue.

>> But we're talking about

billions of dollars

to retrofit

everyone from a septic tank

and to re-create the

sewage system, aren't we, Pat?

>> Yeah, we are.

We're talking about...

>> And where's the money

coming from?

>> ...a whole lot of money.

>> We seem broke.

>> Well, it's --

You know, the state actually

stepped up to the plate

and has really recognized

Long Island's water problem

as something that they need

to address,

and you can thank some of our,

you know, state senators

and assembly people

who have also been pushing

very hard for it in Albany.

So there is that recognition,

and the governor has,

you know, actually put

some serious funding into this.

>> $2.5 billion dollars.

>> That's a lot of money.

>> That's right.

>> But not just for Long Island?

>> No.

But there's a category in there,

$75 million just

for septic replacement systems,

the bulk of which will

end up going to Long Island.

>> But that's minuscule though

in terms of the raw numbers

that you just talked about.

>> Well, we call it

a beginning, Jim.

>> A beginning?

>> It's a beginning.

>> Okay.

>> We can't solve this problem

in 1 year.

>> I just think that --

You know, I think, first of all,

Long Islanders

need to be educated.

If you ask the average person

on the street,

"Where does your water come

from?" they really do not know.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> They will give you

every answer under the sun

besides

ground water or aquifers.

>> Right.

>> They really don't know

where it comes from.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And they really don't

understand

that everything that goes down

every drain in their home

is having an impact

on the quality of their

drinking water

because, you know, it's gone.

It's that mentality.

You know, it goes down

the drain, and it's gone.

>> But I don't want

to blame the public.

I think...

>> No one will blame the public.

>> ...elected officials

can still take action.

>> Right.

But the public

needs to be educated.

They need to understand

because I think that,

you know, every time

we have an opportunity

to speak to, you know,

large groups of people,

they're like, "Oh, my goodness.

What can we do? What can we do?

We don't want to" -- You know?

So if the public was educated

about their drinking water,

the source

of their drinking water,

on all the different

contaminants

that Adrienne just mentioned

that go down drains,

you know, personal care products

and cleaning products and so on,

people are going to take action,

and I think that we need

to really look at the source.

I mean, there are alternatives

to those toxic products,

the cleaning products

and the personal care products,

that actually will do no harm,

that don't contain chemicals

that will create 1,4-Dioxane,

chemicals

that will be listed on the label

as, you know, something that has

an ending oleth or leth.

Those chemicals have a higher,

you know, predictability

of creating

this very dangerous chemical.

And by the way, you can't filter

it in your own filtering system.

You can't use a reverse osmosis

or a distillation system

or a structured matrix

because people

call us all the time and say,

"What kind of filter do I need?

What kind of filter

do I need to filter out

1,4-Dioxane in my house?"

And I'm like, "You can't do it."

>> So that $350 filter I buy

every year doesn't work?

>> Not good for the 1,4-Dioxane.

Sorry.

>> You know, let me say this.

Look.

It's a multifaceted approach.

We do need the state's help,

and I appreciate

the $2.5 billion

in the state budget.

We worked very hard

with a coalition

of groups for that funding.

We worked very hard to get

75 million for septic

replacements,

20 million to replace lead pipes

at schools.

All of that is a beginning.

We didn't get into this problem

overnight.

We're not going to get out

overnight.

But we also need the public

to be educated so that

they can make the right choices

but also hold

elect officials accountable.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> We don't have

enough of that on Long Island.

We need more of it.

The more public engagement

we have, the more

sustainable the change will be.

>> What about corporate

responsibility in all of this?

>> Well, it's another big thing.

Let's look at the Navy plume.

The Navy, for years, rejected

responsibility for cleaning up

the most toxic plume

on Long Island.

>> Which is where?

>> Which is right --

It's called the Bethpage plume,

but it's going down,

and it's threatening the

Massapequa

drinking water supply wells,

which supply water

for 200,000 people.

>> Wow.

>> So, you know, we really

have a great threat there,

and corporations and government

agencies

need to take responsibility,

fund the cleanup,

not the cheap cleanup

but the more comprehensive

and expedited cleanup

because it matters.

>> Well, what about this whole

issue

of environment versus jobs,

if we start cutting back

too much on what we do

in terms of industrial

production

and creation of chemicals,

that this is going

to cost American jobs?

>> Well, I think

the 1970s called,

and they want their myth back.

It's a myth.

It was a myth in the '70s,

and it's a myth today.

Clean environment means

a healthy public,

which means good jobs,

good jobs, tourism.

What's the biggest economic

generator on Long Island?

Tourism.

>> And I think the bottom line

is that

if you keep a healthy population

that we're not going to drive

our health insurance rates

through the roof

because people are going to be

staying out of the hospitals

and out of the doctors'

offices, right, Patty?

>> Right.

And all of these things

that could be put in place

to help protect the environment,

that could help,

you know, clean up, these are

all job creators as well.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And renewable energy,

huge job creator,

I mean, huge.

More when they --

If you look at the statistics,

and some of the statistics

are very promising,

they look like you could create

more jobs

in the renewable energy sector

than in the fossil fuel sector.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And we need to be careful

of a couple things

that I wanted to mention also,

and that is a lot --

When you talked about industry,

the energy industry

is really promoting

going to clean gas,

okay, converting your oil burner

to a gas-burning system.

Well, gas is a fossil fuel,

and when you look at it

from cradle to grave,

it actually is more polluting

than gas

or than oil or coal.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And so we have

kind of a ramp-up,

you know, with fracking,

which has created a lot

of gas, natural gas,

and so the energy companies are

saying, "Convert, convert,

convert, convert."

>> And it's cheaper

for the energy companies.

>> Cheaper at the moment...

>> Currently.

>> ...currently.

And it does burn cleaner,

but everything else about it

is dirtier,

does more destruction

to the environment,

has more environmental

health impacts on humans.

>> And if it's airborne and we

get,

you know, a lot of rainfall,

it ends up getting

into the aquifers itself, right?

>> Well, it can get into

the aquifers

but also into our estuaries.

I mean, a lot of people

don't know this,

but the second leading cause of

nitrogen into Long Island Sound

is actually from power plants

in the Midwest,

and we're in the airshed,

and it gets deposited.

>> Right.

>> So, you know,

that's another way

of working the issue.

>> So, you know, if you had

to kind of give me your

optimistic viewpoint

going forward, I mean,

are we doing the right things?

Are we moving

in the right direction?

Thirty seconds each.

>> Well, I would say

we're starting to.

We see a lot of work being done

to replace septics,

upgrade sewage treatment plants.

We live on Long Island,

I believe, because

we love living by the water.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> We live by the bays.

We have to clean them up.

That is good for our economy.

It's good for our health,

our home values,

but also I see elected officials

now paying attention,

coming to meetings,

making better choices.

And the public is engaged.

That makes me hopeful.

>> Okay.

And, Patty, Scott Pruitt running

the EPA and the big cutbacks

in Washington, D.C.

>> She wanted that question.

>> Is the state going

to be able to counteract this?

>> Somewhat.

You know, it depends

on the issue.

I'm a little bit less optimistic

about the future,

environmental future.

I think that corporations

and industry

need to step up

to the plate and understand

that some of their products,

some of the industries

that are supplying power

and energy,

have to understand the human

health impact,

and they don't at the moment.

They are still companies.

You know, their bottom line is

what's very important to them.

Their stockholders are,

you know, who they are

delivering to.

And when it's been pointed out,

when they've been in court,

when they, you know, have been

called to testify

and they have heard it all,

it's very hard for me

to let them sit there

and say, "We don't

find any problem with this."

>> So a little murky here.

>> Little murky.

>> We don't really know where

things are going,

but

some good things are happening.

>> Yes.

>> There is some funding,

and people are becoming

more cognizant and more educated

about some of the problems.

Hopefully, we can resolve them

and keep ourselves healthy.

>> Hopefully, they'll all

watch your show.

>> Hopefully.

Okay.

Well, listen.

Thanks so much

for being with us.

I really appreciate it.

>> Thank you.

>> And that wraps up

our conversation

about chemical pollution

on Long Island.

To learn more about "Peril and

Promise," please visit

perilandpromise.org.

And for more on the "Long

Island Business Report,"

log on to our website.

You can also find us on Facebook

and join the conversation

on Twitter.

I'm Jim Paymar.

Thank you for joining us

for this edition of the

"Long Island Business Report,"

and we'll see you next time.

>> Lead funding for "Peril and

Promise"

is provided by Dr. P.

Roy Vagelos and Diana T.

Vagelos.

Major support is provided

by the Marc Haas Foundation.

♪♪

♪♪