The Verdict

I believe I speak for almost all of us when I say that it was a sound decision on the government’s part to ban this toxic chemical.

PCBs have certainly given rise to multiple technological advancements; their fluids initially served as plasticizers to thin paints and as dielectric fluids to generate transformers which provide us with power. But ultimately, what are the benefits to societal growth if it’s coupled with the decline of human health and the environment?

When PCB use became heavily controlled under Canada’s Environmental Contaminants Act, the world had already been hit hard by the effects of PCB contamination. You read about what had happened in Japan as well as the results from numerous medical studies (see the Impact section). What would a chemical as potent as that be doing in our everyday products?

If you still feel the industrial growth brought on by PCBs outweighs the damage that ensued, consider this: further developments in chemistry have ensured that PCBs could be replaced with less poisonous alternatives (see the Alternatives section). Banning this chemical will not affect technological progress - this family of organic compounds is now redundant in society.

Thankfully, production of PCBs has ceased, but it doesn't mean that we're shielded from their presence. In order to prevent further adverse effects on human health and the environment, we have to avoid (and in an ideal world, eliminate) the rest of the PCBs which still linger among us: the remnants of the early twentieth-century PCB boom.

Agree or disagree? Comment below.