By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The proposed Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Merrimack is situated within a contamination zone known for problematic PFAS chemicals in both soil and water, linked to past industrial operations. These “forever chemicals” pose health risks, and while public water utilities are addressing contamination, private wells have shown significantly higher levels than state standards. Local officials are raising concerns about zoning regulations and the potential impact on the town’s Aquifer Conservation District, with federal agencies often having the ability to override local zoning ordinances for detention facilities. This situation mirrors other proposed detention centers across the country that have been located near environmental toxins.
Read the original article here
The proposed location for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire, is situated squarely within a known PFAS contamination zone, raising significant concerns about the health and safety of both detainees and staff. It’s a troubling intersection of environmental hazard and human rights issues, prompting questions about why such a site would even be considered.
The widespread presence of PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” is a known issue throughout southern New Hampshire, with the Merrimack Valley area being particularly affected, leading to extensive public discussion and even legal action. The fact that this specific site falls within such a contaminated area is not a minor detail; it’s a critical factor that directly impacts the viability and ethical considerations of building any facility there.
If the area is deemed unsafe for the general public due to PFAS contamination, the logical and immediate question arises: why would it be considered safe for individuals held in detention? The chemicals in question, PFAS, are persistent and have been linked to a range of serious health problems, including reproductive issues, developmental delays in children, increased cancer risk, and compromised immune systems. This is not a negligible concern; these are profound, life-altering health risks.
The scientific evidence is quite stark. Studies have indicated that even rainwater in many parts of the world now contains unsafe levels of PFAS, far exceeding recommended health advisories. The logarithmic scale used in presenting some data means that visual representations can even understate the severity of the contamination. The implications are that virtually no corner of the environment is untouched by these pervasive chemicals, and by extension, very few people are spared from exposure.
The long-term effects of PFAS exposure are well-documented. Scientific reviews highlight associations between exposure to specific PFAS compounds and various adverse health outcomes, including liver disease, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental effects, and cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized that for some widely used PFAS, there is no safe level of exposure. This reality makes the prospect of housing people, vulnerable or otherwise, in a contaminated area deeply disturbing.
Moreover, the recent finalization of new limits on six PFAS in drinking water by the EPA, requiring public water systems to monitor by 2027, underscores the growing awareness and concern surrounding these chemicals. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as thousands of PFAS compounds exist, and more are expected to be identified as dangerous. The implications for a detention facility, where individuals are by definition confined and have limited recourse, are particularly dire.
The notion that ICE would place individuals, or even staff, in a location known for toxic contamination raises ethical questions about the value placed on human life. The argument that they might build a building to “protect” them from the contamination only holds water if that protection is absolute and comprehensive, which is a high bar given the nature of PFAS. The cynical interpretation, however, is that such facilities are designed with the implicit understanding that the suffering of those within is a secondary, if not primary, consideration.
The selection of cheap land, especially land with existing environmental liabilities, appears to be a driving factor. This approach suggests a calculated decision to offload undesirable property onto a government agency, likely at a taxpayer’s expense. The underlying sentiment in these discussions points towards a deliberate choice to prioritize cost savings over human well-being, leading to accusations that the cruelty is indeed the point.
The comparison to “concentration camps” and the discussion of “gas chambers” might seem extreme, but they highlight the deep-seated anger and revulsion felt by many when contemplating the potential for deliberate harm. The idea of using PFAS-laden water, effectively a slow poisoning through “forever chemicals,” instead of more immediate methods, speaks to a chilling level of calculated indifference or even malice.
The argument that the contamination is widespread, even in everyday items like non-stick cookware or fast-food wrappers, doesn’t mitigate the concern; it merely illustrates the pervasive nature of the problem. However, a detention facility represents a concentrated exposure scenario, a situation where individuals are forced into prolonged, unavoidable contact with the contaminated environment. The levels of PFAS in such a location are likely far worse than in consumer products, leading to a significantly higher risk of developing serious health complications.
Ultimately, the proposed location for the ICE facility in Merrimack, sitting as it does within a PFAS contamination zone, presents a formidable ethical and public health challenge. The decision to proceed with such a plan, given the known risks, signals a troubling disregard for the well-being of both the detained population and the staff who would work there, raising profound questions about justice, environmental stewardship, and the basic principles of human dignity.