Together EPA and the Water Environment Federation
(WEF), with its 40,000 membership involved with waste water
treatment, have put together, under the expert guidance of
the blue chip public relations firm, Powell Tate, a plan
called Biosolids 2000. The purpose of this plan is to gain
worldwide acceptance of toxic sludge as a fertilizer by
local governments, farmers, and the public (us) by the year
2000. If this plan to market a dirty product succeeds there
will be many more victims. While any one could be victim, it
is more likely that it will be our children, or grand-
children or our elderly parents who will be the next victims.
In their investigation of this public relations campaign
of the EPA/WEF, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, authors of
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, say it "revealed a murky tangle
of corporate and government bureaucracies, conflicts of
interest, and a coverup of massive hazards to the environment
and human health." According to these authors, "The trail
began with the Water Environment Federation--formerly known
as the "Federation of Sewage Works Associations"--and led
finally to Hugh Kaufman, the legendary whistleblower at the
hazardous site control division of the Environmental
Protection Agency." They say Kaufman, who exposed the
corruption in the EPA during the Reagan administration, which
led to the fall of Anne Burford, the EPA Administrator, is
"attempting to raise a similar alarm about the so-called
beneficial use" of sewage sludge, a boondoggle he refers to
as 'sludge-gate'...the mother lode of toxic waste." (p. 101)
When Stauber and Rampton were researching the use of
public relations in the marketing of sewage sludge for their
book, Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, they requested that the
WEF/EPA provide copies of its strategy documents, memos,
opinion surveys, and other material from Powell Tate, the PR
firm handling the promotion. When they refused to
voluntarily produce the documents, Stauber and Rampton were
forced to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the
federal government before they were given some of the
documents by EPA. Legally Stauber and Rampton were entitled
to these all of the documents, since both the WEF and EPA
receive taxpayer funding.
In looking through the documents Stauber and Rampton
finally received, it became obvious why the EPA/WEF were
reluctant for Stauber and Rampton to obtain them. They
revealed a shocking story of how the EPA/WEF with the help of
Powell Tate, were mounting a major campaign to foist toxic
sewage sludge, with a name change to biosolids, upon an
unsuspecting public (you and I). This campaign by the public
relations hucksters makes it very difficult for us to avoid
the dangers from the pollutants in sludge which includes
deadly disease-causing organisms (i.e., Salmonella, E-coli,
Listeria, etc.), organic chemicals (i.e., dioxins and PCBs)
heavy metals (i.e., lead, cadmium, arsenic), and in some
cases even radioactive materials like plutonium).
Taxpayers' money is funding this EPA/WEF scam, Biosolids
2000, where the public (you and I) is being deceived through
written material and presentations by selected spokespersons
that sewage sludge called biosolids is both safe and
beneficial for land application. The name and definition of
the very term biosolids is a coverup although Pete Machno who
came up with the idea for the name change told Stauber and
Rampton "It was not intended to cover something up or hide
something from the public." What else is it but a coverup?
Although biosolids is simply another name for sewage
sludge, it is being touted as a new product--defined as a
nutrient-rich organic byproduct of the nation's wastewater
treatment process. According to Powell Tate, "A powerful
message can be communicated that biosolids represent an
advance in technology and are a totally new, environmentally
friendly product." They say "For the campaign to succeed,
there needs to be a clear delineation between the new,
improved product and the old." Evidently when Powell Tate
wrote their communications plan, EPA, as a whole, had not
adopted the term biosolids to replace sewage sludge.
Why else would Powell Tate say this is one of the
obstacles in the promotion of biosolids. "Since the term
"sludge: carries many negatives, EPA's use of the term
"sewage sludge" instead of "biosolids" may neutralize the
agency's efforts to gain widespread acceptance of the term
biosolids," they say. The National Research Council (NRC)
did not use the term biosolids as a substitute for sludge in
their study Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop
Production which was commissioned by the EPA in 1993. In the
Preface of the study, they stated, "The committee focused
primarily on the issues surrounding the use of treated
municipal wastewater effluents and treated sludge in food
crop production..." Not all the members of the WEF were in
favor of the name change either. J. Patrick Nicholson, CEO
of N-Viro International wrote in a November 7, 1995 letter to
John Stauber, "As one who has long believed that changing the
name from sludge to bio-solids was stupid, there is much in
Joel's article and your book with which we agree."
Before writing their Communication Plan for the WEF/EPA
promotion of sewage sludge (biosolids), Powell Tate conducted
over 100 interviews with national and regional opinion
leaders on issues relating to biosolids and sludge. Their
research showed that they had a real problem on their hands
in trying to sell this product to the public. As they wrote
in their report entitled Research Findings, July, 1993
"Indeed sludge has such negative connotations for the great
majority of respondents that as long as biosolids are viewed
as the same or even similar product, building support for
land application will be difficult." (p. 2)
Powell Tate recommended two main strategies to overcome
public resistance to the use of sludge on land.
The first strategy was to target "gatekeepers"
They define "gatekeepers" as individuals and organizations
who are asked by the public for their opinion on an issue
because of the expertise, authority or position." They say,
"Not only does the public look to them for their opinion on
an issue, but they are used as sources of information by
other gatekeepers--such as the media--when they, in turn,
sort out and form their opinions." Their list of gatekeeper
audiences includes (1) Academics/agricultural scientists,
(2) Water qualilty professionals, (3) Public health
officials, (4) Agricultural groups/farming representatives,
(5) Environmentalists, (6) Regulatory officials, and (7)
Media. Powell Tate selected these gatekeepers for "their
ability to help us address one or more of the obstacles
outlined in the section on strategic imperatives. For
example, public health officials lend credibility to messages
concerning health, agricultural experts can address questions
about scientific research, and environmentalists bring
support for environmental messages." (p. 21) They stressed
that "Educating gatekeepers on biosolids recycling,
therefore, is a critical first step."
The gatekeepers attention is to be diverted from the
product, sewage sludge, to the process recycling which is the
second strategy of Powell Tate. From their research they soon
realized that if EPA/WEF were going to be successful in
selling sludge (biosolids) for land application, they had to
shift the focus from the product to the process. They said "A
key contributor to resistance about biosolids land
application is the nature of the product itself.
Consequently, a second strategy, to be reflected in the
messages, is to play down the product itself (biosolids) and
focus attention, on the process (biosolids recycling)."
(p.13).
The recycling strategy was a clever ploy because as
Powell Tate said "recycling has many positive connotations
for the audiences we want to reach as well as the general
public, therefore we want to pair it with biosolids [sewage
sludge] as much as possible." (p. 15) In many local
communities there are designated places where residents bring
paper, glass, tin, and aluminum for recycling. Science
teachers often involve their classes in recycling projects.
The recyling theme is to be emphasized throughout the PR
campaign in either the written material for distribution or
in the presentations of chosen spokespersons.
Although Powell Tate recommended a full blown media
relations campaign with media tours around the United States,
press conferences, press releases, an op-ed placement program
and other activities, there was no funding for such a media
blitz. In place of the costly media campaign, EPA/WEF
adopted Powell Tate's suggestion that they assemble an
information kit complete with a 8 to 10 minute video,
brochure and information sheets to give to a "highly targeted
media list of food, agriculture, environmental, consumer, and
health reporters as well as other gatekeepers (individuals
and organizations who because of their expertise, authority
or position become an information resource for the public on
an issue)". (p. 40) They recommended that carefully edited
clips of the video be developed into B-roll and distributed
to the broadcast media. B-roll is footage used by television
as "filler" for news stories and is usually labeled as "file
film" when shown. For radio, they say, we can produce and
feed radio stations 60-90 second soundbites (called
"actualities") of spokespersons audio used in the video.
These actualities are then edited by the stations into radio
news stories. They further suggested that the B-roll and
actualities be produced and distributed in place of the
proposed audio and video public service announcements...
"Since B-roll and actualities are used in news broadcasts,
they have much greater credibility than PSAs sponsored by an
interest group," they say. (p. 26)
The audiovisual materials for the kits were to be
tailored to each region of the country with regional
spokespersons (farmers, scientists, public health officials)
providing testimonials to sewage sludge safety and beneficial
reuse to provide what Powell Tate refer to as "a down home
community feel so that people will be comfortable with
biosolids recycling."
Although the total kit was only sent to selected
persons, the brochure and information sheets were available
to the public. Two of the information sheets were developed
to extoll the beneficial recycling of sewage sludge. WEF
information sheets followed the Powell Tate recommendation.
The title of the first information sheet proclaims in capital
letters "Biosolids Recycling and Beneficial Use." In this
sheet, biosolids is defined (a nutrient-rich organic material
resulting from the treatment of wastewater) and its
beneficial use is stressed. The title of the second sheet is
also in capital letters "Biosolids Recycling: Replenishing
the Earth." The message contained in this sheet is that
biosolids [sewage sludge] benefits the environment mainly "by
recycling a valuable resource rich in nitrogen, phosphorus
and other nutrients and promoting sustainable agriculture and
replenishing that which is taken out of the earth".
Although there is nutrient value in sludge, there are
other aspects of sludge not mentioned in the promotional
literature that negates its value when compared with
commercial fertilizers. In the first place, treated sludges
range from about 1 to 6 percent nitrogen on a dry weight
basis (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) compared with 11 to 82 percent
in commercial fertilizers (Lorenz and Maynard, 1988) and
between 0.8 and 6.1 percent phosphorus (Metcalf and Eddy,
1991; Smith, 1973) compared with between 8 and 24 percent in
commercial fertilizers (Lorenz and Maynard, 1988).
While the nutrient properties in commercial fertilizers
can be formulated to suit the crop requirements, plant
nutrients in sludge can not be so controlled. This creates a
problem because when sludge is applied to satisfy the
requirement for one nutrient, levels of other nutrients may
either be excessive or deficient. According to the National
Research Council report, Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in
Food Crop Production, published in 1996, when sludge with the
nitrogen requirement is applied at a rate of 10 metric tons
per ha, available phosphorus may be excessive in many areas,
which could increase the risk of surface water contamination.
Another problem noted by the NRC is that the organic
forms of both nitrogen and phosphorus must be mineralized by
microorganisms before they are plant-available. This may take
more than a year. Unlike the organic forms, the inorganic
forms are available to the crops when they are first land
applied. If organic nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization
are not accounted for, then overfertilization can occur that
can lead to leaching. One of the dangers of
overfertilization of nitrogen, according to Asano and
Pettygrove (1987) as referenced in the NRC report, is that it
can cause excessive growth, reduce crop yield, and encourage
weed growth (p. 64) In this same report, the findings of
Bouwer and Idelovitch, 1987 were cited showing that excess
nitrogen has harmed the yield and crop quality of tomatoes,
potatoes, citrus and grapes. (p. 64)
What the reports do not say is that crops grown on soil
with excess nitrogen are very dangerous to both humans and
animals. Nitrate poisoning from hay grown on municipal owned
farms have killed animals from North Carolina on the east
coast to California on the west coast. According to Tim
Moran's article in the Modesto (CA.) Bee, dated July 7, 1996,
the City of Atwater, California was cited by the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board after 13 cows on two
different farms died from nitrate poisoning after eating hay
grown on the City's sludge disposal farm. The City's farm,
operated by Metcalf Eddy Services, had received 238 pounds of
nitrogen in excess of the crop requirements. Oats, alfalfa
and sudan grass are grown on the farm.
Lois Carson and Manuel and Ilda discovered that no one
would accept responsibility for the poisoned hay. While
Metcalf Eddy Services operates the treatment plant and farm
under contract, the City of Atwater is responsible for
compliance with the regulations during the operation of the
treatment plant and sludge farm. The City is also
responsible for selling the contaminated hay to the two
farmers who lost their cattle. Yet, the City claims it was
not negligent and denied both farmer's claims.
Ultimately we as consumers and land owners bear the
responsibility and the liability for the government's
actions. We have to remember that oats are not just for
cattle feed, they are also grown for human consumption.
Recently, Salmonella was discovered in toasted oat breakfast
cereal in the midwest. If heat resistant bacteria is not
enough to be concerned about, how much excess nitrates in
your breakfast cereal does it take to affect the health of
your child?
When sludge is applied to land not only will there be an
increase of nutrients but also an increase in the level of
toxic heavy metals, toxic organic chemicals and pathogens
that can contaminate water and food crops. Nine toxic heavy
metals are the only pollutants acknowledged under the Part
503 sludge rule.
In spite of the media hype to the contrary, recycling
human waste and industrial waste isn't like recyling aluminum
cans and newspapers. By passing biosolids off as a benign
user-friendly product, without revealing that it is full of
the same harmful deadly pollutants as sewage sludge, is
deception of the highest order both to the gatekeepers and we
the public. EPA even uses deception in describing the affect
of a pollutant on humans. In the eyes of EPA, the public has
become organisms and as we saw in Chapter 1, individuals are
no longer considered to be a part of the general public.
In the Part 503 sludge rule EPA defines a pollutant as:
An organic substance, an inorganic substance, a
combination of organic and inorganic substances, or a
pathogenic organism that, after discharge and upon
exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into an
organism either directly from the environment or
indirectly by ingestion through the food-chain, could,
on the basis of information available to the
Administrator of EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological
malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction) or
physical deformations in either organisms or offspring
of the organisms. [i.e., parents or children]
Although EPA acknowledges organic substances are
pollutants which can cause cancer, genetic problems, birth
defects and even death through the food-chain, they were
deleted by the EPA from consideration in the Part 503 sludge
policy rule.
EPA also deleted the word toxic from the regulation.
Yet, according to EPA, toxicity is the fourth common
characteristic of a hazardous waste. The effects of toxicity
poisoning are exactly the same as those described for a
pollutant, they include death, cancer, genetic defects,
mental defects, physical defects as well as birth defects.
The individual or combined effect of toxic contamination by
disease organisms and chemicals may be quick acting or slow
acting, causing either acute or chronic health problems.
The organic chemicals that are present in sludge or
sludge-amended soils can accumulate in animals and humans
causing serious adverse health effects (i.e. toxicity).
Among these are the hydrocarbons, (e.g.,benezene and
toulene), and the halogenated hydrocarbons, especially the
chlorohydrocarbons (PCBs and dioxins).
Benzene, a clear, flammable, poisonous, aromatic liquid,
which is used as a solvent and in making a vast number of
derivatives used in plastics, insecticides, detergents,
paints, dyes, etc., may cause cancer and mutations. It causes
anemia and leukemia. Toulene is a color-less, noncorrosive,
volatile liquid which is used as a gasoline additive, a
solvent for model glues, paints, inks, resins, and adhesives.
It is also used in the manufacture of detergents, dyes,
lacquers, linoleum, perfumes, pharmaceuticals, saccharine and
TNT. It can aggravate the respiratory tract, depress the
central nervous system and damage the liver and kidneys.
There is inconclusive evidence that it causes cancer. Model
glue is composed mostly of toulene. If the glue is
intentionally sniffed, malfunctions of the nerves that
control movement and irregular heart rate can result; in some
cases, it may even lead to death.
When scientists added atoms of halogens--chlorine,
bromine and iodine--to hydrocarbons they created new
chemicals--the dangerous halogenated hydrocarbons. When
chlorine is combined with hydrocarbons, the most toxic of all
halogenated hydrocarbons are created--the chlorohydrocarbons
like PCBs, and dioxins. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are used in
pesticides such as the infamous DDT, dieldrin, chlordane and
endrin. Trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene are used as
degreasing agents and industrial solvents. Vinyl chloride and
polyvinyl chloride plastic are also made from chlorinated
hydrocarbons as is pentachlorophenol, a wood preservative
used to resist termites. When chlorine is combined with
benzene and oxygen, the most deadly of all chemicals is
formed--dioxin. The most dangerous of all the dioxins is
2,3,78-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Dioxin, which occurs in the environment in quantities too
small to be detected by either its appearance or odor, is
thought to be one of the most toxic of all the chemicals ever
made by humans. Although there are a number of different
types of dioxin, the most dangerous is TCDD. Dioxin is an
unavoidable by-product in the manufacture of certain
herbicides such as 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange). It is
inadvertently formed when paper is bleached with chlorine.
It is also formed when organic wastes that contain chlorine
are burned. Animal studies reveal that exposure to dioxin can
cause various types of cancers, liver and kidney ailments,
birth defects, and fetal death in domestic and wild animals.
Although the effects of dioxin is less certain for
humans, exposure to low levels over long periods of time may
cause cancer. Exposure to as little as one-billionth of an
ounce of dioxin can cause chloracne. Dioxins can persist for
years in soil. They accumulate in tissues. Trace levels have
been found in the blood, fatty tissues, and breast milk of
humans and animals. Because of the presence of dioxin in
breast milk, there is concern for the infants whose diet
consists mainly of this source of food. Bottle-fed babies
are also at risk because dioxins are also found in cow's
milk. Recent studies suggest that Dioxin disrupts hormones,
impairs reproduction and weakens the immune system.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which are mixtures of
some seventy chlorinated hydrocarbons are also highly toxic.
They were created when chlorine was combined with
hydrocarbons known as phenols. PCBs in the form of toxic,
colorless, odorless liquids, were used as insulating fluids
in electrical transformers and in the production of ink,
adhesives, copying paper, and lubricating oil. According to
Hare, Holdren, Schneider and Shirley, authors of Toxics A to
Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards, PCBs in laboratory
studies produce "a variety of unwanted effects in diverse
test animals." (p. 383) The guide states:
PCBs can cross the placenta and are toxic to the embryo,
causing numerous adverse reproductive effects,
particularly increased stillbirths, spontaneous
abortions, and fetal absorptions. They also affect
survival in weanlings in rodents, monkeys, and mink. In
addition, following exposure to PCBs, the immune system
of rodents is suppressed; chickens exhibit changes in
the liver and edema in the young; and skin lesions are
produced in several species of animals besides humans,
including primates, horses and cattle.
In Toxic Threat: How Hazardous Substances Poison Our
Lives, Stephen Zipko, reports on animal experiments that
showed when PCBs were given to experimental animals, rats and
monkeys, there was cancer, miscarriages and infant mortality.
In the rat experiment, when rats were fed 100 ppm of PCBs in
their diet for twenty-one months, about 14 percent developed
some type of cancer; most had liver cancer. Only one of the
control rats who were not fed the PCBs developed cancer. In
the monkey experiment, when two groups of female monkeys were
fed PCBs, one 5 ppm, and the other 2.5 ppm for six months and
then mated with males, who were not fed the PCBs, only one of
the eight females given the highest dose gave birth. Of the
remaining seven fed 5 ppm, two never became pregnant and five
had miscarriages. Of the eight female monkeys fed 2.5 ppm,
five gave birth but to very tiny infants and three had
miscarriages. Three babies, out of the six babies who nursed
for four months, died. Others showed chloracne, abnormally
high activity, and problems in learning simple tasks. In
three months the nursing babies had reached the same
contamination levels as their mothers.
Although we do not know for sure the long-term effects
of PCBs on humans, on the basis of animal tests, they are
classified as a probable human carcinogen. They can be
absorbed by the digestive tract, skin and lungs. In humans
they seem to produce an array of health effects--birth
defects, endocrine-disruption, chloracne, headaches, nausea,
loss of hair, fatigue, numbness, and liver problems. PCBs
are persistent, they do not biodegrade, and they are fat
soluble so they biomagnify through food webs. Nearly everyone
has been exposed to PCBs through consumption of water or
contaminated foods, especially fish and probably waterfowl.
Poultry, eggs and milk have also been contaminated with PCBs.
They are also found in cow's milk and in human breast-milk.
Perchloroethylene, or PCE, which is a widely-used dry-
cleaning chemical in the United States is a colorless, heavy
liquid which has been classified by the EPA as a probable
human carcinogen. Toxics A to Z describes other effects from
PCE exposure. According to them "liver, kidney, and central
nervous system effects have been observed in people exposed
to PCE in the workplace." (p. 413) PCE enters the body
through inhalation and ingestion and through the skin. Like
PCBs, PCE tends to accumulate in body fat and has been found
in human breast milk.
Trichloroethylene, or TCE, which is a colorless,
volatile liquid solvent, is considered a probable human
carcinogen. In animal studies, there was an increase of liver
and lung cancers in rats and mice exposed to the TCE. Other
effects from exposure to TCE include headaches, fatigue,
irritability, memory loss, and depression. Cirrhosis of the
liver may occur from extended exposure. When people who want
a high inhale it, death can occur. According to Toxics A to
Z, "Most of the TCE produced eventually ends up in the
environment. It is widely distributed in the air, water, and
soil of most industrialized nations." (p. 420) The guide also
points out "TCE is the most frequently detected contaminant
of groundwater" (p. 420) and that it has also been "detected
in low concentrations in food such as beverages, dairy
products, fruits, vegetables, edible oils and fats, and
marine fish" (p. 420) According to Toxics A to Z, although
TCE does not cause birth defects it "easily crosses the
placenta. Measurable amounts of TCE have been found in the
fetus within 2 minutes following maternal exposures." (p.
421) When TCE is broken down by microbes in soil and water,
vinylidene chloride (a suspected human carcinogen) and vinyl
chloride (a known carcinogen), which are more toxic than the
TCE, are formed.
Vinyl chloride, which is a colorless gas used to make
PVC plastic, is also a carcinogen. According to Toxics A to
Z: Vinyl chloride can cause cancer in people following both
inhalation and ingestion. It is known to cause liver, brain,
and central nervous system cancers in people, and it may also
cause human lung cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. Vinyl
chloride is a mutagen both to animal and human cells. (p.
431)
Because it is a carcinogen, vinyl chloride is no longer
used as an ingredient in drugs and cosmetics, or as a
refrigerant, an aerosol propellant, or an anesthetic. Other
noncarcinogenic health effects from exposure to vinyl
choloride include headaches, dizziness, nausea, abdominal
pain, liver damage and a bone loss disorder which affects the
fingers, and circulatory changes. According to Toxics A to Z,
"Vinyl chloride can also be found in some municipal drinking
waters and in a variety of foods and beverages, including
alcoholic drinks, vinegar, oil, butter, and mineral water."
(pp. 430-31)
In addition to the halogenated hydrocarbons, polycyclic
aromatics (PAHs) found in sewage sludge are among the most
common toxic organics. An example of PAH is Benzo(a)pyrene,
which is found in coal tars and coal tar derivatives and
asphalt, and is classified as a probable human carcinogen.
According to Toxics A to Z, information from animal tests
show that B{a}P "impairs reproduction in mice by causing
birth defects and reduced body weight of newborn animals."
(p. 236) Other health effects discussed in the guide were
skin lesions from direct contact and bronchitis. B{a}P can
enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or direct
contact with the skin. It bioconcentrates in food chains.
The inorganic substances in sewage sludge that can cause
harm to humans, animals, and plants, and which are the only
pollutants regulated by Part 503 sludge rule are the toxic
heavy metals--arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium and zinc. Arsenic, which is used
in the production of boric acid and pharmaceuticals, can
cause brain damage, nervous system damage, gastrointestinal
damage, and skin lesions. A human carcinogen, it also causes
birth defects and genetic damage in test animals.
Cadmium, which is used in industry in electroplating,
battery production, in pigment manufacture, as a plasticizer,
chiefly in polyvinyl chloride, in low levels over a period of
time may cause cancer, kidney disease, neurological
disfunction, diminished fertility, immune-system changes, and
birth defects. It has caused tumors and birth defects in
rats. Inhalation of fumes or dust affects the respiratory
tract and the kidneys.
Copper, which is a gastrointestinal tract irritant, can
be highly toxic. In the copper smelting industry there is an
excess of cancer cases. Damage to the nervous system and
kidneys have been recorded and jaundice has been observed. In
some cases, the liver has been enlarged.
Lead, which is used in the manufacture of pigments and
lead acid batteries, and is a by product in metal smelting,
can at low levels over a period of time cause brain and bone
damage. It has caused malignant tumors in test animals. It
is a carcinogen of the lungs and kidney, an experimental
teratogen (birth defects) and affects the central nervous
system. Lead enters the body by inhalation of the dusts,
fumes, mists or vapors, by ingestion of lead compounds
trapped in the upper respiratory tract or introduced into the
mouth on food, fingers or other objects, or through the skin.
Lead is a cumulative poison. Increasing amounts build up in
the body and eventually a point is reached where symptoms and
disability occur. It affects the red blood cells producing
anemia. It also damages organs or tissues with which it comes
into contact.
Mercury, which is used in the production of chlorine,
caustic soda, electrical apparatus, as a plasticizer, in
metallurgical processes, and in chemical production is a
teratogenic and can cause genetic damage in humans.
Hexavalent mercury is known to cause brain damage and damage
to the central nervous system. In humans it is absorbed by
skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts.
Molybdenum, and its compounds, which are used
considerably in industry are highly toxic based upon animal
experiments. It is a poison through the air, water or food
chain.
Nickel, and most of its salts ingested in large doses
can cause intestinal disorders, convulsions, and asphyxis.
Many nickel compounds are experimental carcinogens. All
nickel contaminating dusts are regarded as carcinogenic by
inhalation.
Selenium, which is used in manufacture of electronics
equipment, steel, pigments, glass and ceramics, is a poison
by inhalation and intravenous routes. It is an experimental
carcinogen. Longterm exposure may be a cause of amyotrophic
lateral scleroses in humans (Lou Gehreg's Disease). It can
cause "blind staggers" in cattle. Dust or fumes can cause
serious irritation of the respiratory tract. Selenium can
react violently with nickel and zinc.
Zinc, is a human skin irritant and effects the pulmonary
system. Zinc salts, such as chromates and arsenates, are
experimental carcinogens.
Although the various toxic organic chemicals and heavy
metals by themselves pose a threat to human and animal
health, another threat comes from the mixture of all of these
toxic pollutants together in sludge. Dr. Donald Lisk of
Cornell University says "the final hazard from sludge use,
therefore, will be determined by the combined effects of all
of these."
Besides toxic organic and inorganic heavy metals, in the
proposed 1989 regulation, the EPA acknowledged a primary list
of 25 pathogens (family groups) in sewage sludge which can
cause serious health problems, including death, when exposed
is through water, air, soil or food. Most infections start
with flu-like symptoms.
Five pathogens groups listed by EPA are bacteria, nine
are viruses, five are helminths, five are protozoans and one
is a fungi. The bacteria groups Campylobacter jejuni, E.
coli, Salmonella, Shigella and Vibrio cholerae cause
abdominal cramps, diarrhea, vomiting, fever, chills, malaise,
nausea, headache; Salmonella, Shigella and E. coli infection
can lead to death. Listeria may be even more deadly, but
like E. Coli, it was not considered to be a problem in 1989.
Among the over 120 different viruses are: 1)
Entroviruses or Picornaviruses (152 species); many of these
will cause pneumonia, 2) Poliovirus (3 species) causes
paralysis, meningitis, fever, 3) Coxsackievirus A (23
species) causes respiratory illness, fever, meningitis;
Coxsackievirus B (6 species) causes same symptoms as A and in
addition myocarditis, congenital heart anomalies and
inflammation of heart in newborns, 4) Echovirus (31 species)
causes inflammation of the heart, spinal cord & brain, 5)
Hepatitis A virus can cause death , 6) Norwalk and Norwalk
like viruses cause mostly diseases of the gastrointestinal
tract, 8) Reovirus, unknown, and 9) Rotavirus causes acute
gastroenteritis.
The five Helminths include worms such as roundworms,
hookworms, tapeworms and nematode worms. In humans, the
worms may end up in the brain where they are untreatable,
as well as in the retina vessels, liver, lung and heart. The
larve cause hemorrhage, inflammation, necrosis in these
tissues. This causes myocarditis, endophthalmitis, epilepsy
or encephalitis.
The five Protozoans; 1) Toxoplasma gondii causes
pneumonitis, hepatitis and encephalitis, 2) Balantidium is
mild, 3) Entamoeba histolyca forms liver abscess, 4) Giardia
lambia is the cause of severe intestinal problems, 5)
Cryptosporidium causes explosive diarrhea and cramps; it was
first described in humans in 1976.
The one fungi considered by EPA was the deadly
Aspergillus; it causes inflamed tissues in bronchi, lungs,
aural canal, skin and membranes of the eye, nose or urethra.
It may also produce mycotic nodules in the lungs, liver,
kidney and other organs (FR 54-P.5829 & Tabor's Cylopedic
Medical Dictionary).
By 1993, the only reference in the final regulation to
the pathogenic disease organisms in sludge was in the
definition of a pollutant. Another major change in the final
regulation was that the harvesting restrictions on all food
crops, to allow the die off of the disease organisms, was
reduced from as much as 38 months to only 30 days.
The Powell Tate recommendation that one of the
information sheets in the biosolids' promotional kit would
"detail scientific research and assure public health
officials--and --in turn, their constituencies--of the safety
of biosolids (p. 30) was readily adopted by the EPA/WEF. In
bold capital letters they title their third information sheet
BIOSOLIDS RECYCLING: GROUNDED IN SOUND SCIENCE. In this
sheet, they claim that "Long-term scientific studies over the
years have consistently demonstrated that biosolids recycling
is both safe and beneficial". Following the recommendation of
Powell Tate, they cite sources that they say attest to the
safety of biosolids recycling. One of these studies is the
Ohio study.
In 1984, C. Richard Dorn, Chada S. Reddy, David N.
Lamphere, John V. Gaeuman and Richard Lanese, from the
Departments of Veterinary Preventive Medicine and Preventive
Medicine from Ohio University conducted an epidemiologic
study of 47 farms (78 families with 164 persons) receiving
annual applications of treated sludge of 2-10 dry metric
tons/ha/yr and 46 control farms (53 families with 130
persons) not receiving sludge, in which they found the rates
of respiratory illness, digestive illness, or general
symptoms were not significantly different between sludge farm
and control farm residents. The study was published in 1985
in Environmental Research 38, pp. 332-359
There are major problems with this study. First, based
on EPA's defintion of a pollutant, it would have been
unethical as well as illegal to put humans at risk for the
study. In other words the study had to be rigged from the
start. Second, no farm family would ever knowingly agree to
such a study if they knew there was the slightest
possibilityy their food, water and land could be poisoned
with pathogens, organic and inorganic chemcials. There
simply isn't enough money in the world for a farmer to take
part in a study which could expose his/her mate and children
to toxic pollutants which could kill them or worse.
The Third problem is the length of the study. It was
originally set up to last for three years. Obviously, the
researchers must have decided three years were necessary to
adequately assess the health effects. If one year would have
been enough, the study would have been set up for only one
year not three. Only for the first year was there 100%
participation by all the members of the families from both
experimental and control farms. Thirty-five individuals from
the sludged farms and 44 individuals from the control farms
withdrew. Thirty-six sludge farms completed 2 years and 13
completed 3 years. Thirty-seven control farms completed 2
years and 13 completed 3 years. When any subjects are lost
from a study, the results of the study are called into
question. According to Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall,
authors of Educational Research (1983), "The subjects lost
will generally be different from the ones who remain with the
study until its completion. The nature and magnitude of these
differences, and therefore their effect upon the research
results, are difficult to estimate." (pp. 205-206)
The major flaw in the study was that it failed to
include any information on the sludge itself. There is no
data on the type of treatment to reduce pathogens or the
chemical content of the sludge.
This study, which was sponsored by the EPA, looked only
at the short-term one year effects of exposure to sludge. It
did not address the subchronic or chronic health effects to
people exposed to sludge--immune system impairment, cancer,
and endocrine-disruption. So EPA/WEF's claim that the Ohio
study attested to the safety of sludge is not substantiated
by the facts. The researchers recognized the limitations of
this study in predicting health risks associated with sewage
sludge. According to them:
The absence of observed human or animal health effects
resulting from sludge application in this study of Ohio
farms was associated with low sludge application rates
which were in accordance with Ohio and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Caution
should be exercised in using these data to predict
health risks associated with sludges containing higher
levels of disease agents and with higher sludge
application rates and larger acreages treated per farm
than used in this study.
Among the sources that WEF/EPA cited, who definitely
were not unbiased, were Chaney of the USDA, who supports land
application of biosolids, and research done by the Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF) of the WEF itself. In
their sales hype, various WEF spokespersons for the promotion
of sewage sludge (biosolids) claim that there is a consensus
in the scientific community that the use of sewage sludge is
safe for both land application and in distribution and
marketing sludge products. However, contrary to what they
claim, in the scientific community there is considerable
controversy and uncertainties about the safety of sewage
sludge.
One of the scientists who disputes the claim that sewage
sludge in land application is safe is Dr. Stanford Tackett.
Most of Dr. Tackett's academic career has been devoted to the
study of lead and its harmful effects on humans, particularly
children, and its spread into the environment. Dr. Tackett's
expertise was recognized by the EPA. In 1991 he conducted a
study for them to find ways to reduce the lead concentration
in drinking water. According to Dr. Tackett there is no
consensus in the scientific community that sludge is safe. On
the contrary, he says, "A large body of scientific
information has been accumulated by analytical chemists,
medical researchers, toxicologists, and children's health
experts which indicates that the spreading of sewage sludge
as a fertilizer is a potentially dangerous practice."
He adds further that "while the one-sided research
collected by EPA purports to show that sludge is safe, there
are many research reports and individual case studies that
show exactly the opposite."
Another scientist who questions the safety of sewage
sludge is Dr. Donald Lisk of Cornell University's Toxic
Chemicals Laboratory in Ithaca, New York. He disputes the
claim by the proponents for sludge use on land that a "well-
engineered" sludge is safe. He says, "The concept of a "well-
engineered" sludge is a myth. There is no sound scientific
basis for limiting levels of potential toxicants in sludge
since we do not know the identity of most of them." (p.3)
In a court case in Rappahannock Virginia's Circuit
Court, the lack of consensus in the scientific community on
the safety of sewage sludge was evident in the testimony of
scientists for both the plaintiffs and defendants. In the
Rappahannock County court case the county was sued by several
local farmers backed by a sludge hauler to overturn a county
ordinance adopted by the county board of supervisors to
modify the zoning code and prohibit the use of sewage sludge.
Judge Joshua Lowell Robinson ruled in favor of the county
stating that the county board of supervisors had the right to
determine how sludge was to be disposed of in the county.
Furthermore, he expressed concern about the hazards from the
chemical content of the sludge.
When Hugh Kaufman, whistleblower for the EPA, and
TriStar Television appealed a defamation judgment of a lower
Texas court, which awarded Merco Joint Venture nominal
damages of $1.00 against both Kaufman and TriStar and
punitive damages of $500,000 against Kaufman and $4.5 million
against TriStar, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit in New Orleans reversed the lower court decision.
They rendered judgment for Kaufman and TriStar because
evidence at trial suggested that experts had yet to reach a
consensus on the safety of land application of sludge.
In the spring of 1994, a television show produced by
TriStar focused on the sludge shipments arriving from New
York to a 128,000 acre ranch in Sierra Blanca, Texas. In
1992, Merco (under contract with New York City to dispose of
up to thirty percent of the city's sewage sludge), purchased
the 128,000 acre ranch in Sierra Blanca for a disposal site
for the sludge shipments from New York which started arriving
in 1992. TriStar's segment "Sludge Train" was broadcast on
August 2, 1994. Hugh Kaufman, the whistleblower for the EPA,
was a guest on the show. Merco, upset by the broadcast, sued
Kaufman and TriStar for what they said were defamatory,
disparaging and false allegations. A lower Texas court ruled
in favor of Merco. When the Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
reversed the lower court decision and rendered judgment for
Kaufman and TriStar, they found:
The conclusion the evidence at trial suggests is that
experts have yet to reach a consensus on the safety of
land application of sludge. Merco, itself, conceded land
application of sludge was controversial. At best,
Merco's evidence proved certain experts believed sludge
is safe. It did not, however, prove TriStar and Kaufman
knew or should have known their position evidenced by
the TV Nation broadcast, was false, or that it was in
fact false. (p. 4)
Kaufman's statements that Merco was an "illegal
haul and dump operation," and that "the people of Texas
are being poisoned," were shown at trial to be Kaufman's
honest beliefs and were not so without basis as to
constitute reckless disregard of the truth. Kaufman
testified to several aspects of the Merco operation he
found questionable, and noted instances when Merco had
failed to comply with various regulations. (pp. 4-5)
Kaufman professed his sincere belief that the land
application of sludge is dangerous, and will eventually
be proved harmful. His figurative reference to "poison"
is hyperbolic, but exaggeration does not equal
defamation. Merco repeatedly claims experts and
agencies have stated sludge is safe, and argues those
opinions prove Kaufman should have known his statements
were false. However, these expert opinions are merely
that--opinions. Moreover, because an "expert" endorses a
certain practice does not mean all reasonable debate on
the merits or safety of that practice is foreclosed.
(p. 5)
Sekoff's voice-over comment that sludge contained
"high levels of lead, mercury, and PCBs, likewise failed
to meet the standard of actual malice. The vagueness of
the term "high levels" makes Merco's burden of proving
defamation even more difficult. As well, the statement
made no particular reference to Merco sludge, referring
instead to sludge in general. Kaufman, who originally
made the statement, based this assertion on numerous
articles and reports questioning the safety of sludge
and its contents. There was adequate support for the
statement. (p. 5)
Most scientists are not independently wealthy and able
to conduct research in their field without sponsorship by
grants or employment by government agencies, corporations,
private foundations, and university research centers.
Scientists, who obtain grants or are employed by the EPA know
at the beginning that the results of their research project
is expected to support the sponsor's special interest--the
beneficial use of sewage sludge (biosolids). In a memo of
February 28, 1995, John Walker of the EPA listed goals that
were to be discussed at a meeting with the USDA for better
research and risk assessment. One of these goals was to
"provide for more higher quality biosolids [sludge] research
by municipalities, universities, and others." For this
purpose the EPA had "earmarked some 104 (b)(3) funds aside
for assisting in accomplishing this research." Through their
grant program, awarded mostly to agronomists and soil
scientists, EPA has ensured that they will have scientific
spokespersons for their public relations campaign. Dr.
Tackett calls EPA's sludge science "selective science". He
states:
EPA has supported the land spreading of sewage sludge
for over 25 years through manipulation for research
money and the application of "selective science."
Millions of dollars have been made available through EPA
and other federal, state, and local agencies, for
"beneficial use" research. Agronomists and other soil
scientists have had a virtually unlimited money pool
available to conduct the "beneficial use" research.
Toxicologists, public health scientists and medical
researchers have not had a similar money pool available
to study potential dangers and adverse health effects of
sewage sludge.
According to Dr. Tackett, the beneficial use scientists
are also well represented on scientific committees. He says,
"It is no wonder then that the scientists selected by the EPA
to serve on sludge advisory committees are the "beneficial
use" researchers, and the only research reports they deem
acceptable for the purpose of adopting new sludge spreading
regulations are from the "beneficial use" studies."
One of EPA's own scientists lends credence to Dr.
Tackett's charges of selective science. David L. Lewis,
Ecosystem Research Division, EPA National Exposure Research
Laboratory in Athens, Georgia in an article in Nature in June
27, 1996 stated:
Historically, the number of EPA professionals educated
in the life sciences has been low compared with those
trained in the physical sciences, and has been
decreasing in recent years. Reflecting this disparity
only a third of the internal grants awarded by ORD
{Office of Research and Development} support projects in
the biological sciences. (p. 731)
According to Don W. Cox, President of Oklahoma Wildlife
Federation, there is a definite conflict of interest when a
university receives a grant from any sludge source. In a
letter to the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit and Rural Development
dated April 16, 1992 he wrote:
A common practice at the present is to offer a nearby
state university soil science department a "grant" to
research the sludge application program if the program
is accepted by the community and the regulatory agency.
The soil scientists then begin making public statements
as to the beneficial nature of sludge. There is a clear
conflict of interest in such cases. (p. 7)
Powell Tate suggested that Land grant colleges and
agricultural schools would be good sources for regional
spokespeople to help WEF members with their educational
campaign. Powell Tate spoke with the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges to assess its
interest in the issue. The organization reported that some of
its members may be studying biosolids land application and
that the group would like more information. A strong
recommendation of Powell Tate was "that WEF meet with the
organization before the campaign begins to seek its active
involvement." (p. 38)
When Powell Tate conducted research on appropriate
spokespeople for the Water Environment Federation, they
compiled a list of indiviuals who they thought might serve as
spokespeople. These were listed in Appendix B of their
report. Missing from the list was Dr. Terry Logan of Ohio
State because they said "we have tried not to include
individuals currently serving in that role, such as Dr. Terry
Logan of Ohio State." (p. 34)
Jane Beswick, Coordinator for Coalition for Sludge
Education, in a letter to Dr. Allan Rubin of the EPA
questioned the vested interests of some of the beneficial use
sludge scientists, like Dr. Logan, who are either employees
of universities, receive research grants, perform research
and/or have a financial interest in the industry. According
to Jane, Dr. Logan was Co-chair of the U.S. EPA Peer Review
Committee, helped research N-Viro soil (a sludge product),
and was instrumental in establishing the "clean" sludge
concept. He was also a paid consultant ($2,400/month) and
stockholder of N-Viro, International. He was recently named
president of Pan-American N-Viro.
Another example of a scientist with a conflict of
interest was William Sopper. When he gave testimony in favor
of sludge application to land at a public hearing at the
State House Conservation Committee in Indiana, he represented
himself as an unbiased source--a professor of hydrology at
Penn State. It was later brought out that he had a financial
interest in the land application of sewage sludge because he
had been on the payroll of Modern Earthline Co., a now
defunct hauler of Philadelphia sludge to Glen Campbell.
Not only are we being duped by selected biased
scientists who assure us that land application of sewage
sludge is safe, but also by WEF's so-called "water quality
professionals". Research by Powell Tate revealed that "water
quality professionals" are considered as trusted messengers".
They say since the research did not probe further as to whom
respondents considered "water quality professionals," we can
promote our spokespeople as the "water quality professionals
to be trusted." (pp. 9-10) Their advice was that WEF members,
therefore, should be encouraged to reach out to the public as
"water quality professionals" (rather than "waste treatment
specialist" or a similar title). They say "given the
vagueness of this term {water quality professional), we see
no reason why WEF members should not fully adopt this term in
referring to themselves and in all materials produced for the
campaign..." They add further, "we suggest that the WEF
(spokesperson) be introduced as a water quality professional
with XYZ company." (p. 33)
They also recommended "that WEF, through its members,
recruit at least 6 regional spokespeople to be trained in
media and presentation skills and aggressively marketed by
WEF with the media in their respective regions as a "water
quality professional" knowledgeable in the field of biosolids
recycling." They suggest that "once trained, these
individuals can be scheduled for editorial board visits,
media interviews, meetings with community leaders and
appearances at public forums in their regions." They say "An
ongoing outreach campaign to the media using these
individuals is essential in communicating messages to
gatekeeper audiences and, through them, the general public".
(pp. 33-34) These spokespersons can be used for "medical
interviews, to byline articles for placement in newspapers
and journals, to visit and brief editorial boards, to appear
at conferences and on panel discussions, and to testify, as
appropriate, at regulatory and legislative hearings." (p. 31)
Upon recommendations by Powell Tate, spokespersons are to be
trained specifically on "how to deal with the media, to
communicate certain messages, to handle different types of
media interviews and to make presentations." They suggest
that, "Should funding allow, consideration might also be
given to recruiting one national spokesperson who can
represent the broader, national interest on this issue."
By changing the name sewage sludge to biosolids and
by claiming that biosolids recycling is good for the
environment, the EPA/WEF public relations campaign has
been able to enlist the support of certain environmental
groups whose members spout the EPA/WEF propaganda. According
to Stauber and Rampton, Sarah Clark, formerly of the
Environmental Defense Fund, claims that sludge "is the best
means of returning to the soil nutrients and organic matter
that were originally removed. It is recycling a resource just
as recycling newspapers or bottles is." According to these
authors, "Some environmental activists with Greenpeace and
the Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste have warned
about the dangers of sludge, but most groups have bought into
the argument that sludge farming is the least offensive way
to deal with the problem of waste disposal."
The roles the targeted environmental groups such as the
Environmental Defense Fund are to play in the public
relations campaign was spelled out in the Powell Tate
Communications Plan. They suggest that "WEF request that the
environmental partner add its name to the environmental
information sheet in the kit." They say this will give the
information added impact and credibility." Environmental
groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association whose
focus is on ocean-related issues, especially, are prime
targets. Powell Tate believe they should be "most receptive
and may be recruited to help gain the support of other
organizations." (p. 10) They say "it is in this group's (CCA)
interest to promote biosolids recycling if only to guarantee
that biosolids are never again deposited in the ocean." They
add "Obtaining an endorsement from the group for biosolids
recycling will help with other environmental groups (strength
in numbers) and can be used to spread word about beneficial
use with "green" individuals.
A June 15, 1994 WEF Campaign Update on Biosolids
Recycling detailed how well WEF had followed the Powell Tate
Communications Plan for Biosolids. These included:
Eight regional and one industry spokesperson have been
selected and trained. Staff is working with Biosolids
Acceptance Teams (BATS) on pilot campaigns in regions
where spokespeople are located.
Over 400 information kits and videos have been sent to
the Federation's biosolids network, as well as to
environmental, public health and agricultural
organizations. General media and a select agriculture
mailing list also were mailed kits. Staff continues to
fill requests for materials based on interest in
establishing a community campaign.
In addition to the training spokespeople completed last
Spring, media training sessions have been offered at
five WEF regional meetings. A special workshop is being
offered at the International Biosolids conference June
19th. Several BATS (Pacific Northwest and Georgia) are
organizing media training sessions at their annual
conferences.
Stauber and Rampton found in the research for their
book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You that the EPA's PR strategy
was "first outlined in a 40-page report published in 1981
with a classic bureaucratic title: Institutional Constraints
and Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass
Production". They say in this report that "the ICPABUMWSLRBP
warns that projects may be blocked by small local groups.
Citizens who 'feel their interests threatened' may 'often
mount a significant campaign against a project.' They add "To
counter this opposition, ICPABUMWSLRBP advises projects
advocates to choose a strategy of either 'aggressive' or
'passive' public relations." According to the ICPABUMWSLRBP
report, Stauber and Rampton say "Aggressive public relations"
uses glossy brochures describing the project; open public
meetings, presentations to specific interest groups;
presentation of films about similar projects; local media
coverage; technical education campaigns for the public and in
schools; establishment of a hotline for quick response
questions and presentation of material stressing community
benefits from the project." The Powell Tate public relations
communication plan, for the most part, advocates an agressive
strategy similar to that of the ICPABUMWSLRBP. With the
tremendous push for the total public acceptance of sewage
sludge by the year 2000, many local groups over the country,
who are attempting to ban land application of sewage sludge
in their communities by alerting residents of its adverse
effects on humans and animals, are facing a highly visible
aggressive public relations campaign as recommended by Powell
Tate.
In contrast to the aggressive campaign, the passive
campaign, say Stauber and Rampton, makes " little effort to
reach out to particular segments or constituents of the
public. Rather, information about the project {is} made
available for individuals and groups which made the effort to
obtain it." According to these authors, "This secretive
approach works best in small, rural communities 'where the
application site is relatively isolated.'"
An example of the passive approach was given in a panel
presentation at the Citizens Forum on Environmental and
Health Concerns from Landscaping of Sewage and Paper Mill
Sludges on November 15, 1997 in Concord, NH, by Steven
Schiller. Steve is a resident of Newbury, New Hampshire, a
small town of about 1200 people. He related to the panel how
he and other residents were unaware that land reclamation of
a sand pit using sewage sludge was even occurring in their
town until the dump trucks came rolling in early one morning:
In November of 1995, my wife was up early. She was a
baker at the time, so she had to be at work at 5:00 in
the morning. She was up before dawn at four o'clock
a.m., and we live in a town with a road that's about as
wide as that table. And she heard a strange rumbling
sound and she thought we were going to get a storm. And
the sound got louder and louder down 103 and then it
turned onto our little road, and she had lost count of
the number of large 22-wheel dump trucks that came
rumbling down our street with their lights off at four
o'clock in the morning. And they turned across the
street from our house down a dirt road into a sand pit.
So my wife came in at four in the morning and she woke
me up, which I don't like at all. And she said,
"Somethings going on in the pit across the street." And
I said, "yeah, uh huh.
And I didn't give it much thought, until about a month
later when I got up to go to work and the sky above my
town was blue-black and the smell was so overwhelming
that my daughter was ill, my neighbors were ill...
And then I came to find out that the guys that work at
the state road department, also across the street from
my house, had all taken sick that day. And the people
started calling our selectmen to find out what was
burning in the pit. "Oh, nothings burning in the pit."
"Well, what's going on in the pit?" "Well, there's some
land reclamation going on in the pit." "Oh, what's land
reclamation all about?" Well, that's when we found out
about the federal regulation to reclaim land that's been
strip mined...
...so we called BFI; they came around and reassured
everybody in the community. Of course, they hadn't told
us they were going to do this, and if my wife hadn't
been up at four o'clock in the morning, we wouldn't have
known it was done.
Steve voices how he and other residents felt about the
secrecy surrounding the sludge reclamation project by the
complaint they directed to BFI.
"No we don't like it because we don't know what's in it,
and you're not telling us what's in it, and our selectmen
don't know what's in it, and you didn't tell them what's
in it, and you're telling me, oh, it's an acceptable
level of risk. Who's taking the risk? Are you taking
the risk, BFI?
Back Next